Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Financial Volatility and Risk Forecasting Incorporating a Larger Number of Realized Measures

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that replacing a single realized volatility estimator with a one-neuron autoencoder's nonlinear summary of twelve realized measures improves one-step-ahead Realised GARCH volatility forecasts, with the best predictive…

desk verdict The AE-RealGARCH model is a natural and clearly presented extension of linear dimension reduction in Realized GARCH, but the claimed forecast superiority rests on tiny, untested log-likelihood differences and a problematic manual re-running step in Section 4.3.1. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17136 v2 pith:PPUOLL7L submitted 2024-11-26 q-fin.RM cs.LGecon.EM

Qianli Zhao , Chao Wang , Richard Gerlach , Giuseppe Storti , Lingxiang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.RMcs.LGecon.EM
keywords RealisedGARCHrealizedvolatilityautoencodernonlineardimensionreductionforecastingpredictivelog-likelihoodprincipalcomponentanalysisindependent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to establish that a synthetic realized volatility measure built by nonlinear dimension reduction—specifically a one-neuron autoencoder compressing twelve candidate realized measures—can replace a single realized measure inside Realised GARCH and improve one-step-ahead volatility forecasts compared with linear PCA, ICA, or simple averaging. The proposed AE-RealGARCH model posts the lowest negative predictive log-likelihood among all compared GARCH-type models on the S&P 500 (990.9) and the FTSE (1036.0), the second-lowest on the AORD (719.8), and the worst performance among Realised GARCH variants on the Hang Seng (1627.3). The authors interpret the out-of-sample results as evidence that the nonlinear sigmoid transformation adds adaptability and flexibility beyond what linear combinations achieve, pointing to larger fluctuations in the rolling-window parameter estimates as the mechanism. If the claim holds, it gives volatility forecasters a principled way to aggregate a growing menu of realized estimators instead of picking one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a single-hidden-layer autoencoder with one neuron in the hidden layer. The encoder maps the 12-dimensional realized-measure vector $x_t$ to a scalar $x_{AE,t}=\text{sig}(w_1 x_t + b_1)$ via a sigmoid activation, and the decoder reconstructs the original vector as $\hat{x}_t = \text{sig}(w_2 x_{AE,t} + b_2)$. Training minimises a composite loss: mean squared reconstruction error plus a Ridge penalty on the weights plus a KL-divergence sparsity penalty on the average hidden activation. The trained encoder's output $x_{AE}$ is rescaled to the range of the observed measures and then used as the realised measure in the Realised GARCH three-equation system: the return equation, the GARCH equation, and the measurement equation $\log(x_{AE,t}) = \xi + \phi \log(\sigma_t^2) + \tau_1 z_t + \tau_2(z_t^2 - 1) + \sigma_\varepsilon \varepsilon_t$. This is the machinery that turns a nonlinear compression step into an input for an otherwise standard volatility likelihood.

