Research article

An age- and sex-structured SIR model: Theory and an explicit-implicit numerical solution algorithm

  • Since age and sex play an important role in transmission of diseases, we propose a SIR (susceptible-infectious-recovered) model for short-term predictions where the population is divided into subgroups based on both factors without taking into account vital dynamics. After stating our model and its underlining assumptions, we analyze its qualitative behavior thoroughly. We prove global existence and uniqueness, non-negativity, boundedness and certain monotonicity properties of the solution. Furthermore, we develop an explicit-implicit numerical solution algorithm and show that all properties of the continuous solution transfer to its time-discrete version. Finally, we provide one numerical example to illustrate our theoretical findings.

    Citation: Benjamin Wacker, Jan Schlüter. An age- and sex-structured SIR model: Theory and an explicit-implicit numerical solution algorithm[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 5752-5801. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020309

    Related Papers:

    [1] Nitesha Dwarika . The risk-return relationship in South Africa: tail optimization of the GARCH-M approach. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2022, 2(4): 391-415. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2022020
    [2] Moses Khumalo, Hopolang Mashele, Modisane Seitshiro . Quantification of the stock market value at risk by using FIAPARCH, HYGARCH and FIGARCH models. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2023, 3(4): 380-400. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2023022
    [3] Changlin Wang . Different GARCH model analysis on returns and volatility in Bitcoin. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2021, 1(1): 37-59. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2021003
    [4] Deniz Sevinç . Volatility spillovers among MIST stock markets. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2022, 2(2): 80-95. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2022004
    [5] Changlin Wang . Correction: Different GARCH models analysis of returns and volatility in Bitcoin. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2022, 2(3): 205-208. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2022010
    [6] Katleho Makatjane, Ntebogang Moroke . Examining stylized facts and trends of FTSE/JSE TOP40: a parametric and Non-Parametric approach. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2022, 2(3): 294-320. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2022015
    [7] Morten Risstad, Mathias Holand . On the relevance of realized quarticity for exchange rate volatility forecasts. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2024, 4(4): 514-530. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2024021
    [8] Kuo-Shing Chen . Interlinkages between Bitcoin, green financial assets, oil, and emerging stock markets. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2024, 4(1): 160-187. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2024006
    [9] Wojciech Kuryłek . Can we profit from BigTechs' time series models in predicting earnings per share? Evidence from Poland. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2024, 4(2): 218-235. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2024008
    [10] Xiaozheng Lin, Meiqing Wang, Choi-Hong Lai . A modification term for Black-Scholes model based on discrepancy calibrated with real market data. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2021, 1(4): 313-326. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2021017
  • Since age and sex play an important role in transmission of diseases, we propose a SIR (susceptible-infectious-recovered) model for short-term predictions where the population is divided into subgroups based on both factors without taking into account vital dynamics. After stating our model and its underlining assumptions, we analyze its qualitative behavior thoroughly. We prove global existence and uniqueness, non-negativity, boundedness and certain monotonicity properties of the solution. Furthermore, we develop an explicit-implicit numerical solution algorithm and show that all properties of the continuous solution transfer to its time-discrete version. Finally, we provide one numerical example to illustrate our theoretical findings.


    The first Bitcoin futures were offered on December 18, 2017 by the Chicago Board of Options Exchange (CBOE) Cheng (2017) and have already gained control in the market. Investors who could not hold spot positions in the Bitcoin market because of compliance regulations can now trade on the Bitcoin futures market because they are traded on an exchange regulated market with very low margin requirements (Baur and Dimpfl, 2019). Bitcoin futures are cash settled without the need for a Bitcoin wallet and do serve as a hedging instrument. Similarly to commodities/stocks futures, Bitcoin futures permit investors to speculate on falling prices ("go short"). According to Shiller (2017), the inability to go short was the reason for the bubble-like evolution of Bitcoin price in 2017. In 2017, the price of Bitcoin doubled four times leading to uncertainty in the price of Bitcoin. Volatility which relates to uncertainty about an assets value is therefore significant when modelling the price of an asset. The concept of volatility is applied in different financial and economic areas such as asset pricing, monetary policy, derivatives trading, and risk management. Volatility in the case of market uncertainty serves as a measure of consumers' and investors' confidence in the market. Volatility modelling and forecasting is therefore important in decision-making process of most investors on the futures market. The Bitcoin futures market is growing and as such becoming more sophisticated. A small change in price may therefore have large impact on the market.

