MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293103696 · doi:10.3390/fi14090252

Forecasting the Risk Factor of Frontier Markets: A Novel Stacking Ensemble of Neural Network Approach

2022· article· en· W4293103696 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Internet · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningArtificial neural networkEnsemble learningAdaBoostBoosting (machine learning)Deep learningVolatility (finance)Ensemble forecastingConvolutional neural networkRandom forestStock marketGradient boostingEconometricsSupport vector machineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forecasting the risk factor of the financial frontier markets has always been a very challenging task. Unlike an emerging market, a frontier market has a missing parameter named “volatility”, which indicates the market’s risk and as a result of the absence of this missing parameter and the lack of proper prediction, it has almost become difficult for direct customers to invest money in frontier markets. However, the noises, seasonality, random spikes and trends of the time-series datasets make it even more complicated to predict stock prices with high accuracy. In this work, we have developed a novel stacking ensemble of the neural network model that performs best on multiple data patterns. We have compared our model’s performance with the performance results obtained by using some traditional machine learning ensemble models such as Random Forest, AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting Machine and Stacking Ensemble, along with some traditional deep learning models such as Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Bidirectional Long Short-Term (BiLSTM). We have calculated the missing parameter named “volatility” using stock price (Close price) for 20 different companies of the frontier market and then made predictions using the aforementioned machine learning ensemble models, deep learning models and our proposed stacking ensemble of the neural network model. The statistical evaluation metrics RMSE and MAE have been used to evaluate the performance of the models. It has been found that our proposed stacking ensemble neural network model outperforms all other traditional machine learning and deep learning models which have been used for comparison in this paper. The lowest RMSE and MAE values we have received using our proposed model are 0.3626 and 0.3682 percent, respectively, and the highest RMSE and MAE values are 2.5696 and 2.444 percent, respectively. The traditional ensemble learning models give the highest RMSE and MAE error rate of 20.4852 and 20.4260 percent, while the deep learning models give 15.2332 and 15.1668 percent, respectively, which clearly states that our proposed model provides a very low error value compared with the traditional models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.228 · 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