Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2605.12099

Bayesian Dynamic Modeling of Realized Volatility in Financial Asset Price Forecasting

Abstract

We present a new class of Bayesian dynamic models for bivariate price-realized volatility time series in financial forecasting. A novel dynamic gamma process model adopted for realized volatility is integrated with traditional Bayesian dynamic linear models (DLMs) for asset price series. This represents reduced-form volatility leverage and feedback effects through use of realized volatility proxies in conditional DLMs for prices or returns, coupled with the synthesis of higher frequency data to track and anticipate volatility fluctuations. Analysis is computationally straightforward, extending conjugate-form Bayesian analyses for sequential filtering and model monitoring with simple and direct simulation for forecasting. A main applied setting is equity return forecasting with daily prices and realized volatility from high-frequency, intraday data. Detailed empirical studies of multiple S&P sector ETFs highlight the improvements achievable in asset price forecasting relative to standard models and deliver contextual insights on the nature and practical relevance of volatility leverage and feedback effects. The analytic structure and negligible extra computational cost will enable scaling to higher dimensions for multivariate price series forecasting for decouple/recouple portfolio construction and risk management applications.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Patrick Woitschig, Mike West. 2026-05-12. Bayesian Dynamic Modeling of Realized Volatility in Financial Asset Price Forecasting. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12099

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Considerations for the Integration of Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Data

As clinical decision-making increasingly moves toward individualized and context-specific treatment recommendations, reliance on any single evidence source, randomized or observational, may be insufficient. Principled integration of randomized controlled trials and real-world data, grounded in explicit causal frameworks, offers a path toward evidence that is both internally credible and externally relevant. In this article, we describe distinct objectives for the integration of randomized controlled trials and real-world data and discuss how these objectives shape key design and analytic considerations, illustrating the resulting choices through example estimands. We highlight practical issues that commonly arise in applied settings, including data relevance and curation, cross-source comparability, estimand specification, and sensitivity analysis. We aim for this article to help readers evaluate and implement principled approaches to integrating randomized controlled trials and real-world data in ways that can support more reliable treatment recommendations while maintaining regulatory-grade evidentiary standards.

stat.ME

Validity of MMRM-based hypothesis testing under missing-not-at-random mechanisms

In randomized clinical trials with longitudinal continuous outcomes, missing-not-at-random (MNAR) missingness often motivates conservative alternatives to mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM). Such caution is important for estimation, but estimation and testing need not require identical assumptions. Moreover, overly conservative primary analyses may reduce power, increase required sample size, and raise trial costs. We investigated the validity of MMRM-based testing under the global null of identical longitudinal outcome distributions across groups. Because valid testing minimally requires treatment-effect estimators to converge to the null under the null hypothesis, we investigated sufficient conditions for this property. We introduced a proportional observation condition requiring ratios of observation probabilities relative to a reference group, conditional on the full outcome vector, to be outcome-independent, and showed that, with arbitrary post-baseline visits and monotone missingness, this condition is sufficient for convergence to the null value. The condition allows observation to depend on unobserved outcomes and permits between-group differences in overall observation probabilities through outcome-independent dropout, making it clinically interpretable while accommodating outcome-dependent MNAR missingness. Synthetic and data-based bootstrap simulations showed negligible bias and empirical test sizes near 0.05, including nonmonotone missingness. Thus, MNAR missingness does not by itself imply that a more conservative primary testing procedure is required. This result does not justify treatment-effect estimation under alternatives, which still requires estimand-based interpretation and sensitivity analyses.

stat.ME

Optimized variance estimation under interference and complex experimental designs

Unbiased and consistent variance estimators generally do not exist for design-based treatment effect estimators because experimenters never observe more than one potential outcome for any unit. The problem is exacerbated by interference and complex experimental designs. Experimenters must accept conservative variance estimators in these settings, but they can strive to minimize the conservativeness. In this paper, we show that the task of constructing a minimally conservative variance estimator can be interpreted as an optimization problem that aims to find the lowest estimable upper bound of the true variance given the experimenter's risk preferences and knowledge of the potential outcomes. We characterize the set of admissible bounds in the class of quadratic forms, and we demonstrate that the optimization problem is a convex program for many natural objectives. The resulting variance estimators are guaranteed to be conservative regardless of whether the background knowledge used to construct the bound is correct, but the estimators are less conservative if the provided information is reasonably accurate. Numerical results show that the resulting variance estimators can be considerably less conservative than existing estimators, allowing experimenters to draw more informative inferences about treatment effects.

stat.ME