Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 100 references

Hybrid Models for Financial Forecasting: Combining Econometric, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning Models

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the most effective hybrid forecasting architecture combines an ARIMA econometric model with either an SVM or an LSTM model, treating the ARIMA's next-day forecast as an extra input feature rather than assuming the…

desk verdict A wide, honestly reported empirical comparison of hybrid forecasting models, whose central claim about non-additive hybrids is plausible but not statistically pinned down. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19617 v1 pith:KFCDUBUL submitted 2025-05-26 q-fin.TR

Dominik Stempień , Robert Ślepaczuk This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.TR
keywords hybridmodelsARIMAARFIMAsupportvectormachinesXGBoostLSTMwalk-forwardcross-validationtradingstrategies
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

The paper asks whether hybrid models—combinations of econometric time-series models with machine learning—can forecast financial returns better than either family alone. It tests 17 model configurations on daily S&P 500 and Bitcoin data, using a rolling three-fold cross-validation to tune hyperparameters and a backtest with transaction costs to judge trading value. The central finding is that the winning hybrids are ARIMA combined with SVM or LSTM, and that the combination must be non-additive: the ARIMA forecast is fed into the machine-learning model as an extra feature. The additive residual-based approach of Zhang (2003) and XGBoost-based hybrids generally underperform. If correct, the result gives traders and researchers a concrete recipe for improving on buy-and-hold with modest model complexity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-additive hybridisation scheme, where the econometric model's one-day-ahead forecast $\hat{L}_t$ is added as an extra feature alongside lagged returns $y_{t-1}, \ldots, y_{t-n}$ for the nonlinear model, so the final prediction is $\hat{y}_t = f(y_{t-1}, \ldots, y_{t-n}, \hat{L}_t)$ rather than a sum of independent linear and nonlinear forecasts. A second piece of machinery is the three-fold dynamic walk-forward cross-validation, which resamples training, validation, and testing windows in a rolling scheme (three years training, three validation sub-windows of 8, 16, and 24 months, one year testing for S&P 500; two years training, three validation sub-windows of 4, 8, and 12 months, six months testing for Bitcoin) to select hyperparameters. The trading evaluation is carried by a threshold signal rule that opens or changes positions only when the predicted next-day return exceeds the transaction cost level $c$, with $c = 0.005\%$ for S&P 500 and $c = 0.01\%$ for Bitcoin.

What would settle it

Recompute the signal rule of Eq. (21) with the transaction cost threshold $c$ doubled to $0.01\%$ for S&P 500 and $0.02\%$ for Bitcoin, or tripled, and check whether LSTM-ARIMA (1) and SVM-ARIMA (1) still beat buy-and-hold on information ratio and Sortino ratio. A simpler test is to run the same non-additive ARIMA+LSTM pipeline on a third liquid asset, such as EUR/USD or gold, and see whether the hybrid continues to outperform both its components and buy-and-hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that hybrid forecasting architectures outperform their individual components and the buy-and-hold benchmark only when the linear and nonlinear components are combined non-additively: the ARIMA one-day-ahead forecast is appended as an extra feature to an SVM or LSTM model. The additive residual-based hybridization of Zhang (2003) generally fails to deliver improvements, and XGBoost-based hybrids are consistently inferior, particularly on Bitcoin. The paper further claims that ARIMA is the better linear component relative to ARFIMA, and that the best-performing hybrids—SVM-ARIMA (1) and LSTM-ARIMA (1)—are consistent across the S&P 500, Bitcoin, and an equal-weighted portfolio of both, in both Long-Short and Long Only frameworks.

