PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Mathematics· 2026Q2

A Comparative Forecasting Framework for Weekly VIX Prediction Based on Statistical and Machine Learning Models with Bayesian Optimization

Ning Yin, Xuechao Xia

Short summary

A comparative framework integrating statistical and machine learning models with Bayesian optimization shows that persistence-based models (HAR) outperform complex ML models under fixed holdout evaluation, while regularized linear models (Elastic Net, Ridge) and Bayesian-tuned XGBoost excel under recursive rolling-origin evaluation at different horizons.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • A comparative framework evaluated thirteen forecasting models for weekly VIX prediction using Bayesian optimization for hyperparameter tuning.
  • Under fixed holdout evaluation, persistence-based statistical models, particularly the HAR model, showed superior accuracy.
  • Under recursive rolling-origin evaluation, Elastic Net and Ridge regression achieved the lowest RMSE at 1- and 4-week horizons.
  • Bayesian optimization-tuned XGBoost model achieved the lowest RMSE at the 12-week horizon under recursive rolling-origin evaluation.
  • Financial stress indicators were found to be more predictive than equity-level variables at short-to-medium horizons.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Accurate forecasting of the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) is an important problem in financial risk modeling and time-series prediction due to its role as a widely used indicator of market uncertainty. This study proposes a comparative forecasting framework for weekly VIX prediction by integrating statistical and machine learning models with Bayesian optimization for hyperparameter tuning. A compact set of publicly available macro-financial indicators obtained from the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), including the S&P 500 Index, the TED spread, and the Chicago Fed National Financial Conditions Index, is employed as explanatory variables. Weekly observations from August 2016 to January 2022 are used to evaluate thirteen forecasting approaches: naive persistence, AR, HAR, GARCH(1,1), and ARIMA benchmarks, together with ridge regression, elastic net, support vector regression, KNN regression, random forest, gradient boosting, XGBoost, and a multilayer perceptron. Bayesian optimization is applied to tune the hyperparameters of the machine learning models under a unified chronological validation protocol. Forecast performance is assessed at 1-, 4-, and 12-week horizons using RMSE and MAE as primary accuracy metrics, with MAPE and directional accuracy reported as complementary diagnostics, under both a chronological 80/20 holdout split and a recursive rolling-origin evaluation. Feature-ablation analysis and Diebold–Mariano tests are further conducted to quantify predictor importance and examine the statistical significance of forecast differences. The empirical results indicate that persistence-based statistical models outperform more complex machine learning models under the fixed holdout evaluation, with the HAR model achieving the strongest overall accuracy in that design. Under recursive rolling-origin evaluation with expanding-window re-estimation, regularized linear models (Elastic Net and Ridge) attain the lowest RMSE at the 1- and 4-week horizons, whereas the Bayesian optimization-tuned XGBoost model achieves the lowest RMSE at the 12-week horizon. In addition, financial stress indicators contribute more predictive information than equity-level variables at short-to-medium horizons. The proposed framework provides a systematic and reproducible benchmark for volatility forecasting and demonstrates that the relative performance of statistical and machine learning methods depends jointly on the forecasting horizon, market regime, and evaluation strategy.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Mathematics, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Management Science and Operations Research

Management Science and Operations ResearchDecision Sciences