2026-07-15 | | Total: 2
Divergence measures are essential tools for detecting distributional shifts in model monitoring, particularly crucial given the volatility of financial data. While the Population Stability Index is the most widely used measure, Jensen-Shannon Divergence and Kullback-Leibler Divergence offer distinct advantages. Jensen-Shannon Divergence handles mixture models, addresses zero-binning problems, and is symmetric, while Kullback-Leibler Divergence excels in Bayesian model comparison. This study extends the work of Yurdakul and Naranjo (2020) with two primary contributions. First, we derive the statistical properties and chi-square benchmark values for Jensen-Shannon Divergence and Kullback-Leibler Divergence. Second, we demonstrate their applicability by detecting distributional changes in credit default probabilities from Merton, Merton with jump, and stochastic volatility with jump models. Our results establish that Jensen-Shannon Divergence and Kullback-Leibler Divergence follow chi-square distributions and reveal important practical trade-offs. Jensen-Shannon Divergence exhibits superior Type I error control, maintaining rejection rates closest to 5%, thereby minimizing false positives. However, this conservatism reduces statistical power at small samples (27% versus 32% for Population Stability Index and Kullback-Leibler Divergence at n = m = 200), requiring larger samples for reliable detection. This trade-off enables practitioners to select measures based on whether minimizing false alarms or maximizing detection sensitivity is the priority.
Large pretrained time-series models such as TimesFM are attractive for financial forecasting, but raw directional accuracy is a misleading scoreboard in equity markets. An early LoRA adapter in this project appeared to reach roughly 80% directional accuracy; we show this is not evidence of skill. Over a long horizon in a rising market, a trivial "always-up" rule attains comparably high accuracy without using the input at all. To separate genuine skill from this base-rate artifact, we build a reproducible, frozen-data benchmark with expanding walk-forward folds, a stratified held-out-ticker split, honest baselines (zero-shot TimesFM, always-up, random-walk, persistence, AR(1)), and paired significance tests (McNemar, Diebold-Mariano) under Benjamini-Hochberg FDR control. We apply the identical method to two universes -- a tech-heavy NASDAQ-100 and a broad S&P 500 -- reporting excess accuracy over the always-up base rate. Three findings replicate. First, when the historical ~80% condition is recreated, the high number is a base rate of ~0.70 that the fine-tuned model scores below. Second, pooled LoRA shows no directional skill over the base rate at any horizon on either universe (negative at the six-month horizon). Third, per-sector specialization is significantly worse than a single pooled adapter (Diebold-Mariano p<0.001 on held-out stocks at h=128). Fine-tuning's only measurable benefit is a statistically significant reduction in point-forecast error relative to zero-shot TimesFM, which nonetheless does not beat naive baselines and confers no tradeable directional edge. The contribution is methodological: a defensible, fully seeded protocol that prevents the base-rate trap, together with the replicated negative result it produces.