What would settle it

Apply a Diebold-Mariano test to the daily negative predictive log-likelihood differentials between AE-RealGARCH and AVG-RealGARCH in the S&P 500 and FTSE out-of-sample periods; if the differences are not statistically significant at the 5% level, the paper's claimed superiority over linear averaging is not supported by its own data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a scalar $x_{AE}$ produced by a single-hidden-layer autoencoder—sigmoid activation, one hidden neuron, trained by minimising the MSE of the reconstruction of the twelve realized measures along with Ridge and KL-sparsity penalties—is a better input to the Realised GARCH measurement equation than any single realized measure, the first principal component, the first independent component, or the simple average of the twelve measures. In the rolling one-step-ahead evaluation, AE-RealGARCH obtains negative predictive log-likelihood values of 990.9 for the S&P 500 and 1036.0 for the FTSE, the lowest in the comparison set, while averaging-based Realised GARCH gives 992.8 and 1040.9. On the AORD the autoencoder version scores 719.8 against 719.5 for the average, and on the Hang Seng it scores 1627.3 against 1624.7 for the average, the worst among the Realised GARCH variants. The paper treats the similarity of PCA and ICA results and the stronger performance of the nonlinear and average combinations as support for the view that the nonlinearity, not the particular linear projection criterion, is what contributes most.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the scalar autoencoder output—trained only to reconstruct the twelve realized measures—satisfies the same log-linear measurement equation as an unbiased realized volatility measure, with no calibration or misspecification test connecting reconstruction quality to proxy validity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the improvement is real, applied risk managers can stop choosing a single realized-volatility estimator and instead feed a portfolio of estimators into a nonlinear compressor, reducing the risk of picking a bad one.
  • The method slots into the existing Realised GARCH likelihood unchanged, so it can be used directly for predictive density forecasting, Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall calculations, and option-style risk measures.
  • The authors' own limitation section suggests the same compressed measure could be fed to Realised Exponential GARCH or made multi-dimensional, which would extend the approach without re-deriving the estimator.
  • Because the autoencoder is trained separately from the GARCH likelihood, the pipeline is modular: better reconstruction (deeper nets, tuned hyperparameters) can be swapped in without altering the volatility model.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not perform a statistical significance test on the predictive log-likelihood differences; the reported gaps (1.9 and 4.9 points in the two winning markets) may be within sampling noise, so a Diebold-Mariano test on the daily likelihood differentials would be a natural next check.
  • The ad hoc 're-run' step in which rolling windows with negative autoencoder weights are discarded and re-estimated is a form of selection that could inflate out-of-sample performance; an end-to-end replication without re-running would show how much of the gain is real.
  • Because the autoencoder is trained only to reconstruct the 12 measures, nothing in the training objective guarantees that the scalar satisfies the Realised GARCH measurement equation; a misspecification test regressing squared returns or a robust volatility proxy on $x_{AE}$ would test that bridge directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AE-RealGARCH, an extension of RealGARCH in which a single realized volatility measure is replaced by a scalar synthetic measure produced by a single-neuron autoencoder that nonlinearly combines 12 realized volatility measures. The autoencoder is trained to reconstruct the 12 measures (MSE plus ridge and sparsity regularization, Eq. 21), and the resulting encoded series xAE is rescaled and used in the RealGARCH measurement equation (Eq. 22). The empirical study compares AE-RealGARCH against GARCH, GARCH-X, RealGARCH with 5-minute RV, PC-RealGARCH, IC-RealGARCH, and AVG-RealGARCH on four international stock indices (S&P 500, FTSE, AORD, Hang Seng) from January 2000 to June 2022, using a rolling one-step-ahead forecasting scheme. The central empirical claim is that AE-RealGARCH exhibits 'superior effectiveness' in one-step-ahead volatility forecasting, based on negative predictive log-likelihood values reported in Table 4.

