Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Online High-Frequency Trading Stock Forecasting with Automated Feature Clustering and Radial Basis Function Neural Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Automating feature importance and cluster count improves RBF neural-network forecasts of order-book mid-prices for 20 large US stocks.

desk verdict A plausible but unproven automation recipe: the paper never compares its autonomous clustering against a fixed-cluster RBFNN, so the central 'enhances forecasting' claim rests on no control group, even though the authors openly admit this gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16160 v2 pith:4ZHKWOV3 submitted 2024-11-23 q-fin.ST cs.LG

Adamantios Ntakaris , Gbenga Ibikunle This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.STcs.LG MSC 62H3068T0791G60
keywords high-frequencytradinglimitorderbookmid-priceforecastingradialbasisfunctionnetworkk-meansclusteringfeatureimportanceonlinelearningmeandecreaseimpurity
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

This paper claims that the two most manual steps in a machine-learning forecasting pipeline for high-frequency trading—deciding which order-book features matter and choosing how many clusters the input should form—can be fully automated. The proposed protocol runs two competing feature-importance mechanisms, mean-decrease impurity from random forests and a gradient-descent-based importance vector, weights the input matrix with the winner, converts it to a correlation-distance matrix, and lets silhouette scores pick the number of k-means clusters online. Those clusters feed the radial basis function network directly, supplying the centers and widths of its neurons, so no topological grid search is needed. Tested on tick-by-tick Level 1 order book data for 20 large S&P 500 stocks over three months, the claim is that this automation improves the RBFNN's mid-price forecasts and that each stock needs its own feature space.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coupling between k-means clusters and radial basis function neurons: Eq. (14) places an RBF neuron at each k-means centroid $\mu_j$, and Eq. (15) sets the width $\sigma_j$ as a scaled average of pairwise centroid distances. That coupling is what makes the network topology autonomous, because the silhouette-quality ratio $q = E[S_i]/\sqrt{V[S_i]}$ decides the number of clusters, and hence the number of neurons, per trading window. The dual feature-importance mechanism (MDI and GD) weights the raw features before clustering, and the correlation-distance transformation in Eq. (6) gives k-means the metric it needs. These pieces together claim to remove manual topological search for the RBFNN regressor.

