Forecasting Financial Volatility Under Structural Breaks: A Comparative Study of GARCH Models and Deep Learning Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the predictive performance of traditional econometric models and deep learning techniques in forecasting financial volatility under structural breaks. Using daily data from four Latin American stock market indices between 2000 and 2024, we compare GARCH models with neural networks such as LSTM and CNN. Structural breaks are identified through a modified ICSS algorithm and incorporated into the GARCH framework via regime segmentation. The results show that neglecting breaks overstates volatility persistence and weakens predictive accuracy, while accounting for them improves GARCH forecasts only in specific cases. By contrast, deep learning models consistently outperform GARCH alternatives at medium- and long-term horizons, capturing nonlinear and time-varying dynamics more effectively. This study contributes to the literature by bridging econometric and deep learning approaches and offers practical insights for policymakers and investors in emerging markets facing recurrent structural instability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".