Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Exploring applications of topological data analysis in stock index movement prediction

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 The paper claims that a Takens-embedding point cloud with Betti-curve, total-persistence, and persistent-entropy features fed to XGBoost is the best TDA configuration for predicting stock index direction, producing over 150% cumulative…

desk verdict A transparent benchmark whose headline result is a selected maximum; useful as a configuration guide, not as evidence that TDA predicts stock moves. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13881 v1 pith:JEZNUUHR submitted 2024-11-21 cs.LG physics.data-an

Dazhi Huang , Pengcheng Xu , Xiaocheng Huang , Jiayi Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGphysics.data-an
keywords topologicaldataanalysispersistenthomologystockindexmovementpredictionTakensembeddingBetticurveXGBoostalphacomplexfinancialtimeseries
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 sets out to establish that the way you build a point cloud, the topological features you extract from it, and the machine-learning model you feed them into are decisive for whether TDA can predict next-day stock index direction. Using the CSI300 index and extending to DAX, HSI, and FTSE, the authors compare three point-cloud constructions, four topological features, fifteen feature combinations, and six classifiers. Their headline empirical claim is that a Takens-embedding point cloud with Betti curve, total persistence, and persistent entropy fed to XGBoost produced the highest profit: a cumulative return above 150% with a 17.7% maximum drawdown on CSI300 from 2018 to 2024. If correct, this means topological shape summaries can serve as a usable directional signal, and that TDA configuration choices are not a detail but a first-order determinant of success.

What carries the argument

The machinery is persistent homology of the $\alpha$ complex built from three point clouds, followed by four vectorized summaries. The Takens-embedding point cloud reconstructs a phase-space quasi-attractor from index returns; the correlation point cloud applies multidimensional scaling to the distance transform of constituent-stock return correlations; the factor point cloud applies kernel PCA to stock factor data. The four summaries are the Betti curve (a count of homology features as the filtration radius grows), persistent entropy (Shannon entropy of barcode lifetimes), total persistence (here, $\sum_j l_j \log l_j$ over barcode lifetimes), and the $L^2$ norm of the persistence landscape. Concatenating these summaries into one vector for classifiers is what makes the topological output usable, and the $\alpha$ complex is what makes the persistent-homology computation tractable on large financial point clouds.

What would settle it

Re-run the best configuration (Takens-embedding point cloud; Betti curve, total persistence, and persistent entropy; XGBoost) on the same 2018-2024 CSI300 rolling sample and compare it against XGBoost trained on raw lagged index returns without any topological features; the central claim is undercut if the non-TDA baseline matches or beats the over-150% cumulative return at comparable drawdown, or if the TDA strategy's edge disappears after realistic transaction costs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a configuration ranking: among all combinations tested, the Takens Embedding Point Cloud, computed by delay-embedding index returns at lags of 1, 5, 20, and 60 trading days, with the Betti curve, total persistence, and persistent entropy as features and XGBoost as the classifier, achieved the highest cumulative return (over 150%) and a maximum drawdown of 17.7% on the CSI300 out-of-sample period. The paper also finds that the Takens-embedding cloud has the highest average cumulative return (25.47%) across feature combinations and models, while the component correlation cloud (-2.7%) and component factor cloud (-0.5%) trail far behind. Feature combinations that include the Betti curve outperform those without it by around 13.31% in cumulative return, and the paper reports that the extended experiments on DAX, HSI, and FTSE generally support these conclusions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the topological shape summaries of these point clouds carry real information about whether the index will rise or fall the next trading day; if they are essentially noise for daily returns, the ranking of configurations is not predictive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Takens-embedding point clouds should be the default starting point for TDA-based index-direction models, since they outperformed both constituent-correlation and constituent-factor clouds by a wide margin.
  • Any TDA feature set for this task should include the Betti curve; combinations with it beat combinations without it by around 13.31% in cumulative return.
  • The specific best configuration (Takens embedding, Betti curve plus total persistence plus persistent entropy, XGBoost) is the configuration to test first in follow-up work, because it produced over 150% cumulative return with a 17.7% maximum drawdown on CSI300.
  • No single configuration stays on top over time; the best model and feature pair shifts across periods and prediction targets, so dynamic configuration selection may matter for deployment.
  • Tree-based models (XGBoost and LightGBM) were the most accurate classifiers for vectorized topological features.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the reported accuracies hover near 50-53%, the cumulative-return results may be driven by a small number of favorable periods or by momentum in the underlying index; a per-year and per-regime breakdown would clarify how stable the edge is.
  • Beyond the paper: the design does not include a non-TDA baseline, so the case that topological features add signal rather than merely re-encoding raw returns remains open.
  • Beyond the paper: the Betti curve's advantage could stem from its dense vector structure suiting tree models, not from topological content; permuting persistence diagrams or comparing against random summaries would distinguish those explanations.
  • Beyond the paper: the trading metric is before costs and uses daily rebalancing; the practical value of the strategy depends on whether the edge survives transaction costs, which the reported drawdown and return do not by themselves establish.
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 a systematic framework for applying topological data analysis (TDA) to stock index movement classification. It constructs three types of point clouds (Takens time-delay embedding, cross-correlation of constituents, and formulaic factors of constituents), extracts four topological features (Betti curve, total persistence, persistent entropy, persistence landscape L2 norm), enumerates all 15 non-empty feature combinations, and feeds them into six machine learning models. The pipeline is evaluated on CSI300 via a rolling monthly retraining scheme from 2018 to 2024, and extended results are reported for DAX, FTSE, and HSI. The central claims are that the Takens embedding point cloud combined with Betti curve, total persistence, and persistent entropy using XGBoost yields the highest cumulative return on CSI300 (above 150% with 17.7% max drawdown), and that among point cloud types, Takens embedding achieves the highest average cumulative return.

