MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the Superiority of Data-Driven Combined Forecasts Based on Deep Learning Models

2025· article· en· W4413679279 on OpenAlexaff
Sulalitha Bowala, Md Erfanul Hoque, Hina Shaheen, A. Thavaneswaran, Ruppa K. Thulasiram, Alex Paseka

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan HealthUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDeep learningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningData modelingDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forecasting financial asset prices and quantifying associated risks are critical challenges in computational finance. This paper presents an optimal forecast combination framework by integrating advanced time series models and machine learning techniques to enhance prediction accuracy and risk assessment. A novel data-driven risk measure (DDRisknew) based on price differences is introduced, and sign correlation is used to capture risk and mitigate the limitations of traditional risk metrics. Our approach incorporates state-of-the-art forecasting models, including ARIMA, Neural Network Autoregressive, Long Short-Term Memory, XGBoost, and Random Forest, alongside two combination methods: equally weighted averages (FComp_SA) and datadriven optimal weighted averages (FComp_Weighted). Experimental results conducted on a dataset of stocks from ten diverse sectors during the highly volatile COVID-19 period demonstrate the superior performance of FComp_Weighted in minimizing forecasting errors across multiple metrics (RMSE, MAE, MAPE). Moreover, the RMSE of asset price and DDRisknewforecasts using FComp_Weighted models is always lower than the RMSE obtained using the FComp_SA model. This study underscores the importance of combining forecasts and provides a robust, computationally efficient framework for predictive modeling in financial markets. These findings have implications for algorithmic trading, portfolio optimization, and risk management, paving the way for future applications in broader domains like energy and cryptocurrency 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207