Neural Network Models for Empirical Finance
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
This paper presents an overview of the procedures that are involved in prediction with machine learning models with special emphasis on deep learning. We study suitable objective functions for prediction in high-dimensional settings and discuss the role of regularization methods in order to alleviate the problem of overfitting. We also review other features of machine learning methods, such as the selection of hyperparameters, the role of the architecture of a deep neural network for model prediction, or the importance of using different optimization routines for model selection. The review also considers the issue of model uncertainty and presents state-of-the-art methods for constructing prediction intervals using ensemble methods, such as bootstrap and Monte Carlo dropout. These methods are illustrated in an out-of-sample empirical forecasting exercise that compares the performance of machine learning methods against conventional time series models for different financial indices. These results are confirmed in an asset allocation context.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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