Significance. If the empirical claims were adequately supported, the paper would provide a valuable benchmark for comparing TDA configurations in financial time-series classification, with a transparent and reproducible experimental framework: the code is publicly available, the full results for all 270 configurations are tabulated in the appendix, and the rolling out-of-sample retraining scheme is methodologically sound as a base design. The paper also usefully documents that configuration choices materially affect reported performance. However, as it stands, the central claims are not supported by the evidence presented: the headline configuration is selected from the same backtest period used to report its performance, returns are gross of transaction costs, and no non-TDA baseline is included. These omissions make the superiority claims of specific TDA setups unreliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3 and Appendix C] The headline result (cumulative return above 150%, max drawdown 17.7%, accuracy 53.4%) is the maximum over a grid of 3 point clouds × 15 feature combinations × 6 models = 270 configurations, with the entire 2018–2024 evaluation period used both to select and to report the best setup. Under the null of no predictive power, the maximum over 270 configurations is expected to be inflated; for roughly 1500 test days, the best of 270 independent coin-flip classifiers would typically reach about 54% accuracy, which is consistent with the reported best accuracy of 53.4% (Appendix C, Takens FeaComb 14, TDAXGBoost). No hold-out validation, multiple-testing correction, or significance tests are provided. Consequently, the claims in Sections 4.3 and 5 that this configuration 'yields the highest profit' and that the Takens embedding point cloud is superior are not supported.
  2. [Section 4.3] The reported cumulative returns are computed before transaction costs. The strategy predicts the t+1 daily direction and is applied on a daily basis, so turnover is near 100% per day. Even a modest one-way cost of 10 basis points per trade would substantially erode the reported >150% cumulative return, and with any realistic cost model the profitability of the best configuration is questionable. The paper does not mention transaction costs or a trading-cost model anywhere, yet the conclusion frames these returns as 'profit.' Without a cost adjustment, the economic significance of the results is not established.
  3. [Sections 4.3 and 5] No non-TDA baseline is included. The paper compares 270 TDA configurations but never compares against a simple baseline such as logistic regression on raw returns, a momentum strategy, or a random forest on price features without persistent homology. Since all reported accuracies are near 50% (the best is 53.4%), the evidence that the topological features themselves carry predictive signal is weak. The claim that 'TDA-based modeling' is effective for stock index movement classification therefore lacks a necessary control; the observed rankings among TDA configurations could arise from the ML model or from selection noise rather than from the topological summaries.
  4. [Table 1] The methodology for the extended experiments on DAX, FTSE, and HSI is underspecified. The paper only describes the training/prediction split and rolling scheme for CSI300 (training 2015–2017, prediction 2018–2024, Section 4.1). For Table 1, the reader is not told the corresponding training and test periods, whether the configurations were selected on the same test period before being reported, or how the absence of the formulaic factor data (which is derived from CSI300 constituents via Yu et al. [32]) affects the comparison. The table presents only the top five results per dataset, which again appear to be selected from a larger grid, and no significance testing or confidence intervals are given. These issues prevent the reader from drawing the 'further support' conclusion stated in Section 4.3.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2.3] The notation in the definition of total persistence is garbled: the text reads 'we select P j∈Jd lj · log(lj)' where the summation symbol appears as 'P'. This should be written as a proper summation over the barcodes.
  2. [Section 3.1.3] The kernel Principal Component Analysis (kPCA) is used for the factor point cloud, but the specific kernel and its parameters are not specified, which hinders reproducibility.
  3. [Figures 7–9] The text around Figures 7–9 contains a long sequence of '/uni00000015/...' characters, apparently a PDF encoding artifact. This should be removed so that the figure captions and surrounding text are readable.
  4. [References] References [8] and [36] cite the same paper (Edelsbrunner, Letscher, and Zomorodian, 'Topological Persistence and Simplification'), and the duplicate should be consolidated.
  5. [Section 2.1] The sentence 'The newly added cells αp (where k is the dimension) in each Ki ...' uses 'k' but should use 'p' to match the notation of the surrounding text.
  6. [Section 4.2] The text states that 'Model predictions and performance metrics, including accuracy, F1 score, cumulative return, and maximum drawdown, are recorded' but the appendix tables report only accuracy, cumulative equity, cumulative return, and max drawdown. The F1 score is never presented, which is a gap between the stated and reported metrics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: TDA features are computed from data, predictions are out-of-sample under rolling retraining, and the paper's claims do not reduce to fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's pipeline is empirically self-contained: point clouds are constructed from index and constituent data (Section 3.1), persistent homology produces persistence diagrams via alpha complexes (Section 3.2), and vectorized topological features (Betti curve, persistent entropy, total persistence, persistence landscape L2 norm) are computed from those diagrams and fed to six classifiers (Sections 3.3, 3.4). The prediction target is next-day index direction, evaluated out-of-sample from Jan 2018 onward with monthly rolling retraining (Section 4.1). No parameter is fitted to the target and then renamed a prediction; the topological features are not defined in terms of the outcome variable; and no result is justified solely by a citation to the present authors' prior work. The paper's headline result, that the Takens embedding point cloud with Betti curve, total persistence, and persistent entropy under TDAXGBoost yields the highest cumulative return (Section 4.3), is a maximum over an enumerated grid of 3 point clouds × 15 feature combinations × 6 models. Choosing the best configuration on the same evaluation period used to report its performance is a real statistical concern, but it is selection bias / multiple testing, not circular reasoning: the selected configuration is not forced by construction to equal the input, and no equation in the paper equates the prediction with a fitted quantity. Similarly, the near-50% accuracies could indicate weak or null predictive signal, but that is a validity concern, not circularity. Therefore, under the defined circularity taxonomy, the derivation chain contains no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical comparison, not a derivation. It rests on modeling choices (Takens lags, window lengths, reduced dimensions) and on the assumption that persistent homology captures predictive structure in financial returns. No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated. The factor point cloud is the least self-contained part because it relies on an external deep RL factor set.

