Pooling and winsorizing machine learning forecasts to predict stock returns with high-dimensional data
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
We evaluate US market return predictability using a novel data set of several hundred ag- gregated firm-level characteristics. We apply LASSO, Elastic Net, Random Forest, Neural Net, Extreme Gradient Boosting, and Light Gradient Boosting Machine methods and find these models experience large prediction errors that lead to forecast failures. However, winsorizing and pooling machine learning model forecasts provides consistent out-of-sample predictability. To assess robustness, we apply machine learning methods to high-dimensional data for Canada, China, Germany and the UK as well as the Goyal-Welch data. All machine learning models we consider, except for the ensemble pooled methods, fail to significantly predict returns across our samples, highlighting the importance of pooling, evaluating additional economies, and the fragility of individual machine learning methods. Our results sheds light on the sparsity versus density debate as the degree of sparsity and variable importance evolves over time.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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