In-Season Price Forecasting in Cotton Futures Markets Using ARIMA, Neural Network, and LSTM Machine Learning Models
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
This study explores the efficacy of advanced machine learning models, including various Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) architectures and traditional time series approaches, for forecasting cotton futures prices. This analysis is motivated by the importance of accurate price forecasting to aid U.S. cotton producers in hedging and marketing decisions, particularly in the Texas Gulf region. The models evaluated included ARIMA, basic feedforward neural networks, basic LSTM, bidirectional LSTM, stacked LSTM, CNN LSTM, and 2D convolutional LSTM models. The forecasts were generated for five-, ten-, and fifteen-day periods using historical data spanning 2009 to 2023. The results demonstrated that advanced LSTM architectures outperformed other models across all forecast horizons, particularly during periods of significant price volatility, due to their enhanced ability to capture complex temporal and spatial dependencies. The findings suggest that incorporating advanced LSTM architectures can significantly improve forecasting accuracy, providing a robust tool for producers and market analysts to better navigate price risks. Future research could explore integrating additional contextual variables to enhance model performance further.
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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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