Load-bearing premise

The backtests assume that the only friction that matters is a flat transaction cost of $0.005\%$ per trade for S&P 500 and $0.01\%$ for Bitcoin, built into the signal rule; if real-world slippage, market impact, or funding costs raise the effective threshold, the winning hybrids' risk-adjusted returns could fall below the buy-and-hold benchmark.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For S&P 500 long-only trading, the hybrid models LSTM-ARIMA (1) and SVM-ARIMA (1) reach information ratios of 0.61 versus 0.36 for buy-and-hold, with annualized returns above 10%.
  • The additive residual-based hybridization of Zhang (2003) does not reliably improve on single models, so the choice of combination method is as important as the choice of model family.
  • ARIMA outperforms ARFIMA as the linear component in the tested hybrids, suggesting that long-memory effects are not a dominant feature of daily returns in this sample.
  • XGBoost, both alone and in hybrids, delivers the weakest trading performance, so not all nonlinear learners benefit from hybridization.
  • In an equal-weighted S&P 500/Bitcoin portfolio, LSTM-ARIMA (1) achieves the best risk-adjusted returns, with an information ratio of 0.91 in the long-only version.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test, not run in the paper, is to vary the transaction cost threshold $c$ across a realistic range (for example, $0.01\%$ and $0.02\%$ for S&P 500) and check whether the ranking of hybrids against buy-and-hold survives slippage and market impact.
  • The paper's design leaves open whether the benefit of the non-additive hybrid comes specifically from the ARIMA forecast or from adding any strong linear predictor; testing alternative features such as volatility forecasts would isolate the mechanism.
  • The results suggest a practical baseline for practitioners: before building deep-learning-only systems for daily return forecasting, try appending a simple ARIMA forecast as an extra input feature to a kernel or recurrent model, since this cheap addition is what produced the best risk-adjusted returns here.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops and compares 17 individual and hybrid forecasting models for daily logarithmic returns of the S&P 500 index (2002–2023) and Bitcoin (2015–2023). The econometric components are ARIMA and ARFIMA; the machine-learning components are SVM, XGBoost, and LSTM. Hybrids are built either by feeding econometric residuals into the ML model and adding the forecasts (the Zhang 2003 approach) or by using the econometric one-day-ahead forecast as an additional feature in the ML model. Models are trained with a rolling three-fold dynamic cross-validation scheme, evaluated with RMSE/MAE, and translated into Long-Short and Long Only trading strategies with transaction costs, assessed through ARC, ASD, MD, IR, IR*, and Sortino ratio. The central claim is that the non-additive ARIMA+SVM and ARIMA+LSTM hybrid architectures are the most effective, outperforming individual models and buy-and-hold.

Significance. The paper provides a broad, systematic empirical comparison of hybrid forecasting architectures on two distinct asset classes, including a portfolio combination, and it reports both forecast-error and trading-performance metrics with explicit transaction costs. The rolling cross-validation design and the inclusion of multiple hybridization methods are useful contributions for practitioners. The main strengths are the breadth of the comparison, the clear separation of forecast accuracy from trading profitability, and the honest reporting of underperforming configurations. However, the headline claim is not statistically supported: no confidence intervals, significance tests, or multiple-comparison corrections are provided, and some tabulated results contradict the abstract's assertion that hybrids outperform their individual components. If the robustness of the best hybrid were established with proper inference, the paper would be a valuable reference for applied forecasting and algorithmic trading research.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Tables 2–7] The central claim that ARIMA+SVM and ARIMA+LSTM hybrids are 'most effective' is based on comparing 17 model configurations across two assets and two signal types, with the best model selected after inspecting the same out-of-sample tables used for conclusions. No correction for multiple testing, no confidence intervals, and no significance tests are provided. In Table 2 (S&P 500 Long-Short), the plain SVM has IR 0.68, while SVM-ARIMA(1) has 0.66 and LSTM-ARIMA(1) has 0.56, so the best-performing model is not a hybrid, contradicting the abstract. Please either restrict the conclusions to configurations that actually improve on their constituents or apply a proper multiple-testing control, such as the Deflated Sharpe Ratio or a block-bootstrap test over the full model universe.
  2. [§5.2, Table 4, and §6 RQ1] For Bitcoin, the paper reports that hybridization did not improve forecast accuracy: in Table 4, ARIMA has the lowest RMSE (3.6858%) and MAE (2.4229%), and no hybrid achieves a lower RMSE or MAE than ARIMA; the best hybrid LSTM-ARIMA(1) has RMSE 3.7249%. This is acknowledged in the answers to RQ1, but it directly contradicts the abstract's statement that the hybrid models outperform their individual components. The claim should be limited to trading performance, with the forecast-accuracy results stated as a caveat, or the abstract should be revised.
  3. [§4.5, Eq. (21), Figures 4 and 6] The trading signals and hence all reported profitability metrics hinge on the transaction-cost threshold c (0.005% for S&P 500, 0.01% for Bitcoin) appearing directly in the signal rule. No sensitivity analysis is provided, and slippage, market impact, and financing costs are disregarded. At the observed gaps (e.g., LSTM-ARIMA(1) IR 0.50 vs. SVM-ARIMA(1) IR 0.37 for Bitcoin Long-Short in Table 4), even a modest increase in effective costs could overturn the ranking. Please report results for a range of c (for example 0, 2c, 5c) and, at minimum, state the per-side cost assumption in the equity-line notes consistently.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.5, Eq. (21)] The signal rule uses the absolute value |ˆy_i| in the middle condition, but per the surrounding text it should compare |ˆy_{i+1}|; please correct the subscript.
  2. [Figure 8 note] The figure note gives the S&P 500 transaction cost as 0.0005%, whereas Section 5.1 and Figures 4 and 5 state 0.005%; one of these values is a typo.
  3. [§4.6] The phrase 'most frequently used meitric' contains a typo; it should be 'metric'.
  4. [§4.3] The text contains a duplicated phrase 'data data-generating process'; please delete the extra 'data'.
  5. [References] The in-text citation 'Chen and Guestrin (2011)' corresponds to the 2016 reference list entry; please make the year consistent.
  6. [§4.3 and Table notes] The numbering of the two hybridization methods is inconsistent: in Section 4.3 the residual-based method of Zhang (2003) is described first, but in Tables 2–5 the annotation (1) denotes the non-additive feature-input method and (2) denotes the Zhang method. Please align the notation throughout the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hybrid-model comparison is an empirical out-of-sample evaluation; the headline claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical ranking of 17 models on out-of-sample data (Section 5, Tables 2-7), not a derivation from an input that already contains the conclusion. The feature-injection hybrid (Eq. 18) and the Zhang residual hybrid (Eqs. 14-17) are both estimated on training windows and evaluated on held-out test periods; the finding that ARIMA+SVM/LSTM feature-injection performs best is a comparison of measured RMSE/MAE and trading metrics, so it is not defined into existence. The transaction-cost threshold c in Eq. (21) is a stated, externally sourced assumption (Michańków et al., 2022) rather than a fitted parameter renamed as prediction. Self-citations to Kashif and Slepaczuk (2025), Vo and Slepaczuk (2022), and Michańków et al. (2022) introduce methodology and parameter choices, but the paper's conclusions do not rely on those citations as proof: the hybrid architectures are re-implemented and benchmarked here. The 'novel three-fold dynamic cross-validation' is explicitly a variation of Choi et al. (2024), which is a provenance/novelty concern rather than circular reasoning. The limitations section lists extensions but omits multiple-testing correction across the 17 configurations; this is a statistical robustness risk, not a circular step. I find no equation that reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter relabeled as prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on a large number of unreported fitted hyperparameters and several domain assumptions about decomposition, cost, and data quality. No new physical or model entities are introduced; the 'three-fold dynamic cross-validation' is a methodological variation, not an entity. The total count of free parameters is high relative to the information provided, which lowers confidence in exact replication.

