Deep learning in the stock market—a systematic survey of practice, backtesting, and applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread usage of machine learning in different mainstream contexts has made deep learning the technique of choice in various domains, including finance. This systematic survey explores various scenarios employing deep learning in financial markets, especially the stock market. A key requirement for our methodology is its focus on research papers involving backtesting. That is, we consider whether the experimentation mode is sufficient for market practitioners to consider the work in a real-world use case. Works meeting this requirement are distributed across seven distinct specializations. Most studies focus on trade strategy, price prediction, and portfolio management, with a limited number considering market simulation, stock selection, hedging strategy, and risk management. We also recognize that domain-specific metrics such as "returns" and "volatility" appear most important for accurately representing model performance across specializations. Our study demonstrates that, although there have been some improvements in reproducibility, substantial work remains to be done regarding model explainability. Accordingly, we suggest several future directions, such as improving trust by creating reproducible, explainable, and accountable models and emphasizing prediction of longer-term horizons-potentially via the utilization of supplementary data-which continues to represent a significant unresolved challenge.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".