Forecasting of NIFTY 50 Index Price by Using Backward Elimination with an LSTM Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting trends in the stock market is becoming complex and uncertain. In response, various artificial intelligence solutions have emerged. A significant solution for predicting the trends of a stock’s volatile and chaotic nature is drawn from deep learning. The present study’s objective is to compare and predict the closing price of the NIFTY 50 index through two significant deep learning methods—long short-term memory (LSTM) and backward elimination LSTM (BE-LSTM)—using 15 years’ worth of per day data obtained from Bloomberg. This study has considered the variables of date, high, open, low, close volume, as well as the 14-period relative strength index (RSI), to predict the closing price. The results of the comparative study show that backward elimination LSTM performs better than the LSTM model for predicting the NIFTY 50 index price for the next 30 days, with an accuracy of 95%. In conclusion, the proposed model has significantly improved the prediction of the NIFTY 50 index price.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".