Deep Learning for U.S. Bond Yield Forecasting: An Enhanced LSTM–LagLasso Framework
Article Information
Abstract
This paper advances a decision-aligned post-processing layer for government bond yield forecasts, turning competent sequence predictions into curve-consistent and economically calibrated outputs with minimal engineering burden. Starting from capacity-fair baselines in the LSTM, GRU and compact transformer families, used only to generate initial point forecasts for five, ten and thirty year maturities at short horizons, we add two model-agnostic stages. A curve consistency projection enforces monotone ordering across maturities and, when warranted, mild convexity while preserving local signal. An asymmetric economic calibration then learns a monotone mapping that down-weights the costlier side of error in basis points and in price space via duration and convexity. Rather than a perfectly linear workflow, we report practical adjustments such as solver choices for the projection and calibration folds for stability. Evaluation considers violation rates, smoothness and decision-weighted loss, and probes weakly coupled transfer from ten year forecasts to five and thirty year using rolling linear links without retraining. Results indicate lower violation rates and reduced economic loss to some extent across horizons, though gains can depend on regimes and may partly reflect calibration rather than new information. Alternative explanations including liquidity frictions or structural breaks remain plausible, and further research is needed on denser tenor grids, portfolio utilities and additional markets.
Graphical Abstract
Keywords
Data Availability Statement
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
AI Use Statement
Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate
References
- Diebold, F. X., & Li, C. (2006). Forecasting the term structure of government bond yields. Journal of econometrics, 130(2), 337-364.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Bianchi, D., Büchner, M., & Tamoni, A. (2021). Bond risk premiums with machine learning. The Review of Financial Studies, 34(2), 1046-1089.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Li, S., Jin, X., Xuan, Y., Zhou, X., Chen, W., Wang, Y. X., & Yan, X. (2019). Enhancing the locality and breaking the memory bottleneck of transformer on time series forecasting. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.
[Google Scholar] - Meyer, M. C. (2013). A simple new algorithm for quadratic programming with applications in statistics. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 42(5), 1126-1139.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Nunes, M., Gerding, E., McGroarty, F., Niranjan, M., & Sermpinis, G. (2024). Deep Learning for Bond Yield Forecasting: The LSTM‐LagLasso. International Journal of Finance & Economics.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Athanasopoulos, G., Hyndman, R. J., Kourentzes, N., & Panagiotelis, A. (2024). Forecast reconciliation: A review. International Journal of Forecasting, 40(2), 430-456.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Granger, C. W. (1969). Prediction with a generalized cost of error function. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 20(2), 199-207.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Gu, S., Kelly, B., & Xiu, D. (2020). Empirical asset pricing via machine learning. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(5), 2223-2273.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Christensen, J. H., Diebold, F. X., & Rudebusch, G. D. (2011). The affine arbitrage-free class of Nelson–Siegel term structure models. Journal of Econometrics, 164(1), 4-20.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Hansen, B. E. (2016). Efficient shrinkage in parametric models. Journal of Econometrics, 190(1), 115-132.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Navarro, M. M., & Orazi, P. (2025). A machine learning ensemble framework to forecast the yield curve. Evolving Practices in Public Investment Management, 157.
[Google Scholar] - Patton, A. J., & Timmermann, A. (2010). Monotonicity in asset returns: New tests with applications to the term structure, the CAPM, and portfolio sorts. Journal of Financial Economics, 98(3), 605-625.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Elliott, G., Timmermann, A., & Komunjer, I. (2005). Estimation and testing of forecast rationality under flexible loss. The Review of Economic Studies, 72(4), 1107-1125.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Hyndman, R. J., Ahmed, R. A., Athanasopoulos, G., & Shang, H. L. (2011). Optimal combination forecasts for hierarchical time series. Computational statistics & data analysis, 55(9), 2579-2589.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Zhang, Y. (2020). Application of machine learning algorithm and static model of interest rate curve in futures analysis. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 39(4), 4823-4834.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Ang, A., & Piazzesi, M. (2003). A no-arbitrage vector autoregression of term structure dynamics with macroeconomic and latent variables. Journal of Monetary economics, 50(4), 745-787.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Lee, T. H. (2008). Loss functions in time series forecasting. International encyclopedia of the social sciences, 9, 495-502.
[Google Scholar] - Xiao, J., Deng, T., & Bi, S. (2024, August). Comparative analysis of LSTM, GRU, and transformer models for stock price prediction. In proceedings of the international conference on digital economy, blockchain and artificial intelligence (pp. 103-108).
