ArticlePloS one2023
A performance comparison of machine learning models for stock market prediction with novel investment strategy.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stock market forecasting is one of the most challenging problems in today's financial markets. According to the efficient market hypothesis, it is almost impossible to predict the stock market with 100% accuracy. However, Machine Learning (ML) methods can improve stock market predictions to some extent. In this paper, a novel strategy is proposed to improve the prediction efficiency of ML models for financial markets. Nine ML models are used to predict the direction of the stock market. First, these models are trained and validated using the traditional methodology on a historic data captured over a 1-day time frame. Then, the models are trained using the proposed methodology. Following the traditional methodology, Logistic Regression achieved the highest accuracy of 85.51% followed by XG Boost and Random Forest. With the proposed strategy, the Random Forest model achieved the highest accuracy of 91.27% followed by XG Boost, ADA Boost and ANN. In the later part of the paper, it is shown that only classification report is not sufficient to validate the performance of ML model for stock market prediction. A simulation model of the financial market is used in order to evaluate the risk, maximum draw down and returns associate with each ML model. The overall results demonstrated that the proposed strategy not only improves the stock market returns but also reduces the risks associated with each ML model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.