MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125427001 · doi:10.18280/mmep.121208

Hybrid Stock Price Forecasting with Stacked LSTM and Multi-Source Feature Fusion

2025· article· W7125427001 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ajaykumar K. Kakde, Manisha Dale

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)FusionFeature selectionArtificial neural networkTime series

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes a hybrid deep learning (DL) framework that integrates sentimentderived features from financial news with technical stock indicators to enhance stock price forecasting accuracy.Sentiment metrics, specifically polarity and subjectivity scores, were extracted from the Economic Times 2024 dataset using VADER and TextBlob, and combined with technical parameters within a modified Stacked Long Short-Term Memory (SLSTM) model capable of capturing sequential market dependencies.The proposed framework was tested on four major NIFTY 50 companies representing the IT, banking, pharmaceutical, and metal sectors.Experimental evaluation showed notable gains in prediction accuracy, with Mean Absolute Error (MAE) values ranging from 1.67 to 20.31, Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) from 2.08 to 26.49, and R consistently exceeding 0.96.Comparative results showed that models incorporating polarity and subjectivity variables outperformed those utilizing only compound sentiment, highlighting the importance of detailed linguistic cues.Overall, the study found that using multi-source features considerably improves prediction stability and accuracy.The proposed architecture provides a scalable, domain-flexible solution for sentiment-driven financial forecasting, facilitating the development of intelligent stock market (SM) decision-support systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207