Do Better Volatility Forecasts Lead to Better Portfolios? Evidence from Graph Neural Networks

Financial volatility is regime dependent, yet incorporating regime information into neural networks can also destabilize training. This paper asks where such information should enter a neural cross-sectional volatility forecasting model. We study five-day realized-volatility forecasts for 1,027 U.S. equities using a rolling walk-forward evaluation framework in which information, model capacity, hyperparameter tuning, and random seeds are matched across architectures. We propose RG-ResMoE, a regime-gated residual mixture-of-experts architecture in which regime information is used only for expert routing rather than for direct forecasting. The base predictor models volatility from stock features, while a gating network uses regime state variables to route residual corrections. RG-ResMoE consistently outperforms a capacity-matched MLP in both forecasting accuracy and training stability in the main U.S. study. Similar gains are observed on an independent Japanese panel. The integration pathway is decisive: appending the same regime variables directly to the forecasting input degrades both predictive performance and training stability, whereas restricting them to the routing gate improves accuracy and Value-at-Risk calibration. Hard routing consistently underperforms soft routing. The results suggest that, in compact neural volatility forecasting models, the primary value of mixture-of-experts models lies less in increasing model capacity than in controlling how nonstationary regime information influences prediction.

We examine whether financial news can improve realised volatility forecasting using a parsimonious NLP-based framework that incorporates specialised financial word embeddings alongside general-purpose alternatives. News-only forecasts contain useful predictive information but generally do not outperform strong volatility-history benchmarks. Crucially, combining stock-related news forecasts with a strong volatility-history benchmark lowers forecast losses for several specifications and increases realised utility, providing evidence consistent with forecast complementarity. Performance varies across news types, embedding representations, and volatility regimes. SHAP attributions associate forecast variation with economically interpretable firm-specific and macroeconomic news themes.

In financial forecasting, predictive performance depends not only on which model is trained, but also on how the trained model is deployed. We study this issue in multi-horizon volatility forecasting. Our starting point is that a trained multi-output (MIMO) forecaster does not define a single deployable predictor: by changing the inference-time rollout rule, the same trained model induces a family of forecasts with different accuracy and cost profiles. Across 20 stock-volatility series, three forecast horizons, and architectures ranging from linear models to PatchTST, we find that non-default rollout rules often improve over standard MIMO deployment. However, the best fixed rule varies substantially across architectures and horizons, making any single static replacement unreliable. We therefore evaluate validation-based deployment policies over the induced rule family. Under the primary MSE objective, validation-selected singletons provide a low-cost improvement over default MIMO, while small rule subsets recover much of the benefit of larger ensembles at substantially lower inference cost. We also find that policy rankings are metric-sensitive: MSE-selected policies do not transfer uniformly to QLIKE, a finance-standard volatility loss. These results show that inference-time deployment is a meaningful source of adaptiveness in financial forecasting, and that trained volatility forecasters should be evaluated not only by their architecture, but also by their deployment policy.