Deep Learning for the Greenium: Evidence from Green Bonds, Risk Disclosures, and Market Sentiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how physical and transition climate risks affect the greenium, assuming that implied volatility serves as a proxy for investor sentiment generated by these risks. Applying a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) deep learning model to daily data from January 2020 to June 2025 with a rigorous train–test split to get around the drawbacks of full-sample estimations and guarantee strong out-of-sample generalizability is a significant empirical contribution. Our findings show that adding the interaction between these climate risks and the sentiment proxy slightly increases predictive power. The GRU model outperforms random forest and linear regression benchmarks in terms of generalizability, but it remains sensitive to different data splits and hyperparameter tuning. This highlights the use of complex, non-linear models for risk forecasting and portfolio allocation for investors and risk managers, as well as the need for regular climate disclosure for policymakers to reduce information asymmetry. The GRU’s stringent validation framework directly enables more reliable pricing and exposure management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".