Score-driven filters multiply a scaled log-likelihood score by a gain that controls the update magnitude. We treat this gain as a decision variable and study its online learning. Conditional on the current state, observation, score, and scaling rule, each admissible gain induces a reachable next state and a one-step-ahead predictive density: scalar gains govern distance along a line, while diagonal gains govern coordinatewise transmission. Gain selection is therefore a conditional predictive decision problem with a Kullback-Leibler objective. For a scalar unscaled gain, the negative raw product of consecutive scores is the stochastic gradient of this loss; positive aGAS scaling only rescales the effective step. Monotone differentiable gain links induce mirror-descent geometries on bounded gain domains, while persistence yields a Bregman pull towards a reference gain. Under convexity, compactness, and regularity conditions, we establish dynamic-regret bounds for projected and discounted mirror updates relative to time-varying, current-information comparators. Simulations illustrate the roles of scaling, link geometry, persistence, and coordinatewise transmission rates. An out-of-sample panel of equity-index volatilities shows that the bounded mirror gain generally matches or outperforms a constant gain while avoiding the extreme spikes of a nominally unbounded exponential link, with the strongest improvements observed in multi-crisis markets.
Volatility forecasts are commonly evaluated with aggregate accuracy metrics such as RMSE and MAE, but these metrics can hide conditional failures that matter for risk management. This paper proposes a model-agnostic audit framework for evaluating whether volatility forecasts remain reliable across latent market regimes. We learn time-series representations of market-state windows, cluster them into regimes using only training information, assign regimes out of sample, and compare aggregate forecast behavior with regime-conditional bias, tail-underprediction, and underprediction-sensitive economic losses. Applied to daily volatility forecasting across cryptocurrency and ETF assets, the audit shows that models with competitive aggregate accuracy can still exhibit substantial regime-specific bias and severe tail underprediction. The results suggest that volatility forecasting should be evaluated not only by average error, but also by where and how forecasts become unreliable. Our framework shifts forecast evaluation from asking which model is most accurate on average to identifying the market regimes in which apparently accurate forecasts fail conditionally. Reproducibility: https://github.com/arthurchagas1/Latent-Regime-Bias-Auditing-for-Volatility-Forecasting
Volatility forecasting is dominated by persistence and measurement noise, leaving limited residual structure for nonlinear models to exploit. We introduce Susceptible Architectures (SUSA), a reservoir-design principle for volatility forecasting, and its two concrete implementations, based on complex-valued open-chain and periodic reservoirs and regime-conditioned experts to interpret reservoir features across calm, onset, recovery, and persistent-stress states. We also implement open-system $q$-qubit counterparts in Qiskit while retaining a common AR-Ridge anchor and a bounded residual correction trained under QLIKE. We evaluate models on 16 U.S. equity and exchange-traded-fund series using three disjoint chronological training, validation, and test folds, a 12-observation input window, and a five-observation forecast horizon. The proposed models perform competitively with GARCH, achieving statistically significant QLIKE improvements for specific assets (IWM, XLP). Also models' forecasts complement HARQ-style predictions: a stacked ensemble improves mean QLIKE by 0.0116 over its strongest constituent and wins in 75% of test scenarios.
Riku Green, Zahraa S. Abdallah, Telmo M Silva Filhocs.LG cs.AI
In financial forecasting, predictive performance depends not only on which model is trained, but also on how the trained model is deployed. We study this issue in multi-horizon volatility forecasting. Our starting point is that a trained multi-output (MIMO) forecaster does not define a single deployable predictor: by changing the inference-time rollout rule, the same trained model induces a family of forecasts with different accuracy and cost profiles. Across 20 stock-volatility series, three forecast horizons, and architectures ranging from linear models to PatchTST, we find that non-default rollout rules often improve over standard MIMO deployment. However, the best fixed rule varies substantially across architectures and horizons, making any single static replacement unreliable. We therefore evaluate validation-based deployment policies over the induced rule family. Under the primary MSE objective, validation-selected singletons provide a low-cost improvement over default MIMO, while small rule subsets recover much of the benefit of larger ensembles at substantially lower inference cost. We also find that policy rankings are metric-sensitive: MSE-selected policies do not transfer uniformly to QLIKE, a finance-standard volatility loss. These results show that inference-time deployment is a meaningful source of adaptiveness in financial forecasting, and that trained volatility forecasters should be evaluated not only by their architecture, but also by their deployment policy.