Decision Support System for Stock Portfolio Selection Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
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
Investing in stock market requires in-depth knowledge of finance and stock market dynamics. Stock Portfolio Selection and management involve complex financial analysis and decision making policies. An Individual investor seeking to invest in stock portfolio is need of a support system which can guide him to create a portfolio of stocks based on sound financial analysis. In this paper the authors designed a Financial Decision Support System (DSS) for creating and managing a portfolio of stock which is based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine learning (ML) and combining the traditional approach of mathematical models. We believe this a unique approach to perform stock portfolio, the results of this study are quite encouraging as the stock portfolios created by the DSS are based on strong financial health indices which in turn are giving Return on Investment (ROI) in the range of more than 11% in the short term and more than 61% in the long term, therefore beating the market index by a factor of 15%. This system has the potential to help millions of Individual Investors who can make their financial decisions on stocks and may eventually contribute to a more efficient financial system.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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