    Contrary to the vast number of studies on volatility modeling and forecasting of Bitcoin spot returns (e.g. Katsiampa, 2017; Naimy and Hayek, 2018; Gyamerah, 2019) in the literature, there is scarcity of research on the volatility of Bitcoin futures return. In this paper, we contribute to the limited studies and literature on the volatility of Bitcoin futures returns Guo (2021a, b). Volatility modeling of Bitcoin return series using time-varying GARCH models has gained a lot of attention. Katsiampa (2017) explored the propensity of different generalized auto-regressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) type models to account for the volatility in Bitcoin price returns. They concluded that the AR-CGARCH model is the best fit model with respect to goodness-of-fit to the data. Naimy and Hayek (2018) estimated and compared the forecasting ability of different GARCH type models and concluded that the exponential GARCH(1, 1) outperforms standard GARCH(1, 1) model for both in-sample and out-of-sample forecast. Using Bitcoin return series from January 01, 2014 to August 16, 2014, Gyamerah (2019) concluded that threshold GARCH with normal inverse Gaussian error distribution is the optimal model to model and estimate the volatility in Bitcoin return series. By studying the volatility term structure, Guo (2021b) noticed that the price volatility of Bitcoin futures minimizes as the delivery date draws nearer. Their result is in contrast to what is normally observed in the commodity futures market, called the Samuelson effect. On the aspect of GARCH modeling, Guo (2021a) used GARCH type family models to explore the quantitative risk management of Bitcoin futures via Value at Risk. They captured the residuals of Bitcoin futures return using the normal inverse Gaussian distribution since it fully explained the heavy-tailed distribution of the residuals. In their study on application of GARCH models on Bitcoin futures option, Venter and Maré (2021) concluded that symmetric Heston-Nandi model is the optimal model for Bitcoin futures option.

    This study therefore seeks to model and forecast the volatility of Bitcoin futures returns. Specifically, the study attempts to use different GARCH family models and different error distributions (Student's t distribution, normal inverse Gaussian, and generalized error distribution) to model and forecast the volatility of Bitcoin futures returns from January 02, 2018 to June 14, 2021, which includes the 2020 financial crisis. From previous studies explored in the literature and to the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first of its kind to comprehensively investigate the relative performance of six (6) different GARCH family models and three (3) different error distributions. This paper derives its motivation from the fact that Bitcoin futures as a financial asset are gaining a lot of attention in the cryptocurrency market. The interrupted transactions in futures contracts from December, 2017 with growing trading volumes affirm the exceptional influence of Bitcoin futures.

    This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discussues the methods used for the study; Section 3 presents the descriptive statistics analysis; Section 4 presents the empirical analysis; and section 5 concudes the study.

    The data of Bitcoin futures are downloaded from Yahoo Finance (https://finance.yahoo.com/) and cover the period from the period 02/02/2018 to 14/06/2021. This period covers the first day that Bitcoin futures data was publicly available on Yahoo Finance to the time this study was conducted. Returns (logarithmic returns, Rt) are computed from the historical adjusted closing price of Bitcoin futures using Equation 1,

    Rt=log(PtPt1) (1)

    Logarithmic returns are used because of their statistical properties such as ergocidity and stationarity. It should be noted that Bitcoin futures with the ticker BTC=F was taken because of the historical completeness of the data. The Shapiro-Wilk and Anderson-Darling tests are used to test for the normality of the residuals of the returns. The ARCH Lagrange multiplier (ARCH LM) and Ljung Box (LB) are employed to test for the auto-regressive conditional heteroskedasticity (ARCH) effects in the returns data of Bitcoin futures.

    To specify the variance equation to model the presence of volatility in differenced logarithmic futures prices (i.e., futures price returns), we used six different GARCH family models, each of which has a different purpose. In particular, we modeled the variance for a constant mean equation using standard GARCH (sGARCH), threshold GARCH (tGARCH), integrated GARCH (iGARCH), exponential GARCH (eGARCH), asymmetric Power GARCH (apARCH) and Glosten-Jagannathan-Runkle GARCH (gjr-GARCH) models. The sensitivity of the estimation results of the models was checked by changing the distribution assumptions. More specifically, the sensitivity and appropriateness of the estimation results were observed by changing the distribution assumption to the Student's t-distribution (STD), generalized error distribution (GED), and the normal inverse Gaussian (NIG) distribution.

    The standard GARCH (sGARCH) model is a generalization of ARCH model where it allows the conditional volatility to be dependent upon its own lags. Suppose p and q are the number of lagged squared return included and the number of lagged volatilities, then sGARCH(p, q) model is defined as

    σ2t=ω+pm=1αmϵ2tm+qn=1βnσ2tn, (2)

    where ω>0, αm>0, βn0 and for αm+βn<1, sGARCH(1, 1) is covariance stationary.

    The conditional variance specification of tGARCH(p, q) is given as:

    σ2t=ω+pm=1(αmϵ2tm+γmItmϵ2tm)+qn=1βnσ2tn (3)

    where

    Itm={1,ifϵtm<0(badnews)0,ifϵtm0(goodnews) (4)

    The effects of good news is αm and bad news is αm+γm. Leverage and asymmetry exist when γm>0 and γm0 respectively. The leverage effect in the model helps to differentiate negative and positive shocks.