free parameters (7)
  • Takens embedding lags and dimension = lags {1, 5, 20, 60}, dimension p = 4
    Chosen by hand to capture daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly fluctuations (Section 3.1.1); no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Correlation point cloud window length n = not specified
    Section 3.1.2 defines a sliding window of n days but never gives n; this is a load-bearing tuning choice for the correlation structure.
  • MDS embedding dimension = 4
    Section 3.1.2 reduces the distance matrix to four dimensions; no justification or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • kPCA reduced dimension m = not specified
    Section 3.1.3 uses m < d but never states m; the factor point cloud depends on this choice.
  • Betti curve vector size m_d = 100
    Set in Section 2.2.1; affects feature dimensionality and was not ablated.
  • Persistence landscape dimension truncation = not specified
    Section 2.2.4 defines F in R^dim but dim is never stated; the feature vectors used in ML depend on this truncation.
  • ML model hyperparameters = not specified
    No hyperparameter settings for XGBoost, LightGBM, RandomForest, SVM, LSTM, or MLP are reported; likely defaults are used but not documented.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Takens embedding theorem applies to stock index return series, so delay-embedded point clouds preserve the relevant dynamics.
    Section 3.1.1 invokes Takens [24] and Packard et al. [25] to justify quasi-attractors; financial returns are noisy and are not shown to satisfy the theorem's smoothness and observability conditions.
  • domain assumption Persistent homology features of the constructed point clouds carry predictive information for next-day index direction.
    The entire empirical design assumes topological summaries are informative; nowhere is this checked against non-TDA features or a random baseline.
  • standard math Alpha complex persistence diagrams computed by Gudhi are faithful and stable for these point clouds.
    Section 3.2 relies on alpha complex construction and the Gudhi library; stability of persistence diagrams is standard, but computational limits such as maximum filtration radius and homology dimension are not described.
  • ad hoc to paper The factor data from the deep RL model in Yu et al. [32] are appropriate and available for all constituents.
    Section 3.1.3 depends on an external RL-generated factor set that is not described or released; the factor point cloud cannot be reconstructed from the paper alone.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring applications of topological data analysis in stock index movement prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JEZNUUHR

