Latent-Regime Bias Auditing for Volatility Forecasting

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 forecasting is dominated by persistence and measurement noise, leaving limited residual structure for nonlinear models to exploit. We introduce Susceptible Architectures (SUSA), a reservoir-design principle for volatility forecasting, and its two concrete implementations, based on complex-valued open-chain and periodic reservoirs and regime-conditioned experts to interpret reservoir features across calm, onset, recovery, and persistent-stress states. We also implement open-system $q$-qubit counterparts in Qiskit while retaining a common AR-Ridge anchor and a bounded residual correction trained under QLIKE. We evaluate models on 16 U.S. equity and exchange-traded-fund series using three disjoint chronological training, validation, and test folds, a 12-observation input window, and a five-observation forecast horizon. The proposed models perform competitively with GARCH, achieving statistically significant QLIKE improvements for specific assets (IWM, XLP). Also models' forecasts complement HARQ-style predictions: a stacked ensemble improves mean QLIKE by 0.0116 over its strongest constituent and wins in 75% of test scenarios.

Financial forecasting is difficult due to low signal-to-noise ratios, latent factors, heavy tails, regime shifts, and jumps. Real-world benchmarks offer limited failure attribution: researchers can observe underperformance, but often cannot isolate why because mechanisms are unobservable and entangled. Real financial data reveal only one realized path, making it difficult to assess tail-risk calibration or data efficiency. We introduce FinStressTS, a mechanism-aware synthetic benchmark that links model behavior to controlled structural causes. FinStressTS comprises 30 diagnostic environments around six mechanism families: volatility clustering, multi-scale persistence, heavy-tailed shocks, regime switching, self-exciting jumps, and zero-inflated processes. We evaluate two tasks: point forecasting, using NMAE across five settings, and probabilistic forecasting, using CRPS under known data-generating mechanisms. We benchmark 15 models, from classical methods (HAR, VAR) to Transformer forecasters (PatchTST, iTransformer) and deep probabilistic architectures (DeepAR, TSFlow), and use learning curves to measure sample efficiency. Our evaluation reveals three insights. First, performance is mechanism-dependent: autoregressive and linear models are highly competitive, and often outperform Transformer-based models, in several volatility-, tail-, and jump-driven environments. Second, distributional alignment matters: parametric probabilistic models such as DeepAR calibrate well in stationary settings, while flexible models can help when distributions become multimodal or sparse. Third, neural models often require more data to match simple baselines, with larger gains mainly when learning latent regimes or complex distributions. FinStressTS provides an open framework for diagnosing failure modes and advancing risk-aware forecasting.