Combining machine learning and effective feature selection for real-time stock trading in variable time-frames
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
The unpredictability and volatility of the stock market render it challenging to make a substantial profit using any generalised scheme. Many previous studies tried different techniques to build a machine learning model, which can make a significant profit in the US stock market by performing live trading. However, very few studies have focused on the importance of finding the best features for a particular period for trading. Our top approach used the performance to narrow down the features from a total of 148 to about 30. Furthermore, the top 25 features were dynamically selected before each time training our machine learning model. It uses ensemble learning with four classifiers: Gaussian naive Bayes, decision tree, logistic regression with L1 regularisation and stochastic gradient descent, to decide whether to go long or short on a particular stock. Our best model performed daily trade between July 2011 and January 2019, generating 54.35% profit. Finally, our work showcased that mixtures of weighted classifiers perform better than any individual predictor about making trading decisions in the stock market.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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