@misc{pith2026241113881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring applications of topological data analysis in stock index movement prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JEZNUUHR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13881}
}
read the original abstract

Topological Data Analysis (TDA) has recently gained significant attention in the field of financial prediction. However, the choice of point cloud construction methods, topological feature representations, and classification models has a substantial impact on prediction results. This paper addresses the classification problem of stock index movement. First, we construct point clouds for stock indices using three different methods. Next, we apply TDA to extract topological structures from the point clouds. Four distinct topological features are computed to represent the patterns in the data, and 15 combinations of these features are enumerated and input into six different machine learning models. We evaluate the predictive performance of various TDA configurations by conducting index movement classification tasks on datasets such as CSI, DAX, HSI and FTSE providing insights into the efficiency of different TDA setups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13881 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A filtration of a complex from a point cloud of four points. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The geometric realization of Cech complex of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The corresponding persistence diagram of Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the transformation from persistence barcodes to the Betti curve. The vertical red line marks a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a)The persistence diagram of the CSI300 Index on June 29, 2020, illustrating the birth-death pairs of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Workflow for Index Prediction. We build point clouds for each stock data set using three different ways(Section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top 5 results on Takens embedding Point Cloud. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top 5 results on Component Stock Correlations Point Cloud. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top 5 results on Component Stock Factor Point Cloud. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of cumulative returns observed in the experimental records across different topological feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Generating synergistic formulaic alpha collections via reinforcement learning

    Shuo Yu, Hongyan Xue, Xiang Ao, Feiyang Pan, Jia He, Dandan Tu, and Qing He. Generating synergistic formulaic alpha collections via reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 5476–5486, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Stock market movement forecast: A systematic review

    Oscar Bustos and Alexandra Pomares-Quimbaya. Stock market movement forecast: A systematic review. Expert Systems with Applications, 156:113464, 2020. Publisher: Elsevier

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Fuzzy dual-factor time-series for stock index forecasting

    Hsing-Hui Chu, Tai-Liang Chen, Ching-Hsue Cheng, and Chen-Chi Huang. Fuzzy dual-factor time-series for stock index forecasting. Expert systems with applications, 36(1):165–171, 2009. Publisher: Elsevier

    work page 2009

  4. [3]

    Forecasting model of global stock index by stochastic time effective neural network

    Zhe Liao and Jun Wang. Forecasting model of global stock index by stochastic time effective neural network. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1):834–841, 2010. Publisher: Elsevier

    work page 2010

  5. [4]

    An efficient CMAC neural network for stock index forecasting

    Chi-Jie Lu and Jui-Yu Wu. An efficient CMAC neural network for stock index forecasting. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(12):15194–15201, 2011. Publisher: Elsevier