free parameters (7)
  • ARIMA/ARFIMA order (p,d,q) per window = not reported (selected by AIC)
    Section 4.1: each hybrid forecast depends on the chosen econometric orders, which are re-estimated on rolling windows.
  • SVM/SVR hyperparameters = not reported
    Section 4.2.1: kernel, C, epsilon, and gamma are tuned on validation folds; no grid or final values are given.
  • XGBoost hyperparameters = not reported
    Section 4.2.2: number of trees, depth, learning rate, and regularization affect the forecasts that enter hybrid models.
  • LSTM architecture and training settings = not reported
    Section 4.2.3: layers, units, sequence length, epochs, batch size, and learning rate are not specified; these determine the winning LSTM-ARIMA(1) forecasts.
  • Number of lags n for ML features = not reported
    Equations (16) and (18): n sets the feature dimension for residual and non-additive hybrids and is never given.
  • Transaction cost threshold c = 0.005% for S&P 500, 0.01% for Bitcoin
    Section 4.5, Eq. (21): the trading signal is triggered only when the predicted return exceeds c; no slippage or market impact is included.
  • Cross-validation window lengths = S&P 500: 3y train, 8/16/24m validation, 1y test; Bitcoin: 2y train, 4/8/12m validation, 6m test
    Section 3.3, Fig. 2: all out-of-sample results depend on this manual design choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A financial return series can be decomposed into additive linear and nonlinear components, and an econometric model extracts all linear structure, leaving nonlinear structure in the residuals.
    Section 4.3, equations (14)-(17). This is the basis of the Zhang (2003) hybrid; the paper's own results cast doubt on it, since additive hybrids generally underperform.
  • domain assumption Predictive relationships estimated on past windows remain stable enough to generate profits out-of-sample.
    Section 3.3 and Section 5: the backtest assumes the best validation model transfers to the test period and beyond.
  • domain assumption Transaction costs are constant and equal to c in eq. (21), with no slippage, market impact, or funding costs.
    Section 4.5 and figure notes: the profitability of the winning hybrids depends directly on this simplification.
  • domain assumption yfinance data for S&P 500 and Bitcoin are free of material errors, survivorship bias, or adjusted-price issues.
    Section 3.1: the entire dataset is downloaded from yfinance and cleaned with no audit trail.
  • domain assumption The three-fold dynamic cross-validation is a valid model selection rule, i.e., mean validation performance predicts test performance.
    Section 3.3: hyperparameters are chosen by average performance over three validation folds; no stability analysis is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid Models for Financial Forecasting: Combining Econometric, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KFCDUBUL

