Prediction of International Stock Markets Based on Hybrid Intelligent Systems
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 compares the accuracy of three hybrid intelligent systems in forecasting ten international stock market indices; namely the CAC40, DAX, FTSE, Hang Seng, KOSPI, NASDAQ, NIKKEI, S&P500, Taiwan stock market price index, and the Canadian TSE. In particular, genetic algorithms (GA) are used to optimize the topology and parameters of the adaptive time delay neural networks (ATNN) and the time delay neural networks (TDNN). The third intelligent system is the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) that basically integrates fuzzy logic into the artificial neural network (ANN) to better model information and explain decision making process. Based on out-of-sample simulation results, it was found that contrary to the literature GA-TDNN significantly outperforms GA-ATDNN. In addition, ANFIS was found to be more effective in forecasting CAC40, FTSE, Hang Seng, NIKKEI, Taiwan, and TSE price level. In contrary, GA-TDNN and GA-ATDNN were found to be superior to ANFIS in predicting DAX, KOSPI, and NASDAQ future prices.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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