How effective is machine learning in stock market predictions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, it is aimed to compare the performances of the algorithms by predicting the movement directions of stock market indexes in developed countries by employing machine learning algorithms (MLMs) and determining the best estimation algorithm. For this purpose, the movement directions of indexes such as the NYSE 100 (the USA), NIKKEI 225 (Japan), FTSE 100 (the UK), CAC 40 (France), DAX 30 (Germany), FTSE MIB (Italy), and TSX (Canada) were estimated by employing the decision tree, random forest k-nearest neighbor, naive Bayes, logistic regression, support vector machines and artificial neural network algorithms. According to the results obtained, artificial neural networks were found to be the best algorithm for NYSE 100, FTSE 100, DAX 30 and FTSE MIB indices, while logistic regression was determined to be the best algorithm for the NIKKEI 225, CAC 40, and TSX indices. The artificial neural networks, which exhibited the highest average prediction performance, have been determined as the best prediction algorithm for the stock market indices of developed countries. It was also noted that artificial neural networks, logistic regression, and support vector machines algorithms were capable of predicting the directional movements of all indices with an accuracy rate of over 70 %.
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 | 0.016 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".