    The iGARCH model is persistent in variance due to the fact that present information remains important for different forecasting horizons.

    σ2t=ω+pmβmσ2tm+qn(1βn)σ2tn, (5)

    where αm+βn=1

    Developed by Developed by Nelson (1991), the Exponential GARCH (eGARCH) model integrate the asymmetries in how volatility reacts to past returns. An eGARCH(p, q) model assumes the form

    log(σ2t)=ω+Pm=1αm|btm|+γmbtm+qn=1βnlog(σ2tn), (6)

    where bt=ϵtmσtm. γm is the leverage or asymmetric effect parameter. For eGARCH models, it is not necessary to impose non-negativity constraints since the modeling is done on the logarithm of the conditional volatility it is covariance stationary when |βn|<1.

    Developed by Developed by Ding et al. (1993), apARCH is capable of capturing power effects, asymmetries, and different structures that exists in the data. A apARCH(p, q) model is given as:

    σδt=ω+pm=1αm(|ϵtm|γmϵtm)δ+qn=1βnσδtn, (7)

    where ω>0,δ0,αm0,βn0,1γm1. δ and γm denote Box-Cox transformation of the conditional standard deviation and the leverage effect respectively. Negative innovation has an effect of αm+γm and positive innovation has an effect of αm.

    Similar to the eGARCH model, the gjrGARCH model is also able to capture asymmetries in volatility. The gjrGARCH model was developed by Glosten et al. (1993) and it is an extension of sGARCH model with an added term which helps to capture any asymmetries. The extra term is zero if the return is greater than zero. Define a gjrGARCH(p, q) model as

    σ2t=ω+pm=1(αmϵ2tm+γmItmϵ2tm)+qn=1βnσ2tn (8)

    where

    Itm={1,ifϵt100,otherwise (9)

    where ω>0,αm>0,βn0, αm+γm0 and gjrGARC(1, 1) is covariance stationary for γm<2(1αmβn)

    In this study, maximum likelihood estimator is used to estimating the parameters of the GARCH models.

    There is strong evidence that suggests that GARCH models with non-normal distributions are more robust in what comes to volatility forecasting than other historical models (Liu and Morley, 2009).

    From Table 2, it is clear that the random shocks (ϵt) of Bitcoin futures return are not normally distributed. It is therefore appropriate to consider other types of distribution that can capture the non-normality in the residual data. In this study, three distributions are considered: Generalized Error Distribution, Student-t distribution and Normal Inverse Gaussian (NIG) types of distribution. These distributions are capable of capturing any asymmetric effect, fat tails, and peaks in the residual data (Gyamerah, 2019; Guo, 2021a).

    Different information criterion (Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Schwarz-Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC)) are used to compare the fit of the GARCH models. In selecting the best fit model among the GARCH models, the model with the lowest AIC or BIC values is selected as the best model.

    In this study, two evaluation metrics(mean squared error (MSE) and mean absolute error (MAE)) are used to evaluate the forecasting accuracy of the best three GARCH models, each obtained from the error distributions. The lower the MAE value and MSE value, the better the forecasting accuracy of that model.

    MAE=1NNi=1|σi^σi| (10)
    MSE=1NNi=1(σi^σi)2, (11)

    where N is the total number of forecasting horizon, σ and ^σi are the the observed volatility (absolute value of returns) and the forecast of the volatility.

    Figure 1 shows the price dynamics between 02/01/2018 to 14/06/2021. The minimum and maximum futures prices are, respectively, 3145 and 63840. These values were recorded on 14/12/2018 and 15/04/2021 respectively. The maximum price occurred about a month after WHO declared COVID-19 as a pandemic. From Table 1, the skewness (2.211) and kurtosis (3.682) values of Bitcoin futures price indicate peakness in its price distribution. With a standard deviation of 13940, the price distribution is spread out over a wider range.

    Figure 1.  Closing price of Bitcoin futures.
    Table 1.  Descriptive statistics of Bitcoin futures price and return.
    N Min Max Mean SE Mean Median Skewness Kurtosis SD AD test SW test
    Bitcoin (BTCF)-Price 860 3145 63840 13730 475.3 8932 2.211 3.682 13940 p< 2e-16 p< 2e-16
    Bitcoin (BTCF)-Return 859 -0.267726 0.222358 0.001145 0.001650 0.000801 -0.370932 4.537262 0.048363 p< 2e-16 p< 2e-16
    N=number of sample; Min=Minimum; Max = Maximum; SE Mean =Standard Error of Mean; SD=Standard Deviation

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 1, the returns of Bitcoin futures have a daily mean of 0.001145 and a daily volatility of 0.048363. That is, the daily mean is about 2.37% of the daily volatility. The kurtosis value is high for Bitcoin futures returns, indicating the presence of extreme values in the return distribution. The skewness value points toward asymmetrical properties of the returns' distribution. This is validated by the Anderson-Darling (AD) and Shapiro-Wilk (SW) tests (see Table 2). At 5% significance level, AD and SW tests reject the null hypothesis that the returns of Bitcoin futures are normally distributed. These indicate that the returns of Bitcoin futures are not likely to be normally distributed.

