Deployment-Side Adaptiveness in Multi-Horizon Volatility Forecasting

Financial forecasting models are typically developed in full precision, yet production deployment often requires low-precision inference to reduce memory and computational cost. Post-training quantization (PTQ) enables such deployment without retraining. However, reliable activation quantization requires calibration: activation ranges are estimated from historical data before deployment and then remain fixed during future inference. The importance of this deployment choice for financial forecasting remains poorly understood. We present a systematic study of activation calibration for PTQ in cross-sectional volatility forecasting on the S&P 500. Our evaluation covers seven representative neural architectures, eight walk-forward test years (2018-2025), and 560 trained models. We find that activation calibration has little effect at 8 bits but becomes the primary determinant of predictive performance at 4 bits. Under default absolute-maximum (abs-max) calibration, static 4-bit quantization of both weights and activations removes 11-62% of the full-precision mean information coefficient in affected architectures. Replacing abs-max with percentile calibration recovers 53-94% of this degradation in the four most affected architectures. The preferred activation range also varies across market periods. Narrow ranges improve resolution under typical market conditions but lose part of their advantage when test-period market dispersion exceeds the calibration history. These findings show that activation calibration is a first-class deployment decision for reliable 4-bit PTQ in financial forecasting. When substantial degradation remains, 8-bit activations or weight-only 4-bit quantization provide more robust deployment choices.

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.

Volatility forecasts are commonly evaluated with aggregate accuracy metrics such as RMSE and MAE, but these metrics can hide conditional failures that matter for risk management. This paper proposes a model-agnostic audit framework for evaluating whether volatility forecasts remain reliable across latent market regimes. We learn time-series representations of market-state windows, cluster them into regimes using only training information, assign regimes out of sample, and compare aggregate forecast behavior with regime-conditional bias, tail-underprediction, and underprediction-sensitive economic losses. Applied to daily volatility forecasting across cryptocurrency and ETF assets, the audit shows that models with competitive aggregate accuracy can still exhibit substantial regime-specific bias and severe tail underprediction. The results suggest that volatility forecasting should be evaluated not only by average error, but also by where and how forecasts become unreliable. Our framework shifts forecast evaluation from asking which model is most accurate on average to identifying the market regimes in which apparently accurate forecasts fail conditionally. Reproducibility: https://github.com/arthurchagas1/Latent-Regime-Bias-Auditing-for-Volatility-Forecasting