REVIEW 2 cited by
Time-Series Foundation AI Model for Value-at-Risk Forecasting
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
This study is the first to analyze the performance of a time-series foundation AI model for Value-at-Risk (VaR), which essentially forecasts the left-tail quantiles of returns. Foundation models, pre-trained on diverse datasets, can be applied in a zero-shot setting with minimal data or further improved through finetuning. We compare Google's TimesFM model to conventional parametric and non-parametric models, including GARCH and Generalized Autoregressive Score (GAS), using 19 years of daily returns from the SP 100 index and its constituents. Backtesting with over 8.5 years of out-of-sample data shows that the fine-tuned foundation model consistently outperforms traditional methods in actual-over-expected ratios. For the quantile score loss function, it performs comparably to the best econometric model, GAS. Overall, the foundation model ranks as the best or among the top performers across the 0.01, 0.025, 0.05, and 0.1 quantile forecasting. Fine-tuning significantly improves accuracy, showing that zero-shot use is not optimal for VaR.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Forecasting Realized Volatility with Time Series Foundation Models: A Comparison with Econometric Benchmarks
Zero-shot time series foundation models largely fail to beat econometric benchmarks for realized volatility forecasting, with only TTM achieving a narrow, calibration-driven edge.
-
Foundation Time-Series AI Model for Realized Volatility Forecasting
Incremental fine-tuning of the TimesFM foundation model improves one-day-ahead realized volatility forecasts and beats HAR, ARFIMA, CHAR, and RGARCH benchmarks on average losses across 21 global equity indices.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.