Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 29 references

CryptoMamba: Leveraging State Space Models for Accurate Bitcoin Price Prediction

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read CryptoMamba, a Mamba-based state space model, predicts Bitcoin prices more accurately than LSTM, Bi-LSTM, GRU, iTransformer, and S-Mamba baselines.

desk verdict A compact Mamba variant for Bitcoin forecasting with real code and a believable test-set edge, but the paper's own validation table contradicts its central 'consistent outperformance' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01010 v2 pith:CDJDY6AM submitted 2025-01-02 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CE

Mohammad Shahab Sepehri , Asal Mehradfar , Mahdi Soltanolkotabi , Salman Avestimehr This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CE
keywords BitcoinpricepredictionstatespacemodelsMambatimeseriesforecastingcryptocurrencytradingsimulationdeeplearninglong-rangedependencies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Predicting Bitcoin's next-day price is hard because the market is volatile and non-stationary. The paper claims that CryptoMamba, a Mamba-based state space model, handles this better than existing recurrent, transformer, and state space baselines by capturing long-range dependencies and adapting to regime shifts. On daily Bitcoin data from 2018 to 2024, it reports the lowest RMSE, MAPE, and MAE among all tested models, with the volume-inclusive variant reaching an RMSE of 1598.1. The paper also shows that feeding these predictions into simple trading algorithms yields the highest simulated final balances, suggesting that more accurate forecasts can translate into real financial utility.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the C-Block, a hierarchical building block made of several CMBlocks—each a normalization layer followed by a Mamba selective state space block—and a final MLP linear layer that resizes the sequence. Mamba's input-dependent dynamics make the system time-varying, so the model can adjust its state transitions to the data, which the paper argues is key for adapting to volatility and regime shifts. Stacking multiple C-Blocks and merging their outputs with a linear layer lets the model refine features at different scales, capturing both short- and long-range dependencies. The paper also treats trading volume as an input feature and shows it improves accuracy for most models.

