Assessing the Predictive Power of Transformers, ARIMA, and LSTM in Forecasting Stock Prices of Moroccan Credit Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a data-driven approach to forecasting stock prices in the Moroccan Stock Exchange. Our study tests three predictive models: ARIMA, LSTM, and transformers, applied to the historical stock price data of three prominent credit companies (EQD, LES, and SLF) listed on the Casablanca Stock Exchange. We carefully selected and optimized hyperparameters for each model to achieve optimal performance. Our results showed that the LSTM model achieved high accuracy, with R-squared values exceeding 0.99 for EQD and LES and surpassing 0.95 for SLF. These findings highlighted the effectiveness of LSTM in stock price forecasting. Our study offers practical insights for traders and investors in the Moroccan Stock Exchange, demonstrating how predictive modeling can aid in making informed decisions. This research contributes to advancing stock market forecasting in Morocco, providing valuable tools for navigating the Casablanca Stock Exchange.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".