What would settle it

For the same 20 stocks, compute the ratio of the largest to the smallest eigenvalue of the within-cluster covariance matrix for the features that get clustered; if many clusters show large eigenvalue ratios, the isotropy assumption is violated. Then rerun the pipeline with per-cluster covariance matrices replacing the scalar $\sigma_j$ (or with Gaussian mixture clustering) and check whether test RMSE changes. If anisotropic clustering does not alter the errors, the isotropy assumption is not load-bearing; if it improves them significantly, the paper's assumption masks the true mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that an autonomous protocol can replace the manual choices in RBFNN forecasting for the limit order book. Each sliding window of 100 events (99 overlapping) is transformed into two weighted input matrices, one by MDI and one by GD. The matrix is expressed as a correlation-based distance matrix, k-means is run over candidate cluster counts, and the ratio of mean to variance of silhouette coefficients selects the number of clusters. The winning centroids become RBF centers and the average pairwise centroid distance becomes the RBF width, and the output weights are computed by least squares. On 20 mega-cap US stocks from September to November 2022, the protocol reports per-event MSE, RMSE, and RRMSE, with MDI on the simple four-feature set achieving the lowest relative RMSE in 36 of 60 stock-month cases, and with each stock alternating between two and three clusters while switching importance methods roughly every ten trading events.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline stands on the premise that each cluster of order-book features has the same spread in every direction, because the RBF neurons use only one scalar width per cluster.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each stock requires a different input feature space, so a single fixed feature set cannot be optimal across stocks.
  • The number of RBF neurons is no longer a user choice: silhouette quality determines it online for every sliding window.
  • Because the method alternates between MDI and GD roughly every ten events, feature relevance in the limit order book is itself a high-frequency quantity.
  • The protocol's online design, with overlapping 100-event blocks and cumulative training folds, yields tick-by-tick forecasts without retraining on the full history.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the per-stock feature spaces differ as reported, then any fixed feature set deployed by an HFT firm is leaving forecast accuracy on the table; the natural next step is to run the same dual-importance machinery on Level 2 or Level 3 order-book depth and watch whether the MDI/GD switch rate changes with market regimes.
  • The isotropic-cluster assumption is the part most worth attacking: replacing scalar widths with per-cluster covariance matrices (or swapping k-means for a Gaussian mixture) is a direct test the authors did not run, and it would tell whether the reported gains come from the clustering or from the RBF fit.
  • Because the method switches between two and three clusters and swaps MDI/GD roughly every ten events, the switch itself could be read as a cheap online signal of microstructure regime change, a use the paper does not explore.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an autonomous machine-learning pipeline for high-frequency trading (HFT) mid-price forecasting. The pipeline combines two feature-importance methods, mean-decrease impurity (MDI) from random forests and a gradient-descent (GD) based importance vector, applies a correlation-to-distance transformation, selects the number of k-means clusters via silhouette scores and a quality ratio, and feeds the resulting centroids and spreads into a radial basis function neural network (RBFNN) regressor. The method is tested on Level 1 limit order book data for 20 S&P 500 mega-cap stocks over three months (September--November 2022), with predictions reported per trading event under an expanding-window online setting. The headline claim is that automating feature importance and clustering enhances RBFNN forecasting ability and removes the need for manual topological grid search. The empirical section compares MDI versus GD under two feature sets (Simple and Extended) and reports MSE, RMSE, and relative RMSE (RRMSE) tables.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would contribute a practical, hands-off configuration method for RBFNN-based LOB forecasting, with potential value for HFT practitioners and researchers. The proposed pipeline is modular and reproducible in principle, and testing on 20 real stocks with nanosecond-resolution data is a useful scale of evaluation. However, the paper's own limitation statement in Section IV.C acknowledges the absence of a benchmark modeling framework, and the experiments do not include any comparison to a standard fixed-cluster RBFNN, an elbow-method baseline, or a naive forecasting rule. Consequently, the evidence presented does not yet support the causal claim that automation improves forecasting performance. The identification of a potential data