Stock Price Prediction Using CNN-BiLSTM-Attention Model
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
Accurate stock price prediction has an important role in stock investment. Because stock price data are characterized by high frequency, nonlinearity, and long memory, predicting stock prices precisely is challenging. Various forecasting methods have been proposed, from classical time series methods to machine-learning-based methods, such as random forest (RF), recurrent neural network (RNN), convolutional neural network (CNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural networks and their variants, etc. Each method can reach a certain level of accuracy but also has its limitations. In this paper, a CNN-BiLSTM-Attention-based model is proposed to boost the accuracy of predicting stock prices and indices. First, the temporal features of sequence data are extracted using a convolutional neural network (CNN) and bi-directional long and short-term memory (BiLSTM) network. Then, an attention mechanism is introduced to fit weight assignments to the information features automatically; and finally, the final prediction results are output through the dense layer. The proposed method was first used to predict the price of the Chinese stock index—the CSI300 index and was found to be more accurate than any of the other three methods—LSTM, CNN-LSTM, CNN-LSTM-Attention. In order to investigate whether the proposed model is robustly effective in predicting stock indices, three other stock indices in China and eight international stock indices were selected to test, and the robust effectiveness of the CNN-BiLSTM-Attention model in predicting stock prices was confirmed. Comparing this method with the LSTM, CNN-LSTM, and CNN-LSTM-Attention models, it is found that the accuracy of stock price prediction is highest using the CNN-BiLSTM-Attention model in almost all cases.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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