Stock Portfolio Management by Using Fuzzy Ensemble Deep Reinforcement Learning Algorithm
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 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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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