Literature Review: Machine Learning in Stock Predictions
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
Machine learning has revolutionized the field of stock prediction by offering a wide range of models capable of handling complex patterns and making accurate forecasts. Machine learning models vary widely in their application, uses, and effectiveness, and stocks vary as well in terms of volatility within the stock and also between stocks of different industries and at different market conditions. As such, the selection of the proper algorithmic tool to aid an investor is often difficult. This literature review paper provides an overview of ten popular machine learning models over two problem types (prediction and classification), namely Linear Regression, XGBoost, LSTM, ARIMA, GARCH, Random Forest, Logistic Regression, Adaboost, GRU, and CNN. By providing an exploration of these ten machine learning models, this literature review offers valuable insights into their underlying principles, applications and uses, results strengths, and limitations. This paper equally, by consequent, facilitates informed decision-making and encourages further research in the field of machine learning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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