What would settle it

A reader could check this by running the same models on a different out-of-sample year, such as the 2022 bear market, and seeing whether CryptoMamba's RMSE remains below S-Mamba-v and iTransformer-v; if the gap narrows or reverses, the claim of consistent outperformance would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a custom Mamba-based architecture tailored to financial time series consistently outperforms established baselines in Bitcoin price prediction. The authors design CryptoMamba as a stack of C-Blocks, each containing several CMBlocks (normalization plus a Mamba selective state space layer) and a linear projection, followed by a Merge block that produces the next-day close price. They report that the volume-inclusive model achieves an RMSE of 1598.1, a MAPE of 2.034, and an MAE of 1120.7 on a one-year held-out test period, beating LSTM, Bi-LSTM, GRU, iTransformer, and S-Mamba on every metric, and that even without volume input CryptoMamba outperforms the volume-inclusive baselines. In simulated trading with three strategies, CryptoMamba-v ends with the highest final balance ($246.58 Vanilla, $213.20 Smart, $262.78 Extended Smart) while keeping lower maximum drawdowns than most baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's claim of consistent superiority rests on the assumption that the single one-year test period is representative of Bitcoin's various market conditions, and that the hand-chosen hyperparameters for CryptoMamba are fairly matched against the baselines.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported results hold, Mamba-based state space models become a strong candidate architecture for cryptocurrency and other financial time-series forecasting, not just for natural language processing and vision.
  • The finding that volume improves accuracy across most architectures suggests trading volume should be a standard input feature in Bitcoin price prediction tasks.
  • The model's small parameter count (136k) and fast training and inference imply that high-accuracy forecasting does not require large transformer-scale models, which matters for real-time or resource-constrained trading systems.
  • The trading simulations show that forecast accuracy can be converted into higher final balances and lower drawdowns under simple rule-based strategies, supporting the use of such models in automated trading.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper tests only a single validation year and a single test year; a natural extension is to evaluate CryptoMamba across multiple non-overlapping test periods such as bull and bear regimes to see whether the performance gap persists.
  • Because the baselines are configured with their commonly used hyperparameters rather than a systematic per-model search, part of the reported gap may reflect tuning effort; an independent fair-tuned comparison would clarify this.
  • The three trading algorithms are simple heuristics; combining CryptoMamba's predictions with position sizing, transaction-cost models, or portfolio-level risk management could change the financial outcomes, a question the paper leaves open.
  • The compact size of CryptoMamba suggests it could be deployed in edge devices for real-time trading, but latency and memory under streaming data are not evaluated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CryptoMamba, a Mamba-based state space model for daily Bitcoin price prediction, and evaluates it against LSTM, Bi-LSTM, GRU, iTransformer, and S-Mamba on a September 2018--September 2024 Yahoo Finance dataset. The authors report test-set regression metrics (RMSE, MAPE, MAE), parameter counts, and training/inference efficiency, and they run three trading strategies (Vanilla, Smart, Extended Smart) on the validation and test years to translate predictions into financial outcomes. The central claims are that CryptoMamba consistently outperforms all baselines across all evaluation metrics and generalizes across different market conditions, with the volume-inclusive variant achieving the best test RMSE of 1598.1 and the highest test-period trading balances.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, this would be a useful empirical contribution: a compact SSM (136k parameters) beating recurrent and transformer baselines on a recent Bitcoin dataset would strengthen the case for Mamba-style models in financial time series. The paper provides a public codebase, a clearly defined train/validation/test split, three transparent trading protocols, and efficiency measurements, all of which are positive features. However, the evidence as presented does not support the stated generalization and consistency claims: the validation results in Table 4 contradict the text, the test-set regression gaps are small and come from a single split with no uncertainty quantification, and the trading evaluation lacks a buy-and-hold baseline and transaction costs. These are load-bearing deficiencies for the paper's central message.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, Table 4] The claim that CryptoMamba "outperforming state-of-the-art baselines in both the validation and test periods" is directly contradicted by Table 4. In the validation period, CryptoMamba-v's Vanilla final balance is $124.09, below LSTM-v ($136.93), Bi-LSTM-v ($156.98), and GRU-v ($153.57); under the Smart strategy, LSTM-v reaches $149.95 and Bi-LSTM $141.36 versus CryptoMamba-v's $127.12. The text must either be corrected to reflect that validation results do not support consistent superiority, or if validation is discounted as illustrative, the paper must justify why only the single test year supports the generalization claim. As written, this is an internal contradiction that directly undermines the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Section 5.2, Table 3] The test-period superiority claim rests on a single train/validation/test split with a fixed random seed, and no confidence intervals, multiple seeds, or statistical significance tests are reported. The RMSE gap between CryptoMamba and S-Mamba is only 4.4 (1713.0 vs 1717.4, 0.26%), and between CryptoMamba-v and S-Mamba-v is 53.5 (1598.1 vs 1651.6, 3.2%), so the reported ordering could easily be within run-to-run noise. Without repeated runs or a significance test, the statement that CryptoMamba "consistently outperforms all baseline models" is not supported by the evidence in Table 3.
  3. [Section 6, Algorithms 1--3] The trading evaluation does not include a buy-and-hold baseline, and transaction costs are never deducted even though the Vanilla threshold is explicitly justified as accounting for transaction fees ("This safeguard is introduced to account for transaction fees"). Since the trading results are the basis for the claim of "real-world" utility, the absence of a buy-and-hold comparison and of fee modeling means the final balances cannot be interpreted as economic value added. For example, in the test Vanilla setup iTransformer-v reaches $241.50 versus CryptoMamba-v's $246.58; with realistic fees the ranking could change.
  4. [Section 5.1, Setup] The hyperparameter comparison is not shown to be fair. CryptoMamba uses hand-specified hyperparameters (3 C-Blocks, 4 CMBlocks, sequence lengths 14/16/32, d_state 64), while the baselines are configured with values described as following "best practices," with no evidence that comparable per-model tuning was performed on the validation set. Since the paper's efficiency and accuracy claims depend on this comparison, the authors should report a hyperparameter search budget or sensitivity analysis for both CryptoMamba and the baselines.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "Our findings signal a huge advantage for SSMs" is an overstatement relative to the single-dataset, single-split evidence; please temper this to match the actual statistical support.
  2. [Section 4.1, Table 2] The table entry "V olume" contains a typo and should read "Volume."
  3. [Section 5.1] The data preprocessing is not described: it is unclear whether features were normalized, detrended, or transformed, and how the 14-day input context was handled at the boundary of each split. This information is needed for reproducibility.
  4. [Section 4.2] Figure 1 is very schematic; a formal description of the tensor shapes through the C-Blocks and the Merge block would clarify the architecture and support the parameter count of 136k.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circular step; the only self-citation is passing and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison: CryptoMamba is trained on the 2018-2022 split and evaluated on held-out validation and test splits, so the reported RMSE, MAPE, and MAE values are not defined in terms of the model's own outputs or fitted parameters. The trading risk value of 2%, chosen from validation MAPE, is a hyperparameter rather than a fitted prediction, and the threshold and maximum-short cap are hand-set; none of these quantities reappears as the evaluated outcome by construction. The only self-citation is reference [14] in a passing remark about state space models in computer vision, and it is not load-bearing for any claim in the paper. The contradiction between the validation results in Table 4 and the text's claim of consistent outperformance in both validation and test periods is a reporting and correctness concern, not a circularity. No equation defines a predicted quantity in terms of the target, and no benchmark result is a renamed fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on hand-chosen trading parameters (risk, threshold, short cap) and architecture hyperparameters, plus domain assumptions about the dataset and split. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • risk_percentage = 2%
    Set to 2% based on the validation MAPE of the models (Section 6).
  • vanilla_threshold = 0.01
    Chosen by hand in Algorithm 1 to avoid trades below a 1% predicted change.
  • max_short_position = 0.002 BTC
    Chosen by hand in Appendix B to limit short exposure in the Extended Smart strategy.
  • cblock_sequence_lengths = [14, 16, 32]
    Hand-selected sequence lengths for the three C-Blocks in Section 5.1.
  • d_state = 64
    Hand-selected state dimension for the Mamba blocks in Section 5.1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Yahoo Finance daily Bitcoin price and volume data accurately represent the market.
    This underpins every reported metric and trading result.
  • domain assumption The 14-day lookback window captures the relevant price dynamics.
    All models use the previous 14 days as input; no analysis justifies this window.
  • domain assumption The single train/validation/test split is representative of 'different market conditions'.
    The generalization claim rests on this split.
  • standard math Adam optimizer with RMSE loss converges to a good solution for all models.
    Standard training assumption for the neural networks.
  • standard math Mamba implementation from prior work [12] is correct and applicable.
    The paper relies on the Mamba block as a black box.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CryptoMamba: Leveraging State Space Models for Accurate Bitcoin Price Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CDJDY6AM

