Short-Term Stock Price Forecasting using exogenous variables and Machine Learning Algorithms
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
Creating accurate predictions in the stock market has always been a significant challenge in finance. With the rise of machine learning as the next level in the forecasting area, this research paper compares four machine learning models and their accuracy in forecasting three well-known stocks traded in the NYSE in the short term from March 2020 to May 2022. We deploy, develop, and tune XGBoost, Random Forest, Multi-layer Perceptron, and Support Vector Regression models. We report the models that produce the highest accuracies from our evaluation metrics: RMSE, MAPE, MTT, and MPE. Using a training data set of 240 trading days, we find that XGBoost gives the highest accuracy despite running longer (up to 10 seconds). Results from this study may improve by further tuning the individual parameters or introducing more exogenous variables.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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