inconsistency in the RRMSE results for BRK and the mis-specified RBF spread formula in Eq. (15) further weaken confidence in the reported numbers. With additional control experiments and corrections, the underlying idea could still be valuable, but the current manuscript is not ready for publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B and Section IV.C] The central claim that the autonomous feature-importance and clustering mechanism 'enhances the forecasting ability of the RBFNN regressor' is not supported by the experimental design. The results in Tables III–VI compare only two feature-importance methods (MDI vs GD) under two feature sets (Simple vs Extended). There is no comparison against a fixed-cluster RBFNN, a manually selected number of clusters, an elbow-method baseline, or any standard forecasting benchmark such as a persistence model. The authors explicitly acknowledge this in Section IV.C: 'A further limitation is the lack of an extensive benchmark modeling framework to provide a more rigorous challenge to the existing RBFNN topology.' Without such control experiments, the reported MSE/RMSE/RRMSE values are descriptive only and cannot establish the causal benefit of automation. Please add at least a fixed-cluster RBFNN and a persistence baseline, and report performance differences with appropriate significance testing.
  2. [Section IV.B / Table VII] The RRMSE values reported for BRK are implausible and suggest a normalization error. For BRK September 2022, Table V gives an MDI Simple test RMSE of 8.758E+03, while Table VII reports the corresponding RRMSE as 8.010E+03. If RRMSE is defined as RMSE divided by the mid-price, this implies a mid-price of roughly $1.09, which is inconsistent with a $200B+ mega-cap stock such as Berkshire Hathaway (whether Class A or Class B). Similar inconsistencies appear across all BRK rows. Please verify the RRMSE calculation and clarify what mid-price value is used in the denominator; if the price scale is transformed, that transformation must be stated explicitly.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (15)] Equation (15) is mis-specified as a per-neuron spread. The right-hand side of the equation does not depend on the index j, so the formula assigns the same value to every σ_j. This contradicts the notation σ_j and undermines the construction of the RBF basis functions in Eq. (14), where each center should have its own scale. Either σ should be defined once as a global hyperparameter, or the formula should be corrected to depend on the specific center µ_j (e.g., distance from µ_j to its nearest neighbors). The current form will bias all RBF neurons identically and may degrade the regressor.
  4. [Section III and Section IV.C] The isotropic-cluster assumption of k-means is load-bearing but untested. The RBF centers and spreads in Eqs. (14)–(15) are derived directly from k-means centroids, and the assignment rule in Eq. (12) uses Euclidean distance. The authors acknowledge in Section IV.C that 'we made the assumption of isotropic clusters within the k-means algorithm, which presumes that every cluster exhibits constant variance.' If the transformed feature clusters are anisotropic or elongated, the basis functions are mis-specified and the claimed autonomous-clustering benefit may not hold. Please provide a diagnostic, such as a comparison of within-cluster covariance eigenvalues, or evaluate an alternative that uses Mahalanobis distances or a Gaussian mixture model, to assess whether the assumption is empirically reasonable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III] The block numbering is inconsistent: the text says 'The silhouette and quality scores are part of Block 4' after Block 3 has already been described as defining the optimal number of clusters via silhouette scores. Please clarify the relationship between Blocks 3 and 4.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (1)] There is a typo in Eq. (1): the average target value is written as '˜yt' but should be '˜yj' (the average target value for node j).
  3. [Section III, Eq. (3) surrounding text] The text near Eq. (3) contains 'tress' instead of 'trees' in 'the total number of tress in RF'.
  4. [Table II] The company name for BRK is listed as 'BERKSHIRE HATHAW AY INC.'; please correct the typo and clarify whether this refers to Class A or Class B shares, as the price scale matters for interpreting RRMSE.
  5. [Section IV.A] The description 'cumulative five-fold setting' is unclear. Please specify how the training/test partitions are constructed, whether the same testing windows are reused across folds, and how the sliding-window overlap of 99 out of 100 events affects the independence of the reported test errors.
  6. [Abstract and Section V] The claim that this is the first autonomous feature-importance and clustering protocol in the HFT domain is stated without comparison to prior automated ML pipelines. Please soften the novelty claim or provide a more systematic literature comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported MSE/RMSE values are genuine test-set forecasts from a fully specified RBFNN pipeline, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