    Table 2.  Results of normality test using Shapiro-Wilk's and Anderson-Darling method.
    Shapiro-Wilk Anderson-Darling
    P-Value <2e-16 <2e-16
    Test Statistics 0.93 16
    Test was conducted on 5% α level of significance

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Figure 2 presents the plot of the returns series and 95% confidence interval of the returns series. Clearly, we are 95% confident that the returns of Bitcoin futures will be between 0.09479 and 0.09479. For the period under consideration, the maximum positive and negative returns occurred on 13/05/2019 and 12/03/2020 and with values of 0.2223577 and 0.2677255 respectively. These values have been indicated in Figure 2 (right plot). From this, we can easily detect the financial crisis in 2020 with a sharp negative return. Clearly, there is also a pattern of volatility clustering in the returns series.

    Figure 2.  Returns series (left) and 95% confidence interval (right) of Bitcoin futures.

    At 5% level of significance, the null hypothesis of normally distributed residuals is rejected using both the SW and AD tests (see Table 2). We can therefore conclude that the residuals are not normally distributed.

    From Table 3, stationarity is rejected at 5% significance level. Using the ARCH LM test and at 5% level of significance, we can reject the null hypothesis of no ARCH effects. Also, at 5% level of significance, we can reject the null hypothesis of independently distributed squared residuals of Bitcoin futures return when the Ljung Box test is used. Both LM and Ljung Box test confirm the presence of ARCH effects in Bitcoin futures returns; hence we can employ GARCH-type family models to model the return series of Bitcoin futures.

    Table 3.  Results of ARCH LM, Ljung Box and ADF test for BTCF.
    ARCH Lagrange Multiplier (LM) Ljung Box ADF
    P-Value 0.00161 2e-08 0.01
    Test Statistics 54 1.1 -20

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    To evaluate the performance of different GARCH models in capturing the volatility in Bitcoin futures returns, we tested the performance of the GARCH models in the time intervals 02/01/2018 to 14/06/2021 and from 11/03/2020 to 14/06/2021. The first time interval covers the first time that Bitcoin futures data was publicly available on Yahoo Finance from the time this study was conducted. The second time interval covers the period when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a pandemic, which caused the 2020 financial crisis. Since the ARCH effect was detected in the model, GARCH estimation was performed with different error specifications. The Tables' 4-6 present the estimation results of GARCH family models with the three distributional assumptions for the return series of Bitcoin futures. The maximum likelihood parameter estimates and the associated standard errors, AIC, and BIC values are reported in these tables. The GARCH models were compared relative to each other using the information criteria AIC and BIC. The BIC penalizes the number of parameters more heavily than the AIC and therefore favours simpler models. The standard errors of the estimates are presented in parentheses.

    The sGARCH model was applied for the purpose of capturing variance dynamic. Clearly, from Table A1, the stationary condition of α1+β1<1 for sGARCH(1, 1) has been met, hence GARCH process for all the distribution assumptions are weakly stationary. The ARCH term (α1) and GARCH term (β1) are positive for all the distribution errors.

    Table 4 reports the results of fitting a different GARCH(1, 1) model with conditionally t-distributed innovations for daily Bitcoin futures returns. For GARCH(1, 1) models with conditionally t-distributed errors, the iGARCH(1, 1) has the lowest AIC and BIC values. The QQ plot in Figure A1 is in congruous with earlier observational values of AIC and BIC for iGARCH(1, 1)-STD model. These results demonstrate that iGARCH(1, 1)-STD is optimal in modeling the effects of past squared shocks on the squared returns and to also capture the residuals distribution in the return series of Bitcoin futures. All the estimated parameters of iGARCH(1, 1)-STD model are statistically significant at 5% significance level. The sum of α1=0.106635 and β1=0.893365 is equal to 1 as required for any iGARCH model, which indicates persistence of volatility. With an α1=0.106635, Bitcoin futures return is jumpy. News of Bitcoin futures about past volatility have an explanatory power on current volatility. This is evident from the positive and significant coefficients of α1 and β1.

