Can Ensemble Machine Learning Methods Predict Stock Returns for Indian Banks Using Technical Indicators?
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 develops ensemble machine learning models (XGBoost, Gradient Boosting, and AdaBoost in addition to Random Forest) for predicting stock returns of Indian banks using technical indicators. These indicators are based on three broad categories of technical analysis: Price, Volume, and Turnover. Various error metrics like Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Squared Error (MSE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), Root-Mean-Squared-Error (RMSE) have been used to check the performance of the models. Results show that the XGBoost algorithm performs best among the four ensemble models. The mean of absolute error and the root-mean-square -error vary around 3–5%. The feature importance plots generated by the models depict the importance of the variables in predicting the output. The proposed machine learning models help traders, investors, as well as portfolio managers, better predict the stock market trends and, in turn, the returns, particularly in banking stocks minimizing their sole dependency on macroeconomic factors. The techniques further assist the market participants in pre-empting any price-volume action across stocks irrespective of their size, liquidity, or past turnover. Finally, the techniques are incredibly robust and display a strong capability in predicting trend forecasts, particularly with any large deviations.
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 | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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