Significance. If established, the result would be a useful extension of the linear dimension-reduction approach of Naimoli et al. (2022), showing that a nonlinear combination of realized volatility measures can improve RealGARCH forecasts. The paper's design is genuinely out-of-sample, uses a diverse set of 12 realized measures, and covers four markets including a crisis period. However, the empirical evidence for the central claim is not yet convincing: the reported gains over the simple average benchmark are tiny, are not accompanied by any test of equal predictive ability, and the forecasting protocol includes a manual re-running step that could introduce favorable bias. The methodological contribution is clear and the paper is readable, but the main claim requires stronger evidence and a more explicit treatment of the measurement-equation assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3.1, Table 4] The claim of 'superior effectiveness' rests on negative predictive log-likelihood differences of 1.9 (S&P 500) and 4.9 (FTSE) over roughly 1,100 out-of-sample days, while AE-RealGARCH is worse than AVG-RealGARCH in AORD (719.8 vs 719.5) and Hang Seng (1627.3 vs 1624.7). No Diebold-Mariano, Giacomini-White, Model Confidence Set, or any other test of equal predictive ability is reported. A difference of 0.002–0.005 in average log-likelihood per day is not shown to be statistically distinguishable from noise, so the central claim is not established.
  2. [§4.3.1, Forecasting Performance] The text states that in some rolling-window steps the autoencoder generates encoded series with 'unintended patterns' and that 'we re-run those steps, which then yield series xAE with desired patterns.' This is a manual intervention in the forecast-generation process with no stated protocol: it is not specified how the decision to re-run is triggered, how many re-runs are allowed, or whether the re-running was blinded to the out-of-sample returns being forecast. This creates a potential source of favorable selection bias that is not covered by the hyperparameter caveat in Section 5.2 and directly affects the validity of the Table 4 comparisons.
  3. [§3.2.3, Eq. (22)] The autoencoder is trained exclusively to minimize reconstruction error of the 12 realized measures (Eq. 21). The model then assumes that the scalar output xAE satisfies the RealGARCH measurement equation log(xAE,t) = xi + phi log(sigma^2_t) + tau1 z_t + tau2(z_t^2 - 1) + sigma_epsilon epsilon_t. No argument or calibration is provided to connect reconstruction fidelity, or the sigmoid-bounded nature of the encoder output, to the validity of xAE as an unbiased realized volatility proxy. The rescaling in Eq. (7) only matches the min/max range and does not address distributional properties (e.g., the relationship between log(xAE) and log(sigma^2)). This is a load-bearing assumption that needs justification or at least a diagnostic check.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3.1, hyperparameters] The hyperparameters lambda1, lambda2, and rho are fixed to Matlab defaults and not selected via validation in each rolling window; this is acknowledged in Section 5.2, but a sentence in Section 4.3.1 should also note the potential sensitivity of the results to these choices.
  2. [§5.1, Conclusion] The conclusion states 'significant improvements in the out-of-sample predictive performance' but no significance tests are reported; the wording should be tempered to reflect the descriptive nature of the log-likelihood comparisons.
  3. [§3.2.1, Eq. (15)] The notation gl(sl) := sig(sl) is used for both layers, but the activation function is applied elementwise; it would help to state this explicitly and to clarify that the decoder output xhat_t is also sigmoid-bounded, which affects the reconstruction loss in Eq. (16).
  4. [Throughout] The manuscript repeatedly refers to 'this thesis,' which is appropriate for a dissertation but not for a journal article; the presentation should be adapted to a paper format, and the first paragraph of the abstract contains a sentence fragment ('selecting an optimal estimator may introduce challenges').
  5. [§4.2.2, Table 3] In Table 3, the row label 'gamma (alpha)' is confusing because alpha is the GARCH-X coefficient while gamma is the RealGARCH coefficient; consider separating the rows or clarifying in a note.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AE-RealGARCH forecast comparison is genuinely out-of-sample and does not reduce by construction to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison of one-step-ahead predictive log-likelihoods in Table 4, not a derivation that assumes its conclusion. The autoencoder in Equation (21) is trained only to reconstruct the 12 realized measures, and the resulting series x_AE is then used in the RealGARCH measurement equation in Equation (22). Since x_AE is constructed from contemporaneous realized measures and the forecast target is the next-day return or volatility, there is no self-definitional reduction: the target variable does not enter the construction of the synthetic measure. The comparisons against PC-RealGARCH, IC-RealGARCH, and AVG-RealGARCH use the same predictive likelihood formula, and the cited baseline (Naimoli et al., 2022) and predictive-likelihood reference (Gerlach and Wang, 2016) are methodological references, not load-bearing self-citations that force the result. The paper's own limitation note in Section 4.3.1, stating that autoencoder windows with 'unintended patterns' were re-run until they yielded 'desired patterns,' is a transparency and selection-bias concern that weakens the empirical claim, but it is not circularity because the re-run does not use the forecast target to construct x_AE. No uniqueness theorem, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation is present. The absence of significance tests on the small Table 4 margins is a statistical-evidence weakness, not a circularity defect.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three hand-chosen autoencoder hyperparameters, an unvalidated assumption that an autoencoder trained for reconstruction yields a valid volatility proxy, and the standard RealGARCH measurement equation applied to a synthetic measure. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda1 (weight regularization) = 0.001
    Set to Matlab trainAutoencoder default; no validation procedure reported (Section 4.3.1).
  • lambda2 (sparsity regularization) = 0.001
    Same default; no tuning.
  • rho (sparsity target) = 0.05
    Same default; no tuning.
  • hidden layer size = 1 neuron
    Chosen to feed univariate RealGARCH; not optimized.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The RealGARCH measurement equation log(x_t)=xi+phi log(sigma^2_t)+tau1 z_t+tau2(z_t^2-1)+sigma_epsilon epsilon_t remains valid when x_t is replaced by any synthetic measure (PCA, ICA, average, autoencoder).
    Invoked in Eqs. (8), (10), (12), and (22); no distributional or asymptotic justification is given for the autoencoder case.
  • domain assumption The autoencoder trained to minimize reconstruction error of the 12 realized measures produces a latent variable informative about future daily variance.
    Section 3.2.3 plugs xAE into RealGARCH; the paper only provides visual similarity plots (Figure 3) rather than a derivation.
  • domain assumption Gaussian innovations z_t and epsilon_t.
    Section 3.3, Eq. (23); the limitations section notes Student-t could be better.
  • standard math Stationarity condition -1 < beta + gamma phi < 1.
    Section 3.1.2, Eq. (4), derived from the AR(1) representation of log conditional variance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Financial Volatility and Risk Forecasting Incorporating a Larger Number of Realized Measures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PPUOLL7L