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Litterman, R. B., & Scheinkman, J. (1991). Common factors affecting bond returns. The journal of fixed income, 1(1), 54-61.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Gogas, P., Papadimitriou, T., Matthaiou, M., & Chrysanthidou, E. (2015). Yield curve and recession forecasting in a machine learning framework. Computational Economics, 45(4), 635-645.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Girolimetto, D., & Di Fonzo, T. (2024). Point and probabilistic forecast reconciliation for general linearly constrained multiple time series. Statistical Methods & Applications, 33(2), 581-607.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Nunes, M., Gerding, E., McGroarty, F., & Niranjan, M. (2020). Long short-term memory networks and laglasso for bond yield forecasting: Peeping inside the black box. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.02217.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cited By (2)
-
Wenqiang Lu, Shengjie Ye. <i><b>The Role of Generative AI in Economic Research: Enhancing Productivity and Cognitive Automation</b></i>.
Al lnnovations and Applications, 2026 , 2 (1).
[CrossRef] -
Asparuh I. Atanasov, Atanas Z. Atanasov. Yield Prediction of Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Varieties Using UAV-Derived Multispectral Vegetation Indices Across Growth Stages.
Agronomy, 2026 , 16 (9).
[CrossRef]
Cite This Article
TY - JOUR AU - Chen, Yinlei AU - Xu, Jingyuan PY - 2026 DA - 2026/01/12 TI - Deep Learning for U.S. Bond Yield Forecasting: An Enhanced LSTM–LagLasso Framework JO - ICCK Transactions on Emerging Topics in Artificial Intelligence T2 - ICCK Transactions on Emerging Topics in Artificial Intelligence JF - ICCK Transactions on Emerging Topics in Artificial Intelligence VL - 3 IS - 2 SP - 61 EP - 75 DO - 10.62762/TETAI.2025.197745 UR - https://www.icck.org/article/abs/TETAI.2025.197745 KW - curve consistency projection KW - asymmetric economic calibration (AEC) KW - weakly-coupled second-maturity KW - yield curve forecasting KW - decision-aligned post-processing KW - basis-point economic loss KW - capacity-fair baselines AB - This paper advances a decision-aligned post-processing layer for government bond yield forecasts, turning competent sequence predictions into curve-consistent and economically calibrated outputs with minimal engineering burden. Starting from capacity-fair baselines in the LSTM, GRU and compact transformer families, used only to generate initial point forecasts for five, ten and thirty year maturities at short horizons, we add two model-agnostic stages. A curve consistency projection enforces monotone ordering across maturities and, when warranted, mild convexity while preserving local signal. An asymmetric economic calibration then learns a monotone mapping that down-weights the costlier side of error in basis points and in price space via duration and convexity. Rather than a perfectly linear workflow, we report practical adjustments such as solver choices for the projection and calibration folds for stability. Evaluation considers violation rates, smoothness and decision-weighted loss, and probes weakly coupled transfer from ten year forecasts to five and thirty year using rolling linear links without retraining. Results indicate lower violation rates and reduced economic loss to some extent across horizons, though gains can depend on regimes and may partly reflect calibration rather than new information. Alternative explanations including liquidity frictions or structural breaks remain plausible, and further research is needed on denser tenor grids, portfolio utilities and additional markets. SN - 3068-6652 PB - Institute of Central Computation and Knowledge LA - English ER -
@article{Chen2026Deep,
author = {Yinlei Chen and Jingyuan Xu},
title = {Deep Learning for U.S. Bond Yield Forecasting: An Enhanced LSTM–LagLasso Framework},
journal = {ICCK Transactions on Emerging Topics in Artificial Intelligence},
year = {2026},
volume = {3},
number = {2},
pages = {61-75},
doi = {10.62762/TETAI.2025.197745},
url = {https://www.icck.org/article/abs/TETAI.2025.197745},
abstract = {This paper advances a decision-aligned post-processing layer for government bond yield forecasts, turning competent sequence predictions into curve-consistent and economically calibrated outputs with minimal engineering burden. Starting from capacity-fair baselines in the LSTM, GRU and compact transformer families, used only to generate initial point forecasts for five, ten and thirty year maturities at short horizons, we add two model-agnostic stages. A curve consistency projection enforces monotone ordering across maturities and, when warranted, mild convexity while preserving local signal. An asymmetric economic calibration then learns a monotone mapping that down-weights the costlier side of error in basis points and in price space via duration and convexity. Rather than a perfectly linear workflow, we report practical adjustments such as solver choices for the projection and calibration folds for stability. Evaluation considers violation rates, smoothness and decision-weighted loss, and probes weakly coupled transfer from ten year forecasts to five and thirty year using rolling linear links without retraining. Results indicate lower violation rates and reduced economic loss to some extent across horizons, though gains can depend on regimes and may partly reflect calibration rather than new information. Alternative explanations including liquidity frictions or structural breaks remain plausible, and further research is needed on denser tenor grids, portfolio utilities and additional markets.},
keywords = {curve consistency projection, asymmetric economic calibration (AEC), weakly-coupled second-maturity, yield curve forecasting, decision-aligned post-processing, basis-point economic loss, capacity-fair baselines},
issn = {3068-6652},
publisher = {Institute of Central Computation and Knowledge}
}
Publisher's Note
ICCK stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and Permissions
Copyright © 2026 by the Author(s). Published by Institute of Central Computation and Knowledge. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
Portico