    Table 4.  Estimation results of GARCH family models for Bitcoin futures return with Student-t distributional assumption.
    Model Estimated Parameters
    μ ω α1 β1 η11 γ1 δ shape AIC BIC
    sGARCH(1, 1) 0.001664 0.000060 0.105875 0.893125 - - - 2.999262 -3.5373 -3.5096
    (0.001069) (0.000033) (0.026727) (0.021343) (-) (-) (-) (0.294213)
    tGARCH(1, 1) 0.001252 0.001258 0.163539 0.886712 -0.086243 - - 2.672477 -3.5390 -3.5058
    (0.001254) (0.000716) (0.037106) (0.021241) (0.113943) (-) (0.277959) (0.277959)
    iGARCH(1, 1) 0.001663 0.000059 0.106635 0.893365 - - - 2.990437 -3.5397 -3.5175
    (0.001068) (0.000030) (0.020543) (-) (-) (-) (-) (0.213747)
    eGARCH(1, 1)) 0.001303 -0.112149 0.015673 0.980604 - 0.278848 - 2.721974 -3.5427 -3.5095
    (0.000289) (0.041624) (0.030645) (0.007757) (-) (0.067328) (-) (0.305861)
    apARCH(1, 1)) 0.001340 0.000588 0.163180 0.890757 - 0.071496 1.213898 2.694736 -3.5371 -3.4983
    (0.001107) (0.001094) (0.045643) (0.017330) (-) (0.130387) (0.590110) (0.311436)
    gjrGARCH(1, 1)) 0.001676 0.000059 0.108898 0.893594 - 0.006984 - 3.005712 -3.5350 -3.5018
    (0.001084) (0.000034) (0.034112) (0.021714) (-) (0.038282) (-) (0.293892)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    With the lowest AIC and BIC values of 3.5353 and 3.5132 respectively, iGARCH(1, 1)-GED is the optimal model among all the GARCH(1, 1)-GED models (See Table 5).

    Table 5.  Estimation results of GARCH family models for Bitcoin futures return with generalized error distribution assumption.
    Model Estimated Parameters
    μ ω α1 β1 η11 γ1 δ shape AIC BIC
    sGARCH(1, 1) 0.000681 0.000076 0.086968 0.884133 - - - 0.900692 -3.5359 -3.5082
    (0.000154) (0.000034) (0.023399) (0.027653) (-) (-) (-) (0.053196)
    TGARCH(1, 1) 0.000000 0.002391 0.128371 0.862617 0.015097 - - 0.876118 -3.5318 -3.4986
    (0.000048) (0.000939) (0.028177) (0.031352) (0.129982) (-) (-) (0.052555)
    iGARCH(1, 1) 0.000000 0.000053 0.111739 0.888261 - - - 0.848831 -3.5353 -3.5132
    (0.000044) (0.000024) (0.026253) (-) (-) (-) (-) (0.047908)
    eGARCH(1, 1)) 0.00000 -0.29120 0.00426 0.95283 - 0.22056 - 0.87908 -3.5349 -3.5017
    (0.000049) (0.101340) (0.026079) (0.016309) (-) (0.043414) (-) (0.052749)
    apARCH(1, 1)) 0.000493 0.000187 0.100026 0.879429 - 0.022567 1.737045 0.898400 -3.5315 -3.4927
    (0.000203) (0.000240) (0.030610) (0.028709) (-) (0.104785) (0.391820) (0.053134)
    gjrGARCH(1, 1)) 0.000000 0.000079 0.082188 0.882615 - 0.011581 - 0.891387 -3.5339 -3.5007
    (0.000053) (0.000035) (0.028770) (0.028068) (-) (0.034613) (-) (0.053999)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The best performing model among the different GARCH-NIG models is iGARCH-NIG. This is evident from its lowest AIC and BIC values of 3.5416 and 3.5139 respectively.

    The best GARCH model from Table 4(iGARCH(1, 1)-STD), Table 5(iGARCH(1, 1)-GED) and Table 6(iGARCH(1, 1)- NIG) are fitted to daily Bitcoin futures from 11/03/2020 to 14/06/2021. This is necessary to help select the optimal model that can effectively model the volatility and capture the residuals of Bitcoin futures return during financial crisis. From Table 7, iGARCH(1, 1)-STD is selected as the optimal model since it has the lowest AIC and BIC values. The propensity of the student-t distribution to capture the residual series of Bitcoin futures return are in congruence to the results obtained by Wilhelmsson (2006). Wilhelmsson (2006) concluded in their studies that using leptokurtic error distribution to capture the residuals in Standard and Poor's 500 index futures return is appropriate in variance forecast as compared to normal distribution.