@misc{pith2026241117136,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Financial Volatility and Risk Forecasting Incorporating a Larger Number of Realized Measures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PPUOLL7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17136}
}
read the original abstract

Realised volatility has become increasingly prominent in volatility forecasting due to its ability to capture intraday price fluctuations. With a growing variety of realised volatility estimators, each with unique advantages and limitations, selecting an optimal estimator may introduce challenges. In this thesis, aiming to synthesise the impact of various realised volatility measures on volatility forecasting, we propose an extension of the Realised GARCH model that incorporates an autoencoder-generated synthetic realised measure, combining the information from multiple realised measures in a nonlinear manner. Our proposed model extends existing linear methods, such as Principal Component Analysis and Independent Component Analysis, to reduce the dimensionality of realised measures. The empirical evaluation, conducted across four major stock markets from January 2000 to June 2022 and including the period of COVID-19, demonstrates both the feasibility of applying an autoencoder to synthesise volatility measures and the superior effectiveness of the proposed model in one-step-ahead rolling volatility forecasting. The model exhibits enhanced flexibility in parameter estimations across each rolling window, outperforming traditional linear approaches. These findings indicate that nonlinear dimension reduction offers further adaptability and flexibility in improving the synthetic realised measure, with promising implications for future volatility forecasting applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17136 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Autoencoder model. the loss function L between input xt and its reconstruction ˆxt , we adopt Mean Squared Error (MSE) here: L = 1 T X T t=1 X D d=1 (xtd − xˆtd) 2 , (16) where xtd represents the dth feature of the input realised measures input xt at time t, while ˆxtd represents the corresponding reconstructed feature at time t. 3.2.2 Regularised Autoencoder The Autoencoder shares a similar essence with neural netw… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Absolute returns and the square root of 5-min RV for the full dataset of S&P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Absolute returns and the square root of 5-min RV and the square root of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Square root of synthetic realised measure from PCA, average and autoencoder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Forecast volatility of AE-RealGARCH and AVG-RealGARCH (top), and PC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: RealGARCH models parameter estimates in S&P 500 out-of-sample period. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alexander, C. (2001). Market Models: A Guide to Financial Data Analysis . University of Sussex

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    Andersen, T. G. and Bollerslev, T. (1998). Answering the Skeptics : Yes , Standard Volatility Models do Provide Accurate Forecasts . International Economic Review , 39(4):885--905

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    G., Bollerslev, T., Diebold, F

    Andersen, T. G., Bollerslev, T., Diebold, F. X., and Labys, P. (2003). Modeling and Forecasting Realized Volatility . Econometrica , 71(2):579--625

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    G., Dobrev, D., and Schaumburg, E

    Andersen, T. G., Dobrev, D., and Schaumburg, E. (2012). Jump-robust volatility estimation using nearest neighbor truncation. Journal of Econometrics , 169(1):75--93

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Andersen, T. G. and Ter \"a svirta, T. (2009). Realized Volatility . In Mikosch, T., Krei , J.-P., Davis, R. A., and Andersen, T. G., editors, Handbook of Financial Time Series , pages 555--575. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    R., Bloom, N., and Davis, S

    Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., and Davis, S. J. (2016). Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty *. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 131(4):1593--1636