@misc{pith2026250519617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid Models for Financial Forecasting: Combining Econometric, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KFCDUBUL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19617}
}
read the original abstract

This research systematically develops and evaluates various hybrid modeling approaches by combining traditional econometric models (ARIMA and ARFIMA models) with machine learning and deep learning techniques (SVM, XGBoost, and LSTM models) to forecast financial time series. The empirical analysis is based on two distinct financial assets: the S&P 500 index and Bitcoin. By incorporating over two decades of daily data for the S&P 500 and almost ten years of Bitcoin data, the study provides a comprehensive evaluation of forecasting methodologies across different market conditions and periods of financial distress. Models' training and hyperparameter tuning procedure is performed using a novel three-fold dynamic cross-validation method. The applicability of applied models is evaluated using both forecast error metrics and trading performance indicators. The obtained findings indicate that the proper construction process of hybrid models plays a crucial role in developing profitable trading strategies, outperforming their individual components and the benchmark Buy&Hold strategy. The most effective hybrid model architecture was achieved by combining the econometric ARIMA model with either SVM or LSTM, under the assumption of a non-additive relationship between the linear and nonlinear components.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19617 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Logarithmic returns of S&P 500 and Bitcoin prices 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Date 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 Logarithmic Return S&P 500 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Date 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Logarithmic Return Bitcoin Note: S&P 500 series covers the period between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2023. For Bitcoin, the data covers the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2023. In… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. presents the architecture and the internal mechanism of the LSTM network memory cell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Equity lines for S&P 500 and Long-Short trading strategy Note: All equity lines refer to predictive models out-of-sample forecasts. The first line represents the benchmark Buy&Hold strategy. Annotation (1) denotes the hybridization technique of inputting the prediction of the econometric model to the machine learning model, while (2) indicates the hybrid methodology by Zhang (2003). Transaction costs for S&P 500 are… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Equity lines for S&P 500 and Long Only trading strategy Note: All equity lines refer to predictive models out-of-sample forecasts. The first line represents the benchmark Buy&Hold strategy. Annotation (1) denotes the hybridization technique of inputting the prediction …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Equity lines for the portfolio of assets and Long-Short trading strategy Note: All equity lines refer to predictive models out-of-sample forecasts. The first line represents the benchmark Buy&Hold strategy. Annotation (1) denotes the hybridization technique of inputtin…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Equity lines for the portfolio of assets and Long Only trading strategy Note: All equity lines refer to predictive models out-of-sample forecasts. The first line represents the benchmark Buy&Hold strategy. Annotation (1) denotes the hybridization technique of inputting…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akyildirim, E., Cepni, O., Corbet, S., & Uddin, G. S. (2023). Forecasting mid-price movement of Bitcoin futures using machine learning. Annals of Operations Research, 330 (1), 553-584

    2023

  2. [2]

    M., Hassan, M

    Al-Selwi, S. M., Hassan, M. F., Abdulkadir, S. J., Muneer, A., Sumiea, E. H., Alqushaibi, A., & Ragab, M. G. (2024). RNN-LSTM: From applications to modeling techniques and beyond—Systematic review. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences , 102068

    2024

  3. [3]

    H., Egrioglu, E., & Kadilar, C

    Aladag, C. H., Egrioglu, E., & Kadilar, C. (2012). Improvement in forecasting accuracy using the hybrid model of ARFIMA and feed forward neural network. American Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2 (2), 12-17

    2012

  4. [4]

    Assaf, A. (2006). Dependence and mean reversion in stock prices: The case of the MENA region. Research in International Business and Finance , 20 (3), 286-304. 25

    2006

  5. [5]

    S., & Valavanis, K

    Atsalakis, G. S., & Valavanis, K. P. (2009). Surveying stock market forecasting techniques–Part II: Soft computing methods. Expert Systems with Applications , 36 (3), 5932-5941

    2009

  6. [6]

    H., Borwein, J

    Bailey, D. H., Borwein, J. M., De Prado, M. L., & Zhu, Q. J. (2014). Pseudomathematics and financial charlatanism: The effects of backtest overfitting on out-of-sample performance. Notices of the AMS , 61 (5), 458-471

    2014

  7. [7]

    H., Borwein, J

    Bailey, D. H., Borwein, J. M., De Prado, M. L., Salehipour, A., & Zhu, Q. J. (2016). Backtest overfitting in financial markets. Automated Trader

    2016

  8. [8]

    Bao, W., Yue, J., & Rao, Y. (2017). A deep learning framework for financial time series using stacked autoencoders and Long-Short term memory. PloS one , 12 (7), e0180944

    2017

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    T., Baum, C

    Barkoulas, J. T., Baum, C. F., & Travlos, N. (2000). Long memory in the Greek stock market. Applied Financial Economics , 10 (2), 177-184

