Transformer-Based Time Series Forecasting for Stock Market Volatility Prediction
Keywords:
transformer architectures, volatility forecasting, financial time series, deep learning infrastructure, model governance, robustness, deployment systemsAbstract
Forecasting stock market volatility is a persistent challenge in financial systems because volatility is latent, heteroscedastic, and highly sensitive to structural breaks in market microstructure, information flow, and participant behavior. Traditional econometric approaches have provided interpretable baselines, but they often struggle with nonlinear dependencies across heterogeneous time scales and high-dimensional conditioning variables. Recent advances in deep sequence modeling, particularly transformer-based architectures, offer an alternative mechanism for learning long-range temporal dependencies and contextual interactions without the sequential constraints of recurrent models. This paper examines transformer-based time series forecasting as a system-level instrument for volatility prediction. It moves beyond isolated model accuracy to analyze architectural trade-offs, data infrastructure constraints, training and validation dynamics, deployment governance, robustness under distributional shift, fairness implications, and broader policy considerations. The discussion emphasizes that effective volatility forecasting is not solely a statistical modeling problem but an integrated socio-technical system challenge involving data provenance, computational sustainability, latency requirements, regulatory accountability, and risk management. The paper situates transformer-based predictors within the existing volatility modeling literature, compares their structural properties with conventional and recurrent approaches, and develops a framework for responsible deployment in financial institutions. The analysis suggests that while transformer models can improve representation learning for volatility dynamics, their practical value depends on careful governance, interpretability mechanisms, stress testing, and alignment with institutional risk appetite and regulatory expectations.
References
1. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 5998–6008.
2. Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8), 1735–1780.
3. Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987–1007.
4. Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307–327.
5. Andersen, T. G., Bollerslev, T., Diebold, F. X., & Labys, P. (2003). Modeling and forecasting realized volatility. Econometrica, 71(2), 579–625.
6. Corsi, F. (2009). A simple approximate long-memory model of realized volatility. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 7(2), 174–196.
7. Lim, B., Arık, S. O., Loeff, N., & Pfister, T. (2021). Temporal Fusion Transformers for interpretable multi-horizon time series forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 37(4), 1748–1764.
8. Zhou, H., Zhang, S., Peng, J., Zhang, S., Li, J., Xiong, H., & Zhang, W. (2021). Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(12), 11106–11115.
9. Wu, H., Xu, J., Wang, J., & Long, M. (2021). Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with auto-correlation for long-term series forecasting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 22419–22430.
10. Zerveas, G., Jayaraman, S., Patel, D., Bhamidipaty, A., & Eickhoff, C. (2021). A transformer-based framework for multivariate time series representation learning. Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2114–2124.
11. Wen, Q., Zhou, T., Zhang, C., Chen, W., Ma, Z., Yan, J., & Sun, L. (2022). Transformers in time series: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07125.
12. Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., Antiga, L., Desmaison, A., Kopf, A., Yang, E., DeVito, Z., Raison, M., Tejani, A., Chilamkurthy, S., Steiner, B., Fang, L., Bai, J., & Chintala, S. (2019). PyTorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 8026–8037.
13. Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2015). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. International Conference on Learning Representations.
14. Hendrycks, D., & Gimpel, K. (2016). Gaussian error linear units (GELUs). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415.
15. Srivastava, N., Hinton, G., Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Salakhutdinov, R. (2014). Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1), 1929–1958.
16. Ba, J. L., Kiros, J. R., & Hinton, G. E. (2016). Layer normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06450.
17. Patton, A. J. (2011). Volatility forecast comparison using imperfect volatility proxies. Journal of Econometrics, 160(1), 246–256.
18. Danielsson, J., Valenzuela, M., & Zer, I. (2018). Learning from history: Volatility and financial crises. Review of Financial Studies, 31(7), 2774–2805.
19. Kirilenko, A. A., Kyle, A. S., Samadi, M., & Tuzun, T. (2017). The flash crash: High-frequency trading in an electronic market. Journal of Finance, 72(3), 967–998.
20. Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., Spitzer, E., Raji, I. D., & Gebru, T. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 220–229.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Advanced Financial Research

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.