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Baldi, P. (2012). Autoencoders, Unsupervised Learning , and Deep Architectures . In Proceedings of ICML Workshop on Unsupervised and Transfer Learning , pages 37--49. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Bao, W., Yue, J., and Rao, Y. (2017). A deep learning framework for financial time series using stacked autoencoders and long-short term memory. PLOS ONE , 12(7):e0180944

    work page 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Barndorff-Nielsen , O. E. (2004). Power and Bipower Variation with Stochastic Volatility and Jumps . Journal of Financial Econometrics , 2(1):1--37

    2004

  2. [10]

    E., Hansen, P

    Barndorff-Nielsen , O. E., Hansen, P. R., Lunde, A., and Shephard, N. (2008a). Designing Realised Kernels to Measure the Ex-Post Variation of Equity Prices in the Presence of Noise . SSRN Electronic Journal

    2008

  3. [11]

    E., Hansen, P

    Barndorff-Nielsen , O. E., Hansen, P. R., Lunde, A., and Shephard, N. (2008b). Realised Kernels in Practice : Trades and Quotes . SSRN Electronic Journal

    2008

  4. [12]

    E., Kinnebrock, S., and Shephard, N

    Barndorff-Nielsen , O. E., Kinnebrock, S., and Shephard, N. (2008c). Measuring Downside Risk - Realised Semivariance . SSRN Electronic Journal

    2008

  5. [13]

    Barndorff-Nielsen , O. E. and Shephard, N. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Realized Volatility and its Use in Estimating Stochastic Volatility Models . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 64(2):253--280

    2002

  6. [14]

    Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics , 31(3):307--327

    1986

  7. [15]

    Cao, L., Chua, K., Chong, W., Lee, H., and Gu, Q. (2003). A comparison of PCA , KPCA and ICA for dimensionality reduction in support vector machine. Neurocomputing , 55(1-2):321--336

    2003

  8. [16]

    Chen, Y., H \"a rdle, W., and Spokoiny, V. (2007). Portfolio value at risk based on independent component analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics , 205(1):594--607

    2007

  9. [17]

    and Podolskij, M

    Christensen, K. and Podolskij, M. (2007). Realized range-based estimation of integrated variance. Journal of Econometrics , 141(2):323--349

    2007

  10. [18]

    Christensen, K., Podolskij, M., Thamrongrat, N., and Veliyev, B. (2017). Inference from high-frequency data: A subsampling approach. Journal of Econometrics , 197(2):245--272

    2017

  11. [19]

    G., Onieva, E., L \'o pez, I

    Cort \'e s, D. G., Onieva, E., L \'o pez, I. P., Trinchera, L., and Wu, J. (2024). Autoencoder- Enhanced Clustering : A Dimensionality Reduction Approach to Financial Time Series . IEEE Access , 12:16999--17009

    2024

  12. [20]

    Engle, R. (2002). New frontiers for arch models. Journal of Applied Econometrics , 17(5):425--446

    2002

  13. [21]

    Engle, R. (2004). Risk and Volatility : Econometric Models and Financial Practice . American Economic Review , 94(3):405--420

    2004

  14. [22]

    Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation . Econometrica , 50(4):987--1007

    1982

  15. [23]

    Fan, J., Wang, M., and Yao, Q. (2008). Modelling Multivariate Volatilities via Conditionally Uncorrelated Components . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 70(4):679--702

    2008

  16. [24]

    Garc \'i a-Ferrer , A., Gonz \'a lez-Prieto , E., and Pe \ n a, D. (2012). A conditionally heteroskedastic independent factor model with an application to financial stock returns. International Journal of Forecasting , 28(1):70--93

    2012

  17. [25]

    and Wang, C

    Gerlach, R. and Wang, C. (2016). Forecasting risk via realized GARCH , incorporating the realized range. Quantitative Finance , 16(4):501--511

    2016

  18. [26]

    Gu, S., Kelly, B., and Xiu, D. (2021). Autoencoder asset pricing models. Journal of Econometrics , 222(1):429--450

    2021

  19. [27]

    Hansen, P. R. and Huang, Z. (2016). Exponential GARCH Modeling With Realized Measures of Volatility . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 34(2):269--287

    2016

  20. [28]

    R., Huang, Z., and Shek, H

    Hansen, P. R., Huang, Z., and Shek, H. H. (2012). Realized GARCH : A joint model for returns and realized measures of volatility. Journal of Applied Econometrics , 27(6):877--906