    2000

  2. [10]

    P., & Campbell, C

    Bennett, K. P., & Campbell, C. (2000). Support vector machines: hype or hallelujah?. ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter , 2 (2), 1-13

    2000

  3. [11]

    Bhardwaj, G., & Swanson, N. R. (2006). An empirical investigation of the usefulness of ARFIMA models for predicting macroeconomic and financial time series. Journal of econometrics, 131 (1-2), 539-578

    2006

  4. [12]

    Bieganowski, B., & Slepaczuk, R. (2024). Supervised Autoencoder MLP for Financial Time Series Forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01866

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    H., Raja, M

    Bukhari, A. H., Raja, M. A. Z., Sulaiman, M., Islam, S., Shoaib, M., & Kumam, P. (2020). Fractional neuro-sequential ARFIMA-LSTM for financial market forecasting. Ieee Access, 8, 71326- 71338

    2020

  6. [14]

    Z., Hajek, P., & Yuan, K

    Bouteska, A., Abedin, M. Z., Hajek, P., & Yuan, K. (2024). Cryptocurrency price forecasting–a comparative analysis of ensemble learning and deep learning methods. International Review of Financial Analysis, 92, 103055

    2024

  7. [15]

    Time Series Analysis Forecasting and Control

    Box, G.E.P.; Jenkins, G.M. Time Series Analysis Forecasting and Control . Holden Day: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1976

    1976

  8. [16]

    Bustos, O., & Pomares-Quimbaya, A. (2020). Stock market movement forecast: A systematic review. Expert Systems with Applications , 156, 113464

    2020

  9. [17]

    Cao, L., & Tay, F. E. (2001). Financial forecasting using support vector machines. Neural Com- puting & Applications , 10, 184-192

    2001

  10. [18]

    Chaˆ abane, N. (2014). A hybrid ARFIMA and neural network model for electricity price prediction. International journal of electrical power & energy systems , 55, 187-194

    2014

  11. [19]

    P., Siakoulis, V., Petropoulos, A., Stavroulakis, E., & Vlachogiannakis, N

    Chatzis, S. P., Siakoulis, V., Petropoulos, A., Stavroulakis, E., & Vlachogiannakis, N. (2018). Fore- casting stock market crisis events using deep and statistical machine learning techniques. Expert systems with applications , 112, 353-371

    2018

  12. [20]

    (2016, August)

    Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016, August). Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 785- 794)

    2016

  13. [21]

    W., & Lai, K

    Cheung, Y. W., & Lai, K. S. (1995). A search for long memory in international stock market returns. Journal of International Money and Finance , 14 (4), 597-615

    1995

  14. [22]

    Chlebus, M., Dyczko, M., & Wo´ zniak, M. (2021). Nvidia’s stock returns prediction using machine learning techniques for time series forecasting problem. Central European Economic Journal, 8 (55)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Choi, W., Jang, S., Kim, S., Park, C., Park, S., & Song, S. (2024). Return prediction by machine learning for the Korean stock market. Journal of the Korean Statistical Society , 53 (1), 248-280

    2024

  16. [24]

    Cocco, L., Tonelli, R., & Marchesi, M. (2021). Predictions of bitcoin prices through machine learning based frameworks. PeerJ Computer Science , 7, e413. 26

    2021

  17. [25]

    Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995). Support-vector networks. Machine learning, 20, 273-297

    1995

  18. [26]

    G., & Hyndman, R

    De Gooijer, J. G., & Hyndman, R. J. (2006). 25 years of time series forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 22 (3), 443-473

    2006

  19. [27]

    De Prado, M. L. (2015). The future of empirical finance. Journal of Portfolio Management , 41 (4)

    2015

  20. [28]

    De Prado, M. L. (2018). Advances in financial machine learning . John Wiley & Sons

    2018

  21. [29]

    De Prado, M. L. (2019). Beyond econometrics: A roadmap towards financial machine learning. Available at SSRN 3365282

    2019

  22. [30]

    Dudek, G., Fiszeder, P., Kobus, P., & Orzeszko, W. (2024). Forecasting cryptocurrencies volatility using statistical and machine learning methods: A comparative study. Applied Soft Computing , 151, 111132

    2024

  23. [31]

    Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets. Journal of finance , 25 (2), 383-417

    1970

  24. [32]

    Fischer, T., & Krauss, C. (2018). Deep learning with long short-term memory networks for financial market predictions. European journal of operational research, 270 (2), 654-669

    2018

  25. [33]

    Floros, C., Jaffry, S., & Valle Lima, G. (2007). Long memory in the Portuguese stock market. Studies in Economics and Finance , 24 (3), 220-232

    2007

  26. [34]

    Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1997). A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. Journal of computer and system sciences , 55 (1), 119-139

    1997

  27. [35]

    C., & ´Slepaczuk, R

    G´ omez, S. C., & ´Slepaczuk, R. (2021). Robust optimisation in algorithmic investment strategies (No. 2021-27)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Geboers, H., Depaire, B., & Annaert, J. (2023). A review on drawdown risk measures and their implications for risk management. Journal of Economic Surveys , 37(3 ), 865-889

    2023

  29. [37]

    A., Schmidhuber, J., & Cummins, F

    Gers, F. A., Schmidhuber, J., & Cummins, F. (2000). Learning to forget: Continual prediction with LSTM. Neural computation, 12 (10), 2451-2471

    2000

  30. [38]

    A., Schraudolph, N

    Gers, F. A., Schraudolph, N. N., & Schmidhuber, J. (2002). Learning precise timing with LSTM recurrent networks. Journal of machine learning research , 3 (Aug), 115-143

    2002

  31. [39]

    W., & Ding, Z

    Granger, C. W., & Ding, Z. (1996). Varieties of long memory models. Journal of econometrics , 73 (1), 61-77

    1996

  32. [40]

    W., & Joyeux, R

    Granger, C. W., & Joyeux, R. (1980). An introduction to long-memory time series models and fractional differencing. Journal of time series analysis , 1 (1), 15-29

    1980

  33. [41]

    W., & Newbold, P

    Granger, C. W., & Newbold, P. (1974). Spurious regressions in econometrics. Journal of econo- metrics, 2 (2), 111-120

    1974

  34. [42]

    K., Koutn ´ ık, J., Steunebrink, B

    Greff, K., Srivastava, R. K., Koutn ´ ık, J., Steunebrink, B. R., & Schmidhuber, J. (2016). LSTM: A search space odyssey. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , 28 (10), 2222-2232

    2016

  35. [43]

    Grudniewicz, J., & ´Slepaczuk, R. (2023). Application of machine learning in algorithmic investment strategies on global stock markets. Research in International Business and Finance , 66, 102052

    2023

  36. [44]

    Harvey, A. C. (1990). Forecasting, structural time series models and the Kalman filter

    1990

  37. [45]

    Hibon, M., & Evgeniou, T. (2005). To combine or not to combine: selecting among forecasts and their combinations. International journal of forecasting , 21 (1), 15-24

    2005

  38. [46]

    Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9 (8), 1735-1780

    1997

  39. [47]

    Hochreiter, S. (1998). The vanishing gradient problem during learning recurrent neural nets and problem solutions. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems , 6 (02), 107-116. 27

    1998

  40. [48]

    Hosking, J. (1981). Fractional differencing. Biometrika 68 (1), 165–175

    1981

  41. [49]

    J., Hsiao, H

    Hsieh, T. J., Hsiao, H. F., & Yeh, W. C. (2011). Forecasting stock markets using wavelet transforms and recurrent neural networks: An integrated system based on artificial bee colony algorithm. Applied Soft Computing , 11 (2), 2510-2525

    2011

  42. [50]

    W., Lessmann, S., Sung, M

    Hsu, M. W., Lessmann, S., Sung, M. C., Ma, T., & Johnson, J. E. (2016). Bridging the divide in financial market forecasting: machine learners vs. financial economists. Expert Systems with Applications, 61, 215-234

    2016

  43. [51]

    Huang, W., Nakamori, Y., & Wang, S. Y. (2005). Forecasting stock market movement direction with support vector machine. Computers & operations research, 32 (10), 2513-2522

    2005

  44. [52]

    S., & Gregoriou, A

    Hudson, R. S., & Gregoriou, A. (2015). Calculating and comparing security returns is harder than you think: A comparison between logarithmic and simple returns. International Review of Financial Analysis, 38, 151-162

    2015

  45. [53]

    Ince, H., & Trafalis, T. B. (2008). Short term forecasting with support vector machines and application to stock price prediction. International Journal of General Systems , 37 (6), 677-687

    2008

  46. [54]

    B., Mefteh-Wali, S., & Viviani, J

    Jabeur, S. B., Mefteh-Wali, S., & Viviani, J. L. (2024). Forecasting gold price with the XGBoost algorithm and SHAP interaction values. Annals of Operations Research, 334 (1), 679-699

    2024

  47. [55]

    Jiang, Y., Nie, H., & Ruan, W. (2018). Time-varying long-term memory in Bitcoin market. Finance Research Letters, 25, 280-284

    2018

  48. [56]

    Kashif, K., & ´Slepaczuk, R. (2025). LSTM-ARIMA as a hybrid approach in algorithmic investment strategies. Knowledge-Based Systems

    2025

  49. [57]