    Table 6.  Estimation results of GARCH family models for Bitcoin futures return with normal inverse gaussion distributional assumption.
    Model Estimated Parameters
    μ ω α1 β1 η11 γ1 δ skew shape AIC BIC
    sGARCH(1, 1) 0.001215 0.000059 0.096789 0.890399 - - - 0.027705 0.422959 -3.5398 -3.5066
    (0.001427) (0.000028) (0.024861) (0.023035) (-) (-) (-) (0.074202) (0.088495)
    TGARCH(1, 1) 0.001220 0.000058 0.099548 0.890794 - 0.005154 - 0.028101 0.422188 -3.5375 -3.4988
    (0.001634) (0.000033) (0.038197) (0.018084) (-) (0.044743) (-) (0.080220) (0.104442)
    iGARCH(1, 1) 0.001169 0.000049 0.107657 0.892343 - - - 0.028807 0.390402 -3.5416 -3.5139
    (0.001457) (0.000022) (.022101) (-) (-) (-) (-) (0.077171) (0.069449)
    eGARCH(1, 1) 0.000542 -0.191458 0.009095 0.968640 - 0.232120 - 0.055214 0.397532 -3.5416 -3.5028
    (0.001412) (0.073537) (0.025764) (0.011902) (-) (0.042221) (-) (0.075690) (0.082720)
    apARCH(1, 1) 0.000653 0.000668 0.129881 0.884082 - 0.050379 1.252465 0.051396 0.398624 -3.5373 -3.4930
    (0.001459) (0.001080) (0.030803) (0.025187) (-) (0.116375) (0.450200) (0.077003) (0.084866)
    gjrGARCH(1, 1) 0.001220 0.000058 0.099548 0.890794 - 0.005154 - 0.028101 0.422188 -3.5375 -3.4988
    (0.001427) (0.000029) (0.032236) (0.023174) (-) (0.037028) (-) (0.074273) (0.088494)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 7.  iGARCH(1, 1) model with different error distribution for a subsample from 11/03/2020 to 14/06/2021.
    Model Estimated Parameters
    μ ω α1 β1 skew shape AIC BIC
    iGARCH(1, 1)-STD 0.005470 0.000043 0.111565 0.888435 - 4.027443 -3.4869 -3.4392
    (0.001965) (0.000031) (0.032094) (-) (-) (0.779175)
    iGARCH(1, 1)-GED 0.004706 0.000033 0.104315 0.895685 - 1.118081 -3.4652 -3.4176
    (0.002971) (0.000023) (0.034135) (-) (-) (0.107730)
    iGARCH(1, 1)-NIG 0.004391 0.000040 0.109908 0.890092 0.112198 0.881824 -3.4769 -3.4173
    (0.002338) (0.000027) (0.032952) (-) (0.120317) (0.303135)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The in-sample comparison tells us how well a model fits the entire data set.

    The best GARCH models from Tables 4-6 are used for in-sample and out-of-sample forecast in order to check their forecasting ability. The model with the lowest mean square error and mean absolute error is selected as the optimal model among the three models. The in-sample forecast is performed for the period between 02/01/2018 to 11/03/2020 (before financial crisis period) and an out-of-sample forecast is performed from the period between 11/03/2020 to 14/06/2021 (during financial crisis period).

    Figure 3 shows the in-sample volatility of iGARCH-STD, iGARCH-GED, and iGARCH-NIG. The evaluation metrics (MAE of 0.016894 and MSE of 0.126090) values from Table 8 show that iGARCH-NIG model has a good forecasting ability pre-Covid period.

    Figure 3.  In-Sample volatility of iGARCH-STD, iGARCH-GED, and iGARCH-NIG.
    Table 8.  In-Sample evaluation of iGARCH(1, 1)-STD, iGARCH(1, 1)-GED, and iGARCH(1, 1)-NIG.
    iGARCH(1, 1)-STD iGARCH(1, 1)-GED iGARCH(1, 1)-NIG
    MSE 0.019705 0.017984 0.016894
    MAE 0.135840 0.129950 0.126090

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Out-of sample forecast are performed to verify the performance of three models during financial crisis period. For the purpose of the test, sample period from 11/03/2020 to 14/06/2021 (consisting of 314 data points) were considered for out-of sample forecast. From Table 9, iGARCH(1, 1)-NIG has the lowest mean square error and mean absolute error values of 0.002075 and 0.032820. Based on Tables 8 and 9, iGARCH(1, 1)-NIG is selected as the optimal model using forecasting ability as a measure of performance.

    Table 9.  Out-of-Sample Evaluation of iGARCH(1, 1)-STD, iGARCH(1, 1)-GED, and iGARCH(1, 1)-NIG.
    iGARCH(1, 1)-STD iGARCH(1, 1)-GED iGARCH(1, 1)-NIG
    MSE 0.002078 0.002088 0.002075
    MAE 0.032870 0.033000 0.032820

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    {Clearly, the NIG distribution is able to capture the distributional properties of the Bitcoin futures return.}

