MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115676588 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2025.10.002

Dynamic group fusion transformer for financial time series prediction: An ablation study

2025· article· en· W7115676588 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFusionBinary numberArchitectureTransformerFeature (linguistics)Time seriesFeature extractionArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forecasting financial time series is particularly challenging since market data is complicated and non-stationary, and it is necessary to identify both short-term momentum and long-term structural patterns. This work develops the Dynamic Group Fusion Enhanced Transformer (DGFET), a new approach that integrates adaptive feature group fusion and selective information processing. The suggested DGFET architecture has Group-FiLM adapters that use Dynamic Group Fusion techniques for adaptive feature transformation to manage market, fundamental, technical, and sentiment feature groups. We assess the model using four unique labeling strategies: short-horizon momentum (binary/ternary) and triple-barrier (binary/ternary), which represent various temporal horizons and forecasting methods. Our ablation analysis, conducted on a comprehensive EUR/USD dataset from 2010 to 2023 with 88 features, demonstrates that the proposed method consistently outperforms baseline LSTM and standard transformer models across all prediction objectives. The improved architecture has a higher overall performance, with an F1-macro score of 0.5356 and a ROC-AUC of 0.6612. It also works very well for short-horizon momentum binary classification (F1: 0.7219, ROC-AUC: 0.8105). The results show that adaptive feature fusion works better than traditional designs when combined with dynamic group selection. The best configurations depend on the specific prediction job. Our results underscore the imperative of task-specific architectural design in financial machine learning applications, especially for methodologies necessitating varied temporal horizons and prediction granularities.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207