This is an empirical forecasting study, not a derivation. The RBF centers and spreads (Eqs. 14-15) come from k-means centroids selected by silhouette scores on transformed input features, and the output weights (Eq. 17) are obtained by least squares on the RBF activation matrix; the reported errors are held-out test forecasts, so no equation reduces to its own inputs. The GD feature-importance mechanism does cite the authors' prior work [34], but the method is fully specified in Algorithm 1 in the present paper, and the citation is not used to justify the central forecasting claim. The paper's own stated limitation in Section IV.C that no extensive benchmark framework was used undermines the causal claim that automation 'enhances' forecasting, but that is an experimental-control gap rather than a circularity. There is no fitted input called a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation that is load-bearing.

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

The paper's central claim rests on a handful of domain assumptions and unstated hyperparameters. No new entities are introduced. The most fragile assumptions are isotropy of k-means clusters, the stability of MDI scores on 100-event windows, and the suitability of the correlation-distance geometry; the paper acknowledges the first but tests none of them.

free parameters (7)
  • Sliding window size W = 100 events
    Chosen because 'a size of 100 is sufficient' (Section IV.A); central to online scheme, no sensitivity analysis.
  • Window overlap = 99 events
    Set to 99 to match the rolling scheme; no rationale given.
  • MDI forest size B = not reported
    Number of trees for random forest MDI is never specified.
  • GD learning rate alpha = not reported
    Required by Algorithm 1, value not given.
  • GD iterations R = not reported
    Required by Algorithm 1, value not given.
  • Maximum clusters maxClusters = not reported
    Required by Algorithm 2, value not given.
  • Kernel parameters (gamma, c0, d) = not reported
    Extended feature set in Table I uses unspecified gamma, c0, d.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption k-means clusters are isotropic with constant variance
    Stated in Section IV.C as a limitation; RBF centers and spreads (Eq. 14-15) are derived from these clusters, so anisotropy would degrade the regressor.
  • domain assumption MDI feature importance computed on 100-event windows is stable enough to weight features
    Small windows with 99-event overlap may yield noisy or autocorrelated importance scores; no stability analysis is given.
  • domain assumption The correlation-to-distance transform (Eq. 6) preserves the information needed for k-means clustering
    The paper cites [35] for this transform but does not justify that Euclidean distance on this transformed space is a meaningful geometry for LOB features.
  • standard math The matrix (A^T A) in Eq. 17 is invertible
    Pseudo-inverse is used without regularization or discussion of rank deficiency in the RBF activation matrix.
  • domain assumption The forecasting target, mid-price level, is predictable from Level 1 best bid/ask features
    The entire experiment assumes that these features contain predictive signal at tick frequency; no benchmark shows this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Online High-Frequency Trading Stock Forecasting with Automated Feature Clustering and Radial Basis Function Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ZHKWOV3

@misc{pith2026241216160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Online High-Frequency Trading Stock Forecasting with Automated Feature Clustering and Radial Basis Function Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ZHKWOV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16160}
}
read the original abstract

This study presents an autonomous experimental machine learning protocol for high-frequency trading (HFT) stock price forecasting that involves a dual competitive feature importance mechanism and clustering via shallow neural network topology for fast training. By incorporating the k-means algorithm into the radial basis function neural network (RBFNN), the proposed method addresses the challenges of manual clustering and the reliance on potentially uninformative features. More specifically, our approach involves a dual competitive mechanism for feature importance, combining the mean-decrease impurity (MDI) method and a gradient descent (GD) based feature importance mechanism. This approach, tested on HFT Level 1 order book data for 20 S&P 500 stocks, enhances the forecasting ability of the RBFNN regressor. Our findings suggest that an autonomous approach to feature selection and clustering is crucial, as each stock requires a different input feature space. Overall, by automating the feature selection and clustering processes, we remove the need for manual topological grid search and provide a more efficient way to predict LOB's mid-price.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16160 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the fully automated protocol. From left to right: The first part of the online experimental protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Minimal Batch Adaptive Learning Policy Engine for Real-Time Mid-Price Forecasting in High-Frequency Trading

    q-fin.ST 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    ALPE, an online reinforcement-learning regressor, is reported to beat batch ML models for mid-price forecasting, but the evaluation likely leaks the target into the inputs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Random Forest

    L. Breiman “Random Forest”, Machine Learning , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5-32, Oct 2001

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    Variable selection using mean decrease accuracy and mean decrease gini based on random forest

    H. Han, X. Guo, and H. Yu. “Variable selection using mean decrease accuracy and mean decrease gini based on random forest.” In 2016 7th International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science (icsess) , pp. 219-224, IEEE, Aug 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Understanding variable importances in forests of randomized trees

    G. Louppe, L. Wehenkel, A. Sutera, and P. Geurts. “Understanding variable importances in forests of randomized trees.” Advances in neural information processing systems , 26, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    A debiased MDI feature importance measure for random forests

    X. Li, Y . Wang, S. Basu, K. Kumbier, and B. Yu. “A debiased MDI feature importance measure for random forests.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    From global to local MDI variable importances for random forests and when they are Shapley values

    A. Sutera, G. Louppe, V .A. Huynh-Thu, L. Wehenkel, and P. Geurts. “From global to local MDI variable importances for random forests and when they are Shapley values.”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp.3533-3543, Dec 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Machine Learning Models Based on Random Forest Feature Selection and Bayesian Optimization for Predicting Daily Global Solar Radia- tion

    M. Chaibi, L. Tarik, M. Berrada, A. and El Hmaidi. “Machine Learning Models Based on Random Forest Feature Selection and Bayesian Optimization for Predicting Daily Global Solar Radia- tion.” International Journal of Renewable Energy Development, vol. 11, no. 1, 309, Feb 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Machine learning tech- niques for short term stock movements classification for Moroccan stock exchange