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Forecasting the volatility of stock price index

    Tae Hyup Roh. Forecasting the volatility of stock price index. Expert Systems with Applications, 33(4):916–922,

    work page

  7. [6]

    Forecasting stock indices with back propagation neural network

    Jian-Zhou Wang, Ju-Jie Wang, Zhe-George Zhang, and Shu-Po Guo. Forecasting stock indices with back propagation neural network. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11):14346–14355, 2011. Publisher: Elsevier

    work page 2011

  8. [7]

    Leung, Hazem Daouk, and An-Sing Chen

    Mark T. Leung, Hazem Daouk, and An-Sing Chen. Forecasting stock indices: a comparison of classification and level estimation models. International Journal of forecasting, 16(2):173–190, 2000. Publisher: Elsevier

    work page 2000

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Topological Persistence and Simplification

    Edelsbrunner, Letscher, and Zomorodian. Topological Persistence and Simplification. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 28(4):511–533, November 2002

    2002

  2. [9]

    Computing persistent homology

    Afra Zomorodian and Gunnar Carlsson. Computing persistent homology. In Proceedings of the twentieth annual symposium on Computational geometry, pages 347–356, Brooklyn New York USA, June 2004. ACM

    2004

  3. [10]

    Topology and data

    Gunnar Carlsson. Topology and data. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 46(2):255–308, 2009

    2009

  4. [11]

    Time series classification via topological data analysis

    Yuhei Umeda. Time series classification via topological data analysis. Information and Media Technologies, 12:228–239, 2017. Publisher: Information and Media Technologies Editorial Board

    2017

  5. [12]

    Topological data analysis in investment decisions

    Anubha Goel, Puneet Pasricha, and Aparna Mehra. Topological data analysis in investment decisions. Expert Systems with Applications, 147:113222, 2020. Publisher: Elsevier

    2020

  6. [13]

    Using topological data analysis (TDA) and persistent homology to analyze the stock markets in Singapore and Taiwan

    Peter Tsung-Wen Yen and Siew Ann Cheong. Using topological data analysis (TDA) and persistent homology to analyze the stock markets in Singapore and Taiwan. Frontiers in Physics, 9:572216, 2021. Publisher: Frontiers Media SA

    2021

  7. [14]

    Clustering and classification of time series using topological data analysis with applications to finance

    Sourav Majumdar and Arnab Kumar Laha. Clustering and classification of time series using topological data analysis with applications to finance. Expert Systems with Applications, 162:113868, December 2020

    2020

  8. [15]

    Computational topology: an introduction

    Herbert Edelsbrunner and John L Harer. Computational topology: an introduction . American Mathematical Society, 2022

    2022

  9. [16]

    An entropy- based persistence barcode

    Harish Chintakunta, Thanos Gentimis, Rocio Gonzalez-Diaz, Maria-Jose Jimenez, and Hamid Krim. An entropy- based persistence barcode. Pattern Recognition, 48(2):391–401, 2015. Publisher: Elsevier

    2015

  10. [17]

    Khasawneh

    Audun Myers, Elizabeth Munch, and Firas A. Khasawneh. Persistent homology of complex networks for dynamic state detection. Physical Review E, 100(2):022314, August 2019. 12

    2019

  11. [18]

    P. Bubenik. Statistical topological data analysis using persistence landscapes. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16(1):77–102, 2015

    2015

  12. [19]

    Subsampling methods for persistent homology

    Frédéric Chazal, Brittany Fasy, Fabrizio Lecci, Bertrand Michel, Alessandro Rinaldo, and Larry Wasserman. Subsampling methods for persistent homology. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2143–

  13. [20]

    Robust topological inference: Distance to a measure and kernel distance

    Brittany Fasy, Fabrizio Lecci, Larry Wasserman, et al. Robust topological inference: Distance to a measure and kernel distance. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(159):1–40, 2018

    2018

  14. [21]

    Topological data analysis of financial time series: Landscapes of crashes

    Marian Gidea and Yuri Katz. Topological data analysis of financial time series: Landscapes of crashes. Physica A: Statistical mechanics and its applications, 491:820–834, 2018. Publisher: Elsevier

    2018

  15. [22]