    From Tables A4, there is a positive correlation between volatility and return of Bitcoin futures since the estimate for β1 is greater than zero for all eGARCH(1, 1) model with different error distributions. The presence of asymmetric response in the return series of Bitcoin futures is established given the non-zero asymmetric and leverage parameter values in all the gjrGARCH(1, 1) and eGARCH(1, 1) models. The positive and significant leverage effect parameter values of all the eGARCH models (eGARCH(1, 1)-STD = 0.278848, eGARCH(1, 1)-GED = 0.220560, eGARCH(1, 1)-NIG = 0.232120) demonstrate that positive shocks (good news) increase volatility more than negative shocks (bad news) of the same sign. The negative and significant{\footnote{significant at 1% and 5%}} leverage effect values in the gjrGARCH models (with the exception of gjrGARCH(1, 1)-GED) demonstrate that positive shocks (market advances) lead to increased volatility to a greater extend than negative shocks (market retreats) of the same magnitude. These results are consistent to the results of Kuhe (2018) who noted that the presence of leverage impacts and shocks persistence for different distributional assumptions in the Nigerial stock market. From Tables A1 and A6, the sum of parameters α1 and β1 for sGARCH and gjrGARCH is less than 1 for the three distributions. Nevertheless, α1<β1 in both GARCH models for the three different distributions. This signifies that negative shocks do not have a larger effect on conditional volatility than positive shocks of the same magnitude. These results is consistent to the findings of Thalassinos et al. (2015) who concluded in their studdies that volatility of returns on Czech Stock Market can be described by signinificant asymmetric and persistence impacts. Further, in most of the GARCH models, the estimate of γ1 is negative giving proof of an inverted reaction of the volatility. In general, GARCH models with conditionally t-distributed errors performed well as compared to GARCH models with generalized error distribution and normal inverse Gaussian. This is demonstrated from the low AIC and BIC values recorded for all GARCH-STD models. Generally, iGARCH models are the best performing GARCH model for modelling the volatility of Bitcoin futures return for the selected period (02/01, 2018 to 14/06/2021).

    Similarly to the results obtained by Gyamerah (2019), the Normal Inverse Gaussian (NIG) error distribution captured adequately the leptokurtic and skewness in the bitcoin futures returns data. This indicates the efficiency of the NIG distribution.

    In this paper, we investigate the relative performance of different GARCH family models (sGARCH, tGARCH, iGARCH, eGARCH, apARCH, and gjrGARCH) and different error distributions (student-t distribution (STD), generalized error distribution (GED), and normal inverse Gaussian (NIG)) in modeling and forecasting volatility of Bitcoin futures returns using two different time periods. The first period is from January 2, 2018 to June 14, 2021; the second period extends from March 11, 2020 to June 14, 2021. From the results, iGARCH(1, 1)-STD is selected as the best performing model among the 18 constructed models for the first period since it has the lowest AIC (3.5397) and BIC (3.5175) values. Using the three best models selected from the first period, iGARCH(1, 1)-STD is selected as the optimal model for the second period. These indicate the superiority of iGARCH(1, 1)-STD to model the volatility and error distribution of Bitcoin futures {returns. Our results indicate the effects of past squared shocks on the squared returns of Bitcoin futures and the ability of iGARCH(1, 1)-STD to model such innovations. }

    Using the best 3 models (iGARCH(1, 1)-STD, iGARCH(1, 1)-GED, and iGARCH(1, 1)-NIG) among the 18 constructed models from the first period, we investigated the in-sample and out-of-sample predictive abilities. Based on two evaluation metrics (mean absolute error and mean square error), iGARCH(1, 1)-NIG is selected as the best performing model in-sample forecast for the period from January 02, 2018 to June 14, 2021. The model also performed well, with the lowest MSE and MAE values for out-of-sample forecast from 11 March, 2020 to 14 June, 2021 (during the COVID period). These results imply that the iGARCH-NIG model can be more advantageous to the other two models when carrying out risk management strategies for Bitcoin futures returns.

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Data for this work is available from the corresponding author upon request.