    B. Labiad, A. Berrado, and L. Benabbou. “Machine learning tech- niques for short term stock movements classification for Moroccan stock exchange.” In 11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems: Theories and Applications (SITA), IEEE, pp. 1-6, Oct 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Predictive analysis of stocks using data minin

    G. Magesh and P. Swarnalatha,“Predictive analysis of stocks using data minin”, in Smart Intelligent Computing and Applications: Proceedings of the Second International Conference (SCI) , vol. 2, pp. 283-289, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Advances in financial machine learning

    M.L. De Prado. “Advances in financial machine learning.” John Wiley & Sons, Feb 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    A reinforcement learning approach to improve the performance of the Avellaneda-Stoikov market-making algorithm

    J. Falces Marin, D. Diaz Pardo de Vera, and E. Lopez Gonzalo. “A reinforcement learning approach to improve the performance of the Avellaneda-Stoikov market-making algorithm.” Plos one , vol. 17, no. 12, p.e0277042, Dec 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    M ´ethode g ´en´erale pour la r ´esolution des syst `emes d’´equations simultan´ees

    A. Cauchy. “M ´ethode g ´en´erale pour la r ´esolution des syst `emes d’´equations simultan´ees.” C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 25:536–538, 1847

  4. [12]

    A generalized normalized gradient descent algo- rithm

    D.P. Mandic. “A generalized normalized gradient descent algo- rithm.” IEEE signal processing letters vol. 11, no. 2 , pp.115-11, Jan 2004

    2004

  5. [13]

    Boosting algorithms as gradient descent

    L. Mason, J. Baxter, P. Bartlett, and M. Frean. “Boosting algorithms as gradient descent.” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 12, 1999. 8

    1999

  6. [14]

    Large-scale matrix factorization with distributed stochastic gradient descent

    R. Gemulla, E. Nijkamp, P.J. Haas, and y. Sismanis. “Large-scale matrix factorization with distributed stochastic gradient descent.” In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pp. 69-77, Aug 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    The global k-means clustering algorithm

    A. Likas, N. Vlassis, and J.J. Verbeek. “The global k-means clustering algorithm.” Pattern recognition, vol 36, no. 2, pp.451- 461, Feb 2003

    2003

  8. [16]

    A sequential multi-category classifier using radial basis function networks

    S. Suresh, N. Sundararajan, and P. Saratchandran. “A sequential multi-category classifier using radial basis function networks.” Neurocomputing, vol. 71 no. 7-9, pp.1345-1358, Mar 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    A comparative study of radial basis function network with different basis functions for stock trend prediction

    R. Dash, P.K. and Dash. “A comparative study of radial basis function network with different basis functions for stock trend prediction.” In Power, Communication and Information Technology Conference (PCITC), IEEE , pp. 430-435, Oct 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    A hybrid two-stage finan- cial stock forecasting algorithm based on clustering and ensemble learning

    Y . Xu, C. Yang, S. Peng, and Y . Nojima. “A hybrid two-stage finan- cial stock forecasting algorithm based on clustering and ensemble learning.” Applied Intelligence, vol. 50, pp.3852-3867, Nov 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Three automated stock-trading agents: A comparative study

    A.A. Sherstov nd P. Stone. “Three automated stock-trading agents: A comparative study.” In Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce VI. Theories for and Engineering of Distributed Mechanisms and Systems: AAMAS, Workshop, Springer, AMEC, Jul 2004

    2004

  12. [20]

    Automated feature selection of predictors in electronic medical records data

    J. Gronsbell, J. Minnier, S. Yu, K. Liao, and T. Cai. “Automated feature selection of predictors in electronic medical records data.” Biometrics, vol. 75, no. 1, pp.268-277, Mar 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Novel modelling strategies for high-frequency stock trading data

    x. Zhang, Y . Huang, K. Xu, and L. Xing. 2023.“Novel modelling strategies for high-frequency stock trading data.” Financial Inno- vation, vol 9, no. 1, pp.1-25., Dec 2022

    2023

  14. [22]

    How well do investor sentiment and ensemble learning predict Bitcoin prices?

    P. Hajek, L. Hikkerova, and J.M. Sahut. “How well do investor sentiment and ensemble learning predict Bitcoin prices?.” Research in International Business and Finance, vol. 64, p.101836, Jan 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Predictive model for water absorption in sublayers using a machine learning method

    W. Liu, W.D. Liu, J. Gu, and X. Shen. “Predictive model for water absorption in sublayers using a machine learning method.” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering , vol. 182, p.106367, Nov 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Po- tential of reducing crop insurance subsidy based on willingness to pay and random forest analysis

    R. Anisa, D. Kusumaningrum, V .A. Sutomo, and K.S. Tan. “Po- tential of reducing crop insurance subsidy based on willingness to pay and random forest analysis.” In Mathematical and Statistical Methods for Actuarial Sciences and Finance: eMAF2020 , Springer International Publis...

    2021

  17. [25]

    A random forests approach to predicting clean energy stock prices

    P. Sadorsky. “A random forests approach to predicting clean energy stock prices.” Journal of risk and financial management , vol. 4, no. 2, p.48, Jan 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Machine learning for asset managers

    M.M. de Prado. “Machine learning for asset managers.” Cambridge University Press, Apr 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Gradient descent learning algorithm overview: A general dynamical systems perspective

    P. Baldi. “Gradient descent learning algorithm overview: A general dynamical systems perspective.” Transactions on neural networks, IEEE, vol 6, no 1, pp.182-195, Jan 1995

    1995

  20. [28]

    Gradient descent for general reinforce- ment learning

    L. Baird, and A. Moore. “Gradient descent for general reinforce- ment learning.” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 11, 1998

    1998

  21. [29]

    K-means clustering: a half-century synthesis

    D. Steinley. “K-means clustering: a half-century synthesis.” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology , vol. 59, no. 1, pp.1-34, May 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    Clustering Indian stock market data for portfolio management

    S.R. Nanda, B. Mahanty, and M.K. Tiwari. “Clustering Indian stock market data for portfolio management.” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 12, pp.8793-8798, Dec 2010

    2010

  23. [31]

    S.K. Oh, W.D. Kim, W. Pedrycz, and S.C. Joo. ”Design of K-means clustering-based polynomial radial basis function neural networks (pRBF NNs) realized with the aid of particle swarm optimization and differential evolution.” Neurocomputing, vol. 78, no. 1, pp.121- 132, Feb 2012

    2012

  24. [32]

    Forecasting stock indices using radial basis function neural networks optimized by artificial fish swarm algorithm

    W. Shen, X. Guo, C. Wu, and D. Wu.“Forecasting stock indices using radial basis function neural networks optimized by artificial fish swarm algorithm.” Knowledge-Based Systems , vol. 24, no. 3, pp.378-385, Apr 2011

    2011

  25. [33]

    Machine learning for forecasting mid-price movements using limit order book data

    P. Nousi, A. Tsantekidis, N. Passalis, A. Ntakaris, J. Kanniainen, A. Tefas, M. Gabbouj, and A. Iosifidis. “Machine learning for forecasting mid-price movements using limit order book data.” Access IEEE, vol. 7, pp.64722-64736, May 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Optimum Output Long Short-Term Memory Cell for High-Frequency Trading Fore- casting

    A. Ntakaris, M. Gabbouj, and J. Kanniainen.“Optimum Output Long Short-Term Memory Cell for High-Frequency Trading Fore- casting.”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09840 , Apr 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Detection of false investment strategies using unsupervised learning methods

    M. Løpez de Prado, and M.J. Lewis.“Detection of false investment strategies using unsupervised learning methods.” Quantitative Fi- nance, vol. 19, no 9, pp.1555-1565, Sep 2019. APPENDIX A 9 TABLE III: MSE scores for the Simple experimental protocol. Stock Month MDI Train MDI T...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.