Stock Portfolio Management by Using Fuzzy Ensemble Deep Reinforcement Learning Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research objective of this article is to train a computer (agent) with market information data so it can learn trading strategies and beat the market index in stock trading without having to make any prediction on market moves. The approach assumes no trading knowledge, so the agent will only learn from conducting trading with historical data. In this work, we address this task by considering Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms for stock portfolio management. We first generate a three-dimension fuzzy vector to describe the current trend for each stock. Then the fuzzy terms, along with other stock market features, such as prices, volumes, and technical indicators, were used as the input for five algorithms, including Advantage Actor-Critic, Trust Region Policy Optimization, Proximal Policy Optimization, Actor-Critic Using Kronecker Factored Trust Region, and Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient. An average ensemble method was applied to obtain trading actions. We set SP100 component stocks as the portfolio pool and used 11 years of daily data to train the model and simulate the trading. Our method demonstrated better performance than the two benchmark methods and each individual algorithm without fuzzy extension. In practice, real market traders could use the trained model to make inferences and conduct trading, then retrain the model once in a while since training such models is time0consuming but making inferences is nearly simultaneous.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".