MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136707187 · doi:10.3390/axioms10010036

A Compensatory Fuzzy Logic Model in Technical Trading

2021· article· en· W3136707187 on OpenAlexaff
Norma P. Rodríguez-Cándido, Rafael Alejandro Espín Andrade, Efraín Solares, Witold Pedrycz

Bibliographic record

VenueAxioms · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityComputer scienceTechnical analysisFuzzy logicFinancial marketAsset (computer security)Stock marketSet (abstract data type)CryptocurrencyEconometricsArtificial intelligenceEconomicsFinanceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a novel approach to prediction of financial asset prices. Its main contribution is the combination of compensatory fuzzy logic and the classical technical analysis to build an efficient prediction model. The interpretability properties of the model allow its users to incorporate and consider virtually any set of rules from technical analysis, in addition to the investors’ knowledge related to the actual market conditions. This knowledge can be incorporated into the model in the form of subjective assessments made by investors. Such assessments can be obtained, for example, from the graphical analysis commonly performed by traders. The effectiveness of the model was assessed through its systematic application in the stock and cryptocurrency markets. From the results, we conclude that when the model shows a high degree of recommendation, the actual financial assets show high effectiveness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAxiomsSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207