    2012

  21. [29]

    Hinton, G. E. and Roweis, S. (2002). Stochastic Neighbor Embedding . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 15. MIT Press

    2002

  22. [30]

    Hinton, G. E. and Salakhutdinov, R. R. (2006). Reducing the Dimensionality of Data with Neural Networks . Science , 313(5786):504--507

    2006

  23. [31]

    Hotelling, H. (1933). Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology , 24(6):417--441

    1933

  24. [32]

    Hyvarinen, A. (1999). Fast and robust fixed-point algorithms for independent component analysis. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks , 10(3):626--634

    1999

  25. [33]

    and Oja, E

    Hyv \"a rinen, A. and Oja, E. (2000). Independent component analysis: Algorithms and applications. Neural Networks , 13(4):411--430

    2000

  26. [34]

    Ikeda, S. S. (2015). Two- Scale Realized Kernels : A Univariate Case . Journal of Financial Econometrics , 13(1):126--165

    2015

  27. [35]

    Jang, G.-J., Yun, S.-J., and Oh, Y.-H. (1999). Feature vector transformation using independent component analysis and its application to speaker identification. In 6th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology , pages 767--770. ISCA

    1999

  28. [36]

    u r Luft- Und Raumfahrt K \

    Kraft, D. (1988). A Software Package for Sequential Quadratic Programming . Deutsche Forschungs- Und Versuchsanstalt F \"u r Luft- Und Raumfahrt K \"o ln: Forschungsbericht . Wiss. Berichtswesen d. DFVLR

    1988

  29. [37]

    and Medeiros, M

    McAleer, M. and Medeiros, M. C. (2008). Realized Volatility : A Review . Econometric Reviews , 27(1-3):10--45

    2008

  30. [38]

    Naimoli, A., Gerlach, R., and Storti, G. (2022). Improving the accuracy of tail risk forecasting models by combining several realized volatility estimators. Economic Modelling , 107:105701

    2022

  31. [39]

    Nelson, D. B. (1991). Conditional Heteroskedasticity in Asset Returns : A New Approach . Econometrica , 59(2):347--370

    1991

  32. [40]

    Pearson, K. (1901). LIII . On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science , 2(11):559--572

    1901

  33. [41]

    and Granger, C

    Poon, S.-H. and Granger, C. W. (2003). Forecasting volatility in financial markets: A review. Journal of Economic Literature , 41(2):478–539

    2003

  34. [42]

    Roweis, S. T. and Saul, L. K. (2000). Nonlinear Dimensionality Reduction by Locally Linear Embedding . Science , 290(5500):2323--2326

    2000

  35. [43]

    Tahmasebi, P., Kamrava, S., Bai, T., and Sahimi, M. (2020). Machine learning in geo- and environmental sciences: From small to large scale. Advances in Water Resources , 142:103619

    2020

  36. [44]

    Tharwat, A. (2021). Independent component analysis: An introduction. Applied Computing and Informatics , 17(2):222--249

    2021

  37. [45]

    Van Der Weide, R. (2002). GO-GARCH : A multivariate generalized orthogonal GARCH model. Journal of Applied Econometrics , 17(5):549--564

    2002

  38. [46]

    Watanabe, T. (2012). Quantile Forecasts of Financial Returns Using Realized Garch Models . The Japanese Economic Review , 63(1):68--80

    2012

  39. [47]

    Xie, J., Zhang, H., Shen, Y., and Li, M. (2020). Energy consumption optimization of central air-conditioning based on sequential-least-square-programming. In 2020 Chinese Control And Decision Conference ( CCDC ) , pages 5147--5152

    2020

  40. [48]

    Zhang, H., Liang, Q., Wang, R., and Wu, Q. (2020). Stacked Model with Autoencoder for Financial Time Series Prediction . In 2020 15th International Conference on Computer Science & Education ( ICCSE ) , pages 222--226

    2020

  41. [49]

    A., and A \"i t-Sahalia , Y

    Zhang, L., Mykland, P. A., and A \"i t-Sahalia , Y. (2005). A Tale of Two Time Scales . Journal of the American Statistical Association , 100(472):1394--1411

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.