Select High-Quality Stock with Random Forest Classifier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the application of a Random Forest Classifier to predict stock performance among S&P 500 companies based on financial and stock performance data. Financial indicators such as Return on Equity (ROE), Return on Assets (ROA), Market Value (MV), Price-to-Book Ratio (PB), and Price/Earnings-to-Growth Ratio (PEG) were combined with stock performance data collected between September 2023 and June 2024. The data was merged into a unified dataset and split into training and testing sets. The model was trained using financial features from September 2023 to March 2024, while performance predictions were tested on data from March 2024 to June 2024. The Random Forest model achieved an accuracy of 63.92%, highlighting its effectiveness in identifying unsatisfied stocks but showing moderate accuracy for higher performance categories. The findings underscore the model's potential for data-driven stock selection, while also suggesting that further improvements, such as feature selection optimization and additional data integration, could enhance prediction accuracy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".