Modeling Nigerian Crude Oil Prices: Comparative Evaluation of Linear, Volatility, and Deep Learning Approaches


Authors : Onyenze Kevin Ikeokwu; Godson Chioma Abugwu; Emmanuel Chigozie Umeh; Nwachukwu Adaku Chinyere

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 11 - November


Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4nt6p39k

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/yrr73hmv

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25nov078

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.


Abstract : The study focuses on determining the prediction performance of autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA), generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) and long short-term memory (LSTM) models of Nigerian crude oil prices. The comparisons among traditional linear models, volatility-based models, and deep learning approaches were done using monthly data from January 1946 to June 2025. Based on the outcomes, the ARIMA (1,1,0) model produces a fairly good linear fit for the data. However, it has relatively high prediction errors, with an MSE equal to 590.87, RMSE equal to 24.31 and MAPE equal to 28.27%. The GARCH (1,1) models exhibit successful volatility clustering capturing, with the t-distribution variant outperforming the normal specification while still yielding higher prediction error than deep learning. The MSE for the LSTM model was 112.74 with a RMSE of 10.62 and a MAPE of 15.06% which closely followed the actual price movement. The LSTM model was the best model overall in predicting the Nigerian crude oil prices. This finding was evidence that markets characterised by volatility and nonlinear dynamics are best modeled using deep learning nonlinear approaches rather than the traditional econometric models.

Keywords : Crude Oil Price Prediction; ARIMA; GARCH; LSTM; Deep Learning; Nigeria.

References :

  1. Adeniyi, O., Oyinlola, A., & Omisakin, O. (2011). Oil price shocks and economic growth in Nigeria: Are thresholds important? OPEC Energy Review, 35(4), 308–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-0237.2011.00192.x
  2. Adhikari, R., & Agrawal, R. K. (2013). An introductory study on time series modeling and forecasting (CoRR arXiv:1302.6613). arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6613
  3. Ahmed, S., Hassan, S.-U., Aljohani, N. R., & Nawaz, R. (2020). FLF-LSTM: A novel prediction system using Forex Loss Function. Applied Soft Computing, 97, 106780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106780
  4. Alquist, R., & Kilian, L. (2010). What do we learn from the price of crude oil futures? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 25(4), 539–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.1159
  5. Baumeister, C., & Kilian, L. (2016). Forty years of oil price fluctuations: Why the price of oil may still surprise us. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(1), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.1.139
  6. Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(86)90063-1
  7. Box, G. E. P., & Jenkins, G. M. (1976). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control. Holden-Day.
  8. Central Bank of Nigeria. (2025). Crude oil price (Bonny Light) — US$/Barrel (Daily). Retrieved [insert access date], from https://www.cbn.gov.ng/rates/crudeoil.html
  9. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531
  10. Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987–1008. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912773
  11. Ewing, B. T., & Malik, F. (2013). Volatility transmission between gold and oil futures under structural breaks. International Review of Economics & Finance, 25, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2012.06.008
  12. Fattouh, B. (2010). The dynamics of crude oil price differentials. Energy Economics, 32(2), 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.09.016
  13. Fischer, T., & Krauss, C. (2018). Deep learning with long short-term memory networks for financial market predictions. European Journal of Operational Research, 270(2), 654–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.11.054
  14. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press. https://www.deeplearningbook.org
  15. Hamilton, J. D. (2009). Causes and consequences of the oil shock of 2007–08. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2009(1), 215–283. https://www.nber.org/papers/w15002
  16. Haykin, S. (2008). Neural networks and learning machines (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
  17. Hewamalage, H., Bergmeir, C., & Bandara, K. (2021). Recurrent neural networks for time series forecasting: Current status and future directions. International Journal of Forecasting, 37(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2020.05.011
  18. Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8), 1735–1780. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735
  19. Kilian, L., & Zhou, X. (2020). Oil prices, gasoline prices and inflation expectations: A new model and new facts (CFS Working Paper No. 645). Center for Financial Studies. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3731014
  20. Li, R., Zhang, Z., Wang, T., & Liu, H. (2021). A novel multiscale forecasting model for crude oil price. Energy Reports, 7, 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.08.054
  21. Narayan, P. K., & Narayan, S. (2007). Modelling oil price volatility. Energy Policy, 35(12), 6549–6553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.06.018
  22. Nwaigwe, C. C., Bartholomew, D. C., Umeh, E. C., Nwafor, G. O., Adamu, I., & Oguguo, S. C. (2023). Modeling of the Microsoft stock prices using machine learning and classical models: Identification of optimal model for application. International Journal of Formal Sciences: Current and Future Research Trends, 3(6), 34–52.* https://ijfscfrtjournal.isrra.org/index.php/Formal_Sciences_Journal/article/view/905/120
  23. Prabhakaran, S. (2021). ARIMA model — Complete guide to time series forecasting in Python. Machine Learning Plus. https://www.machinelearningplus.com/time-series/arima-model-time-series-forecasting-python/
  24. Salisu, A. A., & Fasanya, I. O. (2013). Modelling oil price volatility with structural breaks. Energy Policy, 52, 554–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.003
  25. Wang, J., Athanasopoulos, G., Hyndman, R. J., & Wang, S. (2018). Crude oil price forecasting based on internet concern using an extreme learning machine. International Journal of Forecasting, 34(4), 665–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2018.03.009
  26. Yu, L., Wang, Z., & Tang, L. (2015). A decomposition–ensemble model with data-characteristic-driven reconstruction for crude oil price forecasting. Applied Energy, 156, 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.025
  27. Zhang, Y., Ma, F., & Wang, Y. (2019). Forecasting crude oil prices with a large set of predictors: Can LASSO select powerful predictors? Journal of Empirical Finance, 54, 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2019.08.007

The study focuses on determining the prediction performance of autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA), generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) and long short-term memory (LSTM) models of Nigerian crude oil prices. The comparisons among traditional linear models, volatility-based models, and deep learning approaches were done using monthly data from January 1946 to June 2025. Based on the outcomes, the ARIMA (1,1,0) model produces a fairly good linear fit for the data. However, it has relatively high prediction errors, with an MSE equal to 590.87, RMSE equal to 24.31 and MAPE equal to 28.27%. The GARCH (1,1) models exhibit successful volatility clustering capturing, with the t-distribution variant outperforming the normal specification while still yielding higher prediction error than deep learning. The MSE for the LSTM model was 112.74 with a RMSE of 10.62 and a MAPE of 15.06% which closely followed the actual price movement. The LSTM model was the best model overall in predicting the Nigerian crude oil prices. This finding was evidence that markets characterised by volatility and nonlinear dynamics are best modeled using deep learning nonlinear approaches rather than the traditional econometric models.

Keywords : Crude Oil Price Prediction; ARIMA; GARCH; LSTM; Deep Learning; Nigeria.

CALL FOR PAPERS


Paper Submission Last Date
30 - November - 2025

Video Explanation for Published paper

Never miss an update from Papermashup

Get notified about the latest tutorials and downloads.

Subscribe by Email

Get alerts directly into your inbox after each post and stay updated.
Subscribe
OR

Subscribe by RSS

Add our RSS to your feedreader to get regular updates from us.
Subscribe