MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412958056 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18080435

Development of Financial Indicator Set for Automotive Stock Performance Prediction Using Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System

2025· article· en· W4412958056 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tamás Péter Szabó, S. Gáspár, Szilárd Hegedűs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemNeuro-fuzzyAutomotive industryInference systemComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFuzzy inference systemStock (firearms)Machine learningData miningEconometricsFuzzy logicEngineeringMathematicsFuzzy control system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the predictive performance of financial indicators in forecasting stock prices within the automotive sector using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). In light of the growing complexity of global financial markets and the increasing demand for automated, data-driven forecasting models, this research aims to identify those financial ratios that most accurately reflect price dynamics in this specific industry. The model incorporates four widely used financial indicators, return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), earnings per share (EPS), and profit margin (PM), as inputs. The analysis is based on real financial and market data from automotive companies, and model performance was assessed using RMSE, nRMSE, and confidence intervals. The results indicate that the full model, including all four indicators, achieved the highest accuracy and prediction stability, while the exclusion of ROA or ROE significantly deteriorated model performance. These findings challenge the weak-form efficiency hypothesis and underscore the relevance of firm-level fundamentals in stock price formation. This study’s sector-specific approach highlights the importance of tailoring predictive models to industry characteristics, offering implications for both financial modeling and investment strategies. Future research directions include expanding the indicator set, increasing the sample size, and testing the model across additional industry domains.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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