aiqbench analysis
This research investigates how the choice of loss function influences volatility forecasts for cryptocurrencies, distinguishing between effects driven by forecast level versus intrinsic model performance. By applying validation-based alignment to normalize forecast levels, the study demonstrates that model architecture becomes the dominant factor in predictive accuracy once level differences are accounted for. This methodological insight is critical for practitioners relying on AI-driven risk management systems where loss function selection has historically obscured true model capabilities.
Loss Choice or Model Choice? The Role of Forecast Level in Cryptocurrency Volatility Forecasting
arXiv:2609.27024v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Volatility forecasts play a central role in financial risk management because their overall level and day-to-day movements affect downstream decisions. Most studies compare forecasting models while keeping the training loss fixed. Yet losses emphasise different errors and can target different properties of future volatility, so raw comparisons may combine persistent forecast-level differences with differences in daily forecast movements. This leaves unresolved whether the importance of loss choice comes mainly from the forecast level it targets or from differences that remain after level adjustment. We address this gap through a comparison of seven losses and five models across major cryptocurrencies. Validation-based alignment adjusts the forecast level before the raw and aligned forecasts are evaluated using statistical scores and one-day Value-at-Risk. Before alignment, marginal score variation is greater across losses. After alignment, model choice becomes the larger source of variation in the full five-model comparison, while cross-loss differences in VaR breach rates narrow substantially. Our contribution is a comprehensive evaluation of loss and model choice that shows why losses can appear so influential in raw comparisons and how this interpretation changes when forecast level and downstream risk are considered explicitly.
Abstract:Volatility forecasts play a central role in financial risk management because their overall level and day-to-day movements affect downstream decisions. Most studies compare forecasting models while keeping the training loss fixed. Yet losses emphasise different errors and can target different properties of future volatility, so raw comparisons may combine persistent forecast-level differences with differences in daily forecast movements. This leaves unresolved whether the importance of loss choice comes mainly from the forecast level it targets or from differences that remain after level adjustment. We address this gap through a comparison of seven losses and five models across major cryptocurrencies. Validation-based alignment adjusts the forecast level before the raw and aligned forecasts are evaluated using statistical scores and one-day Value-at-Risk. Before alignment, marginal score variation is greater across losses. After alignment, model choice becomes the larger source of variation in the full five-model comparison, while cross-loss differences in VaR breach rates narrow substantially. Our contribution is a comprehensive evaluation of loss and model choice that shows why losses can appear so influential in raw comparisons and how this interpretation changes when forecast level and downstream risk are considered explicitly.
Computational Finance (q-fin.CP); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE); Risk Management (q-fin.RM)
arXiv:2609.27024 [q-fin.CP]
(or arXiv:2609.27024v1 [q-fin.CP] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.27024 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 218 words
Related coverage

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026

A Candid Abacus AI Review: The All-in-One AI Platform for Professionals & Enterprises
KDnuggets · Sep 10, 2026

Handling Imbalanced Classification: What Works Better Than SMOTE
Analytics Vidhya · Jul 12, 2026

Underwriting Superintelligence: Backing Agents you can Sue — Rune Kvist, AIUC
Latent Space · Sep 16, 2026