The comparison stateless and stateful LSTM architectures for short-term stock price forecasting
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
Deep learning techniques are making significant contributions to the rapid advancements in forecasting. A standout algorithm known for its ability to produce accurate forecasts by recognizing temporal autocorrelation within the data is the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) algorithm, a component of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN). The LSTM method employs both stateless and stateful architecture approaches, providing versatility in its application. This research aims to compare stateful and stateless algorithms in LSTM models, focusing on forecasting stock prices, such as those of Apple Inc. This comparative analysis is crucial, taking into account various characteristics of time series data, including the benefits and drawbacks of temporal autocorrelation. The comparison results reveal that, despite the stateful algorithm requiring more computational time, it achieves greater accuracy than the stateless approach. The forecast indicates a potential upward trend in share prices for the period of January to December 2024, according to the projected outlook for Apple's stock value. However, it is essential to exercise prudence in interpreting these results, considering that share price fluctuations are influenced by a significant number of 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 | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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