MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Novel Parallel Recurrent Fusion Network for Stock Market Forecasting

2025· article· en· W4414462769 on OpenAlexaff
Meet Brijwani, M. Ali, Vinay Dawani, Himani Deshpande

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMean squared errorRecurrent neural networkArtificial neural networkStock marketSliding window protocolDeep learningStock (firearms)Time series

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stock market forecasting is inherently difficult due to the volatile and nonlinear nature of financial data. Traditional statistical models, such as ARIMA, often fail to capture long-term dependencies, while deep learning models-particularly Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Gated Recurrent Units (GRU), have shown better predictive performance. However, single-model architectures do not usually tap the various benefits provided by different recurrent networks. In this work, we proposed the Parallel Recurrent Fusion Network (PRFN), a novel hybrid model that combines the strengths of RNN, LSTM, and GRU to improve stock price forecasting accuracy without compromising computational efficiency. The model was trained on 16 years (5,844 days) of historical stock data from Reliance Industries Ltd, normalized and segmented with a sliding window (60-day lookback and 7-day forecast horizon). Performance evaluation included Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and Coefficient of Determination (R2) for direct multi-step forecasting, sequence-to-sequence forecasting, and the proposed hybrid model. The experimental results reveal that the RNN-based direct multi-step model surpassed standalone LSTM and GRU models by achieving R2of 0.939 and RMSE of 35.39, while the proposed PRFN (RNN + GRU) gave us an RMSE of 34.52 and R2of 0.942. These findings suggest that the concurrent use of hybrid deep learning models could greatly improve stock price predictability, all while melding together the many strengths of different recurrent architectures.

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)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207