    Kim, K. J. (2003). Financial time series forecasting using support vector machines. Neurocomput- ing, 55 (1-2), 307-319

    2003

  50. [58]

    Kobiela, D., Krefta, D., Kr´ ol, W., & Weichbroth, P. (2022). ARIMA vs LSTM on NASDAQ stock exchange data. Procedia Computer Science, 207, 3836-3845

    2022

  51. [59]

    Kolbadi, P., & Ahmadinia, H. (2011). Examining Sharp, Sortino and Sterling ratios in portfo- lio management, evidence from Tehran stock exchange. International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (4), 222

    2011

  52. [60]

    Kosc, K., Sakowski, P., & ´Slepaczuk, R. (2019). Momentum and contrarian effects on the cryp- tocurrency market. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 523, 691-701

    2019

  53. [61]

    Koustas, Z., & Serletis, A. (2005). Rational bubbles or persistent deviations from market funda- mentals?. Journal of Banking & Finance , 29 (10), 2523-2539

    2005

  54. [62]

    Kumar, M. (2010). Modelling exchange rate returns using non-linear models. Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, 4 (1), 101-125

    2010

  55. [63]

    Kumar, M., & Thenmozhi, M. (2014). Forecasting stock index returns using ARIMA-SVM, ARIMA-ANN, and ARIMA-random forest hybrid models. International Journal of Banking, Ac- counting and Finance , 5 (3), 284-308

    2014

  56. [64]

    H., Kim, J

    Kwon, D. H., Kim, J. B., Heo, J. S., Kim, C. M., & Han, Y. H. (2019). Time series classification of cryptocurrency price trend based on a recurrent LSTM neural network. Journal of Information Processing Systems, 15 (3), 694-706

    2019

  57. [65]

    L´ opez-Mart ´ ın, C., Benito Muela, S., & Arguedas, R. (2021). Efficiency in cryptocurrency markets: New evidence. Eurasian Economic Review, 11 (3), 403-431

    2021

  58. [66]

    Li, P., & Zhang, J. S. (2018). A new hybrid method for China’s energy supply security forecasting based on ARIMA and XGBoost. Energies, 11 (7), 1687

    2018

  59. [67]

    Liu, J., & Serletis, A. (2019). Volatility in the cryptocurrency market. Open Economies Review , 30 (4), 779-811. 28

    2019

  60. [68]

    Kijewski, M., ´Slepaczuk, R., & Wysocki, M. (2024). Predicting prices of S&P 500 index using classical methods and recurrent neural networks

    2024

  61. [69]

    Khursheed, A., Naeem, M., Ahmed, S., & Mustafa, F. (2020). Adaptive market hypothesis: An empirical analysis of time–varying market efficiency of cryptocurrencies. textitCogent Economics & Finance, textit8(1), 1719574

    2020

  62. [70]

    Lo, A. W. (1991). Long-term memory in stock market prices. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1279-1313

    1991

  63. [71]

    Lv, D., Yuan, S., Li, M., & Xiang, Y. (2019). An empirical study of machine learning algorithms for stock daily trading strategy. Mathematical Problems in Engineering , 2019 (1), 7816154

    2019

  64. [72]

    Ma, Y., Han, R., & Wang, W. (2020). Prediction-based portfolio optimization models using deep neural networks. Ieee Access, 8, 115393-115405

    2020

  65. [73]

    Ma, Y., Han, R., & Wang, W. (2021). Portfolio optimization with return prediction using deep learning and machine learning. Expert Systems with Applications , 165, 113973

    2021

  66. [74]

    Z., Orsenigo, C., Vercellis, C., & Cambria, E

    Malandri, L., Xing, F. Z., Orsenigo, C., Vercellis, C., & Cambria, E. (2018). Public mood–driven asset allocation: The importance of financial sentiment in portfolio management. Cognitive Com- putation, 10 (6), 1167-1176

    2018

  67. [75]

    Malkiel, B. G. (2003). The efficient market hypothesis and its critics. Journal of Economic Per- spectives, 17 (1), 59-82

    2003

  68. [76]

    (2025, April 27)

    MathWorks. (2025, April 27). Understanding support vector machine regression. MathWorks. mathworks.com/.../svm-regression

    2025

  69. [77]

    (2018, March)

    McNally, S., Roche, J., & Caton, S. (2018, March). Predicting the price of bitcoin using machine learning. In 2018 26th euromicro international conference on parallel, distributed and network-based processing (PDP) (pp. 339-343). IEEE

    2018

  70. [78]

    Micha´ nk´ ow, J., Sakowski, P., &´Slepaczuk, R. (2022). LSTM in algorithmic investment strategies on BTC and S&P500 index. Sensors, 22 (3), 917

    2022

  71. [79]