    [1] W. O. Kermack, A. G. McKendrick, A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics, P. Roy. Soc. A Math. Phy., 115(1927), 700-721. https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1927.0118.
    [2] F. Brauer, Epidemic models with treatment and heterogeneous mixing, B. Math. Biol., 70(2008), 1869-1885. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11538-008-9326-1.
    [3] F. Brauer, Age of infection models and the final size relation, Math. Biosci. Eng., 5(2008), 681-690. https://dx.doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2008.5.681.
    [4] R. Lande, S. H. Orzack, Extinction dynamics of age-structured populations in fluctuating environment, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 85(1988), 7418-7421. https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.85.19.7418.
    [5] C. Liu, X. X. Zhan, Z. K. Zhang, G. Q. Sun, P. M. Hui, How events determine spreading patterns: Information transmission via internal and external influences on social networks, New J. Phys., 17(2015), 113045. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/17/11/113045.
    [6] Z. K. Zhang, C. Liu, X. X. Zhan, X. Li, C. X. Zhang, Y. C. Zhang, Dynamics of information diffusion and its applications on complex networks, Phys. Rep., 651(2016), 1-34. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2016.07.002.
    [7] X. X. Zhan, C. Liu, G. Zhou, Z. K. Zhang, G. Q. Sun, J. J. H. Zhu, et al., Coupling dynamics of epidemic spreading and information diffusion on complex networks, Appl. Math. Comput., 332(2018), 437-448. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2018.03.050.
    [8] M. T. Li, G. Q. Sun, J. Zhang, Y. Zhao, X. Pei, L. Li, et al., Analysis of COVID-19 transmission in Shanxi Province with discrete time imported cases, Math. Biosci. Eng., 17(2020), 3710-3720. https://dx.doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020208.
    [9] G. F. Webb, Population models structured by age, size, and spatial position, In: Structured Population Models in Biology and Epidemiology, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1936, Springer, Berlin (2008). https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78273-5_1.
    [10] M. Iannelli, F. A. Milner, The basic approach to age-structured population dynamics: Models, methods and numerics, Springer, New York (2017). https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1146-1.
    [11] B. Wacker, T. Kneib, J. Schlüter, Revisiting maximum log-likelihood parameter estimation for two-parameter weibull distributions: Theory and applications, Preprint (2020). https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15909.73444/1.
    [12] F. Brauer, Some simple epidemic models, Math. Biosci. Eng., 3(2006), 1-15. https://dx.doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2006.3.1.
    [13] E. Dong, H. Du, L. Gardner, An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time, Lancet Infect. Dis., (2020). https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30120-1.
    [14] D. G. Schaeffer, J. W. Cain, Ordinary differential equations: Basics and beyond, Springer, New York (2016). https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6389-8.
    [15] M. Reed, B. Simon, Functional analysis, Academic Press, San Diego (1980).
    [16] F. Brauer, C. Castillo-Chavez, Mathematical models in population biology and epidemiology, Springer, New York (2012). https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1686-9.
    [17] M. Martcheva, An introduction to mathematical epidemiology, Springer, New York (2015). https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7612-3.
    [18] R. Kress, Numerical analysis, Springer, New York (1998). https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0599-9.
    [19] M. Hanke-Bourgeois, Grundlagen der Numerischen Mathematik und des Wissenschaftlichen Rechnens (Basics of Numerical Mathematics and Scientific Computing), Vieweg, Wiesbaden (2009).
    [20] F. M. G. Magpantay, Vaccine impact in homogeneous and age-structured models, J. Math. Biol., 75(2017), 1591-1617. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00285-017-1126-5.
    [21] F. M. G. Magpantay, A. A. King, P. Rohani, Age-structure and transient dynamics in epidemiological systems, J. Roy. Soc. Interf., 16(2019), 20190151. https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2019.0151.
    [22] N. Kosovalić, F. M. G. Magpantay, Y. Chen, J. Wu, Abstract algebraic-delay differential systems and age structured population dynamics, J. Differ. Equat., 255 (2014), 593-609. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2013.04.025.
    [23] J. F. David, S. A. Iyaniwura, M. J. Ward, F. Brauer, A novel approach to modelling the spatial spread of Airborne diseases: An epidemic model with indirect transmission, Math. Biosci. Eng., 17(2020), 3294-3328. https://dx.doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020188.
    [24] F. A. Milner, R. Zhao, S-I-R Model with Directed Spatial Diffusion, Math. Popul. Stud., 15(2008), 160-181. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08898480802221889.
    [25] T. Kostova, An explicit third-order numerical method for size-structured population equations, newblock Numer. Meth. Part. D. E., 19(2003), 1-21. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/num.10037.
    [26] M. Iannelli, T. Kostova, F. A. Milner, A fourth-order method for numerical integration of ageand size-structured population models, Numer. Meth. Part. D. E., 25(2008), 918-930. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/num.20381.
    [27] G. Clermont, S. Zenker, The inverse problem in mathematical biology, Math. Biosci., 260(2015), 11-15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2014.09.001.
    [28] A. Akossi, G. Chowell-Puente, A. Smirnova, Numerical study of discretization algorithms for stable estimation of disease parameters and epidemic forecasting, Math. Biosci. Eng., 16(2019), 3674-3693. https://dx.doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2019182.
    [29] B. Wacker, J. Schlüter, Time-discrete parameter identification algorithms for two deterministic epidemiological models applied to the spread of COVID-19, Preprint (2020). https://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-28145/v1.
    [30] Y. Chen, J. Cheng, Y. Jiang, K. Lia, A time delay dynamical model for outbreak of 2019-nCov and the parameter identification, J. Inverse Ill-Pose. P., 28(2020), 243-250. https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jiip-2020-0010.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Meghna Jayasankar, 2024, Chapter 3, 978-981-97-6241-5, 41, 10.1007/978-981-97-6242-2_3
    2. Yi Xu, Jiajun Qi, Jilong Chen, Lingbing Feng, Kick down the ladder? The impact of cryptocurrency bans on company legal risks and employee structure, 2025, 15446123, 107186, 10.1016/j.frl.2025.107186
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5321) PDF downloads(152) Cited by(11)

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)  /  Tables(5)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog