A Comparative Study of LSTM and DNN for Stock Market Forecasting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prediction of stock markets is a challenging problem because of the number of potential variables as well as unpredictable noise that may contribute to the resultant prices. However, the ability to analyze stock market trends could be invaluable to investors and researchers, and thus has been of continued interest. Numerous statistical and machine learning techniques have been explored for stock analysis and prediction. We present a comparative study of two very promising artificial neural network models namely a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) recurrent neural network (RNN) and a deep neural network (DNN) in forecasting the daily and weekly movements of the Indian BSE Sensex index. With both networks, measures were taken to reduce overfitting. Daily predictions of the Tech Mahindra (NSE: TECHM) stock price were made to test the generalizability of the models. Both networks performed well at making daily predictions, and both generalized well to make daily predictions of the Tech Mahindra data. The LSTM RNN outperformed the DNN in terms of weekly predictions and thus, holds more promise for making longer term predictions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it