    Mills, E. F. E. A., Liao, Y., & Deng, Z. (2024). Data-driven price trends prediction of Ethereum: A hybrid machine learning and signal processing approach. Blockchain: Research and Applications , 5 (4), 100231

    2024

  72. [80]

    Newbold, P. (1975). The principles of the Box-Jenkins approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 26 (2), 397-412

    1975

  73. [81]

    Nobre, J., & Neves, R. F. (2019). Combining principal component analysis, discrete wavelet transform and XGBoost to trade in the financial markets. Expert Systems with Applications , 125, 181-194

    2019

  74. [82]

    F., & Lin, C

    Pai, P. F., & Lin, C. S. (2005). A hybrid ARIMA and support vector machines model in stock price forecasting. Omega, 33 (6), 497-505

    2005

  75. [83]

    E., Parra-Dominguez, J., Omatu, S., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Corchado, J

    P´ erez-Pons, M. E., Parra-Dominguez, J., Omatu, S., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Corchado, J. M. (2022). Machine learning and traditional econometric models: a systematic mapping study. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing Research , 12

    2022

  76. [84]

    M., Agarwal, A., & Sastry, V

    Rather, A. M., Agarwal, A., & Sastry, V. N. (2015). Recurrent neural network and a hybrid model for prediction of stock returns. Expert Systems with Applications , 42 (6), 3234-3241

    2015

  77. [85]

    B., Arif, T., Sharma, S., Singh, S., Aich, S., & Kim, H

    Rouf, N., Malik, M. B., Arif, T., Sharma, S., Singh, S., Aich, S., & Kim, H. C. (2021). Stock market prediction using machine learning techniques: a decade survey on methodologies, recent developments, and future directions. Electronics, 10 (21), 2717

    2021

  78. [86]

    Ry´ s, P., & ´Slepaczuk, R. (2019). Machine Learning Methods in Algorithmic Trading Strategy Optimization–Design and Time Efficiency. Central European Economic Journal, 5 (52). 29

    2019

  79. [87]

    Schapire, R. E. (1999, July). A brief introduction to boosting. In Ijcai (Vol. 99, No. 999, pp. 1401-1406)

    1999

  80. [88]

    Shah, D., Isah, H., & Zulkernine, F. (2019). Stock market analysis: A review and taxonomy of prediction techniques. International Journal of Financial Studies , 7 (2), 26

    2019

  81. [89]

    Sharpe, W. F. (1966). Mutual fund performance. The Journal of business , 39 (1), 119-138

    1966

  82. [90]

    Shen, S., Jiang, H., & Zhang, T. (2012). Stock market forecasting using machine learning algo- rithms. Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA , 1-5

    2012

  83. [91]

    Stoica, P., & Selen, Y. (2004). Model-order selection: a review of information criterion rules. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 21 (4), 36-47

    2004

  84. [92]

    Taskaya-Temizel, T., & Casey, M. C. (2005). A comparative study of autoregressive neural network hybrids. Neural Networks, 18 (5-6), 781-789

    2005

  85. [93]

    Terui, N., & Van Dijk, H. K. (2002). Combined forecasts from linear and nonlinear time series models. International Journal of Forecasting, 18 (3), 421-438

    2002

  86. [94]

    Vi´ eitez, A., Santos, M., & Naranjo, R. (2024). Machine learning Ethereum cryptocurrency predic- tion and knowledge-based investment strategies. Knowledge-Based Systems, 299, 112088

    2024

  87. [95]

    Vo, N., & ´Slepaczuk, R. (2022). Applying hybrid ARIMA-SGARCH in algorithmic investment strategies on S&P500 index. Entropy, 24 (2), 158

    2022

  88. [96]

    J., Wang, J

    Wang, J. J., Wang, J. Z., Zhang, Z. G., & Guo, S. P. (2012). Stock index forecasting based on a hybrid model. Omega, 40 (6), 758-766

    2012

  89. [97]

    A., & Megahed, F

    Weng, B., Ahmed, M. A., & Megahed, F. M. (2017). Stock market one-day ahead movement prediction using disparate data sources. Expert Systems with Applications , 79, 153-163

    2017

  90. [98]

    Wu, X., Wu, L., & Chen, S. (2022). Long memory and efficiency of Bitcoin during COVID-19. Applied Economics, 54 (4), 375-389

    2022

  91. [99]

    Yang, C., Zhai, J., & Tao, G. (2020). Deep learning for price movement prediction using con- volutional neural network and long short-term memory. Mathematical Problems in Engineering , 2020 (1), 2746845

    2020

  92. [100]

    Zhang, G. P. (2003). Time series forecasting using a hybrid ARIMA and neural network model. Neurocomputing, 50, 159-175. 30

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.