Do Large Datasets or Hybrid Integrated Models Outperform Simple Ones in Predicting Commodity Prices and Foreign Exchange Rates?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the continuous advancement of machine learning and the increasing availability of internet-based information, there is a belief that these approaches and datasets enhance the accuracy of price prediction. However, this study aims to investigate the validity of this claim. The study examines the effectiveness of a large dataset and sophisticated methodologies in forecasting foreign exchange rates (FX) and commodity prices. Specifically, we employ sentiment analysis to construct a robust sentiment index and explore whether combining sentiment analysis with machine learning surpasses the performance of a large dataset when predicting FX and commodity prices. Additionally, we apply machine learning methodologies such as random forest (RF), eXtreme gradient boosting (XGB), and long short-term memory (LSTM), alongside the classical statistical model autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA), to forecast these prices and compare the models’ performance. Based on the results, we propose novel methodologies that integrate wavelet transformation with classical ARIMA and machine learning techniques (seasonal-decomposition-ARIMA-LSTM, wavelet-ARIMA-LSTM, wavelet-ARIMA-RF, wavelet-ARIMA-XGB). We apply this analysis procedure to the commodity gold futures prices and the euro foreign exchange rates against the US dollar.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".