MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409257251 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18040201

Hybrid Machine Learning Models for Long-Term Stock Market Forecasting: Integrating Technical Indicators

2025· article· en· W4409257251 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francis Magloire Peujio Fozap

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad de Monterrey
KeywordsTerm (time)Stock marketComputer scienceTechnical analysisMachine learningArtificial intelligenceStock (firearms)EconometricsFinancial economicsEconomicsEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stock market forecasting is a critical area in financial research, yet the inherent volatility and non-linearity of financial markets pose significant challenges for traditional predictive models. This study proposes a hybrid deep learning model, integrating Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) with technical indicators to enhance the predictive accuracy of stock price movements. The model is evaluated using Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), and R2 score on the S&P 500 index over a 14-year period. Results indicate that the LSTM-CNN hybrid model achieves superior predictive performance compared to traditional models, including Support Vector Machines (SVMs), Random Forest (RF), and ARIMAs, by effectively capturing both long-term trends and short-term fluctuations. While Random Forest demonstrated the highest raw accuracy with the lowest RMSE (0.0859) and highest R2 (0.5655), it lacked sequential learning capabilities. The LSTM-CNN model, with an RMSE of 0.1012, MAE of 0.0800, MAPE of 10.22%, and R2 score of 0.4199, proved to be highly competitive and robust in financial time series forecasting. The study highlights the effectiveness of hybrid deep learning architectures in financial forecasting and suggests further enhancements through macroeconomic indicators, sentiment analysis, and reinforcement learning for dynamic market adaptation. It also improves risk-aware decision-making frameworks in volatile financial markets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207