MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1524579037

Comparison of Adaptive Neuro-fuzzy and Particle Swarm Optimization based Neural Network Models for Financial Time Series Prediction

2009· article· en· W1524579037 on OpenAlexaff
Giriah K. Jha, Ruppa K. Thulasiram, Parimala Thulasiram

Bibliographic record

VenueASAC · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemParticle swarm optimizationComputer scienceTime seriesNeuro-fuzzyArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSeries (stratigraphy)Data miningFuzzy logicFuzzy control system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial neural networks (ANNs) can be a potential tool for non-linear processes that have unknown relationship and as a result are difficult to fit (Darbellay & Slama 2000). ANNs are non-linear, data-driven and self adaptive approaches as opposed to the above model-based non-linear methods. One of the major application areas of ANNs is forecasting (Zhang, Patuwo, & Hu, 1998). ANN can identify and learn correlated patterns between input data sets and corresponding target values. This technique is In this paper, an attempt has been made to assess the forecasting ability of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) with the traditional feed forward neural network using financial time series data. Also, efforts have been made to examine the performance of particle swarm optimization algorithm for training neural networks. This algorithm is shown to perform well in the current study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASACSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207