Stock Return Prediction on the LQ45 Market Index in the Indonesia Stock Exchange Using a Machine Learning Algorithm Based on Technical Indicators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stock return prediction in emerging markets remains difficult due to the gap between theoretical efficiency and empirical irregularities. This study assesses the statistical and economic performance of Linear Regression, Ridge Regression, Random Forest, and XGBoost in forecasting 5-day and 21-day returns for six LQ45 stocks (2016–2025). Momentum, volatility, trend, and volume indicators are used as predictors, while model performance is evaluated using MAE, RMSE, R2, and backtested trading metrics that include transaction costs. All models yield near-zero or negative R2, directional accuracy of 49–54%, and AUC around 0.50–0.53, indicating weak signals overshadowed by noise. XGBoost offers the lowest statistical errors, but Ridge Regression achieves slightly better risk-adjusted outcomes (Sharpe 0.1232), although every strategy underperforms Buy & Hold. SHAP results show volatility and volume features as most influential, but with minimal absolute impact. Overall, the LQ45 market exhibits semi-efficiency: patterns exist but fail to translate into profitable trading once real-world frictions are considered, underscoring the gap between statistical predictability and economic viability in algorithmic trading. This research was conducted in order to support the achievement of various goals through SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).
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 | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".