@misc{pith2026250101010,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CryptoMamba: Leveraging State Space Models for Accurate Bitcoin Price Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CDJDY6AM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01010}
}
read the original abstract

Predicting Bitcoin price remains a challenging problem due to the high volatility and complex non-linear dynamics of cryptocurrency markets. Traditional time-series models, such as ARIMA and GARCH, and recurrent neural networks, like LSTMs, have been widely applied to this task but struggle to capture the regime shifts and long-range dependencies inherent in the data. In this work, we propose CryptoMamba, a novel Mamba-based State Space Model (SSM) architecture designed to effectively capture long-range dependencies in financial time-series data. Our experiments show that CryptoMamba not only provides more accurate predictions but also offers enhanced generalizability across different market conditions, surpassing the limitations of previous models. Coupled with trading algorithms for real-world scenarios, CryptoMamba demonstrates its practical utility by translating accurate forecasts into financial outcomes. Our findings signal a huge advantage for SSMs in stock and cryptocurrency price forecasting tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01010 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CryptoMamba model consists of several C-Blocks followed by a Merge block. In each C-Block, we have [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Forecasting results for all models (a) CryptoMamba, (b) LSTM, (c) Bi-LSTM, (d) GRU, (e) iTransformer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Forecasting results for all models (a) CryptoMamba, (b) LSTM, (c) Bi-LSTM, (d) GRU, (e) iTransformer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Net worth over the test period using three trading strategies, Vanilla, Smart, and Extended Smart, under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system

    Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Cryptography Mailing list at https://metzdowd.com, 2009

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    An empirical study on modeling and prediction of bitcoin prices with bayesian neural networks based on blockchain information

    Huisu Jang and Jaewook Lee. An empirical study on modeling and prediction of bitcoin prices with bayesian neural networks based on blockchain information. IEEE Access, pages 5427–5437, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Twitter sentiment analysis for bitcoin price prediction

    Achyut Jagini, Kaushal Mahajan, Namita Aluvathingal, Vedanth Mohan, and Prajwala TR. Twitter sentiment analysis for bitcoin price prediction. In2023 3rd International Conference on Smart Data Intelligence (ICSMDI), pages 32–37, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    What can explain the price, volatility and trading volume of bitcoin? Finance Research Letters, 29:255–265, 2019

    Halvor Aarhus Aalborg, Peter Molnár, and Jon Erik de Vries. What can explain the price, volatility and trading volume of bitcoin? Finance Research Letters, 29:255–265, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Bitcoin meets google trends and wikipedia: Quantifying the relationship between phenom- ena of the internet era

    Ladislav Kristoufek. Bitcoin meets google trends and wikipedia: Quantifying the relationship between phenom- ena of the internet era. Scientific reports, 3:3415, 12 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Time series analysis: forecasting and control

    George EP Box, Gwilym M Jenkins, Gregory C Reinsel, and Greta M Ljung. Time series analysis: forecasting and control. John Wiley & Sons, 2015

    2015

  7. [7]

    Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity

    Tim Bollerslev. Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of econometrics, 31(3):307– 327, 1986

