Ensemble Multi-Expert Forecasting: Robust Decision-Making in Chaotic Financial Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial time series in volatile markets often exhibit non-stationary behavior and signatures of stochastic chaos, challenging traditional forecasting methods based on stationarity assumptions. In this paper, we introduce a novel multi-expert forecasting system (MES) that leverages ensemble machine learning techniques—including bagging, boosting, and stacking—to enhance prediction accuracy and support robust risk management decisions. The proposed framework integrates diverse “weak learner” models, ranging from linear extrapolation and multidimensional regression to sentiment-based text analytics, into a unified decision-making architecture. Each expert is designed to capture distinct aspects of the underlying market dynamics, while the supervisory module aggregates their outputs using adaptive weighting schemes that account for evolving error characteristics. Empirical evaluations using high-frequency currency data, notably for the EUR/USD pair, demonstrate that the ensemble approach significantly improves forecast reliability, as evidenced by higher winning probabilities and better net trading results compared to individual forecasting models. These findings contribute both to the theoretical understanding of ensemble forecasting under chaotic market conditions and to its practical application in financial risk management, offering a reproducible methodology for managing uncertainty in highly dynamic environments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".