Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.02620 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866908861745594368 |
|---|---|
| author | Cortesi, Federico Vittorio Iannone, Giuseppe Crippa, Giulia Poggio, Tomaso Beneventano, Pierfrancesco |
| author_facet | Cortesi, Federico Vittorio Iannone, Giuseppe Crippa, Giulia Poggio, Tomaso Beneventano, Pierfrancesco |
| contents | Neural networks applied to financial time series operate in a regime of underspecification, where model predictors achieve indistinguishable out-of-sample error. Using large-scale volatility forecasting for S$\&$P 500 stocks, we show that different model-training-pipeline pairs with identical test loss learn qualitatively different functions. Across architectures, predictive accuracy remains unchanged, yet optimizer choice reshapes non-linear response profiles and temporal dependence differently. These divergences have material consequences for decisions: volatility-ranked portfolios trace a near-vertical Sharpe-turnover frontier, with nearly $3\times$ turnover dispersion at comparable Sharpe ratios. We conclude that in underspecified settings, optimization acts as a consequential source of inductive bias, thus model evaluation should extend beyond scalar loss to encompass functional and decision-level implications. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2603_02620 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Same Error, Different Function: The Optimizer as an Implicit Prior in Financial Time Series Cortesi, Federico Vittorio Iannone, Giuseppe Crippa, Giulia Poggio, Tomaso Beneventano, Pierfrancesco Machine Learning Computational Finance Neural networks applied to financial time series operate in a regime of underspecification, where model predictors achieve indistinguishable out-of-sample error. Using large-scale volatility forecasting for S$\&$P 500 stocks, we show that different model-training-pipeline pairs with identical test loss learn qualitatively different functions. Across architectures, predictive accuracy remains unchanged, yet optimizer choice reshapes non-linear response profiles and temporal dependence differently. These divergences have material consequences for decisions: volatility-ranked portfolios trace a near-vertical Sharpe-turnover frontier, with nearly $3\times$ turnover dispersion at comparable Sharpe ratios. We conclude that in underspecified settings, optimization acts as a consequential source of inductive bias, thus model evaluation should extend beyond scalar loss to encompass functional and decision-level implications. |
| title | Same Error, Different Function: The Optimizer as an Implicit Prior in Financial Time Series |
| topic | Machine Learning Computational Finance |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.02620 |