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    Long short-term memory

    Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8):1735–1780, 1997

    1997

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Combining recur- rent, convolutional, and continuous-time models with linear state space layers

    Albert Gu, Isys Johnson, Karan Goel, Khaled Saab, Tri Dao, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Ré. Combining recur- rent, convolutional, and continuous-time models with linear state space layers. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:572–585, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces

    Albert Gu, Karan Goel, and Christopher Ré. Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00396, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces.arXiv:2312.00752 [cs.LG], 2023

    Albert Gu and Tri Dao. Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces.arXiv:2312.00752 [cs.LG], 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Transformers are SSMs: Generalized models and efficient algorithms through structured state space duality

    Tri Dao and Albert Gu. Transformers are SSMs: Generalized models and efficient algorithms through structured state space duality. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Serpent: Scalable and efficient image restoration via multi-scale structured state space models

    Mohammad Shahab Sepehri, Zalan Fabian, and Mahdi Soltanolkotabi. Serpent: Scalable and efficient image restoration via multi-scale structured state space models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17902, 2024. 10

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Short term prediction on bitcoin price using arima method

    I Made Wirawan, Triyanna Widiyaningtyas, and Muchammad Maulana Hasan. Short term prediction on bitcoin price using arima method. In 2019 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication (iSemantic), pages 260–265. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Bitcoin price forecasting using arima model

    Haolin Tian. Bitcoin price forecasting using arima model. Theoretical and Natural Science , pages 105–112, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Cryp- tocurrency price prediction using time series forecasting (arima)

    Sampat Kumar U, S P Aanandhi, S P Akhilaa, Vijayakumar Vardarajan, and Mithileysh Sathiyanarayanan. Cryp- tocurrency price prediction using time series forecasting (arima). In2021 4th International Seminar on Research of Information Technology and Intelligent Systems (ISRITI),...

    2021

  10. [18]

    V olatility estimation for bitcoin: A comparison of garch models

    Paraskevi Katsiampa. V olatility estimation for bitcoin: A comparison of garch models. Economics letters , 158:3–6, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Garch modelling of cryptocurrencies

    Jeffrey Chu, Stephen Chan, Saralees Nadarajah, and Joerg Osterrieder. Garch modelling of cryptocurrencies. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 10(4):17, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    N-beats: Neural basis expansion analysis for interpretable time series forecasting

    Boris N Oreshkin, Dmitri Carpov, Nicolas Chapados, and Yoshua Bengio. N-beats: Neural basis expansion analysis for interpretable time series forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10437, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Temporal fusion transformers for interpretable multi-horizon time series forecasting

    Bryan Lim, Sercan Ö Arık, Nicolas Loeff, and Tomas Pfister. Temporal fusion transformers for interpretable multi-horizon time series forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 37(4):1748–1764, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Anticipating cryptocurrency prices using machine learning

    Laura Alessandretti, Abeer ElBahrawy, Luca Maria Aiello, and Andrea Baronchelli. Anticipating cryptocurrency prices using machine learning. Complexity, 2018(1):8983590, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Forecasting cryptocurrency prices using lstm, gru, and bi-directional lstm: a deep learning approach.Fractal and Fractional, 7(2):203, 2023

    Phumudzo Lloyd Seabe, Claude Rodrigue Bambe Moutsinga, and Edson Pindza. Forecasting cryptocurrency prices using lstm, gru, and bi-directional lstm: a deep learning approach.Fractal and Fractional, 7(2):203, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    itransformer: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting

    Yong Liu, Tengge Hu, Haoran Zhang, Haixu Wu, Shiyu Wang, Lintao Ma, and Mingsheng Long. itransformer: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learn- ing Representations, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Forecasting the movements of bitcoin prices: an application of machine learning algorithms

    Hakan Pabuçcu, Serdar Ongan, and Ayse Ongan. Forecasting the movements of bitcoin prices: an application of machine learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04642, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Trading bitcoin and online time series prediction

    Muhammad Amjad and Devavrat Shah. Trading bitcoin and online time series prediction. In NIPS 2016 time series workshop, pages 1–15. PMLR, 2017

    2016

  19. [27]

    Is mamba effective for time series forecasting? Neurocomputing, 619:129178, 2025

    Zihan Wang, Fanheng Kong, Shi Feng, Ming Wang, Xiaocui Yang, Han Zhao, Daling Wang, and Yifei Zhang. Is mamba effective for time series forecasting? Neurocomputing, 619:129178, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems

    Rudolph Emil Kalman. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. ., 1960

    1960

  21. [29]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 2017. 11 Appendix A Metrics Regression Metrics. For evaluating the forecasting accuracy of our models, we use three standard metrics: Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MA...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.