    Topological time-series analysis with delay-variant embedding

    Quoc Hoan Tran and Yoshihiko Hasegawa. Topological time-series analysis with delay-variant embedding. Physical Review E, 99(3):032209, March 2019

    2019

  16. [23]

    Seversky, Shelby Davis, and Matthew Berger

    Lee M. Seversky, Shelby Davis, and Matthew Berger. On time-series topological data analysis: New data and opportunities. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, pages 59–67, 2016

    2016

  17. [24]

    Detecting strange attractors in turbulence

    Floris Takens. Detecting strange attractors in turbulence. In David Rand and Lai-Sang Young, editors, Dynam- ical Systems and Turbulence, Warwick 1980, volume 898, pages 366–381. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1981. Series Title: Lecture Notes in Mathematics

    1980

  18. [25]

    N. H. Packard, J. P. Crutchfield, J. D. Farmer, and R. S. Shaw. Geometry from a Time Series.Physical Review Letters, 45(9):712–716, September 1980

    1980

  19. [26]

    Profitability of momentum strategies: An evaluation of alternative explanations

    Narasimhan Jegadeesh and Sheridan Titman. Profitability of momentum strategies: An evaluation of alternative explanations. The Journal of finance, 56(2):699–720, 2001

    2001

  20. [27]

    Multidimensional scaling

    J Douglas Carroll and Phipps Arabie. Multidimensional scaling. Measurement, judgment and decision making, pages 179–250, 1998

    1998

  21. [28]

    Risk analysis of China’s stock markets based on topological data structures

    Hongfeng Guo, Hang Yu, Qiguang An, and Xin Zhang. Risk analysis of China’s stock markets based on topological data structures. Procedia Computer Science, 202:203–216, 2022. Publisher: Elsevier

    2022

  22. [29]

    Hierarchical structure in financial markets

    Rosario N Mantegna. Hierarchical structure in financial markets. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 11:193–197, 1999

    1999

  23. [30]

    Market index and stock price direction prediction using machine learning techniques: an empirical study on the KOSPI and HSI

    Yanshan Wang and In-Chan Choi. Market index and stock price direction prediction using machine learning techniques: an empirical study on the KOSPI and HSI. arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.7119, pages 1–13, 2013. Publisher: Citeseer

    2013 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Bareket and B

    A. Bareket and B. Pârv. Predicting Medium-term Stock Index Direction Using Constituent Stocks and Machine Learning. IEEE Access, 2024. Publisher: IEEE

    2024

  25. [33]

    Nonlinear component analysis as a kernel eigenvalue problem

    Bernhard Schölkopf, Alexander Smola, and Klaus-Robert Müller. Nonlinear component analysis as a kernel eigenvalue problem. Neural computation, 10(5):1299–1319, 1998

    1998

  26. [34]

    A stable multi-scale kernel for topological machine learning

    Jan Reininghaus, Stefan Huber, Ulrich Bauer, and Roland Kwitt. A stable multi-scale kernel for topological machine learning. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 4741–4748, Boston, MA, USA, June 2015. IEEE

    2015

  27. [35]

    Time series featurization via topological data analysis

    Kwangho Kim, Jisu Kim, and Alessandro Rinaldo. Time series featurization via topological data analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.02987, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Topological persistence and simplification

    Edelsbrunner, Letscher, and Zomorodian. Topological persistence and simplification. Discrete & computational geometry, 28:511–533, 2002

    2002

  29. [37]

    The Gudhi Library: Simplicial Complexes and Persistent Homology

    Clément Maria, Jean-Daniel Boissonnat, Marc Glisse, and Mariette Yvinec. The Gudhi Library: Simplicial Complexes and Persistent Homology. In Hoon Hong and Chee Yap, editors, Mathematical Software – ICMS 2014, volume 8592, pages 167–174. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heid...

    2014

  30. [38]

    Clark and Michael W

    Todd E. Clark and Michael W. McCracken. IMPROVING FORECAST ACCURACY BY COMBINING RECUR- SIVE AND ROLLING FORECASTS*. International Economic Review, 50(2):363–395, May 2009. 13 A Combination Code This section enumerates the topological feature combinations used in the study. Ea...

    2009

Pith tools

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