Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

QuantBench: Benchmarking AI Methods for Quantitative Investment

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read QuantBench is an industrial-grade benchmark platform that standardizes data, models, and evaluation across the whole quantitative investment pipeline, and its comparisons point to continual learning, better relational modeling, and…

desk verdict Solid benchmark engineering, but the headline empirical claims rest on backtests that ignore costs and point-in-time universes, so treat the results as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18600 v1 pith:WGJCYXTD submitted 2025-04-24 q-fin.CP cs.AIcs.CE

Saizhuo Wang , Hao Kong , Jiadong Guo , Fengrui Hua , Yiyan Qi , Wanyun Zhou , Jiahao Zheng , Xinyu Wang
show 2 more authors
Lionel M. Ni Jian Guo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.CPcs.AIcs.CE
keywords quantitativeinvestmentbenchmarkplatformAIforfinancestockpredictionbacktestingmachinelearningalphadecayportfoliooptimization
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 argues that AI for quantitative investing has advanced without a shared way to test and compare methods, and that this gap blocks academic results from reaching trading practice. It presents QuantBench, a benchmark platform that standardizes data, model implementations, and evaluation metrics across the full pipeline from raw data and factor mining through prediction, portfolio construction, and order execution. If the platform works as claimed, researchers and practitioners can compare stock-prediction models on equal terms, much as standardized benchmarks accelerated other fields. The paper's own comparisons on the platform then identify four concrete research gaps: models degrade quickly as markets shift, graph-based relational models do not consistently help, deep networks fit well but often lose to tree models on returns, and ensembling mitigates low-signal overfitting.

What carries the argument

The central object is the layered quant research pipeline: Data Preparation drives Factor Mining, which feeds Alpha Modeling, which flows into Portfolio Optimization and then Order Execution, with an upper layer defining learning objectives and an evaluation layer applying metrics. This pipeline is the mechanism that lets otherwise incompatible models be compared: every model receives the same standardized data format, is trained against the same objective, and is evaluated on the same backtest. Supporting machinery includes the unified dataset covering market, fundamental, relational, and news data; the model zoo spanning tree models, RNNs, transformers, graph networks, and hypergraph models; and metrics that separate task-specific signal, portfolio, and execution quality from robustness, correlation, and alpha decay.

What would settle it

Re-run the paper's empirical comparison on a point-in-time universe that includes delisted stocks and apply realistic transaction costs and turnover constraints to the top-300 backtests; if the reported returns shrink to near zero or the model ordering flips, the platform's industrial-grade claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

QuantBench claims to provide, in a single open platform, the layered structure of an industrial quant workflow: data preparation, factor mining, alpha modeling, portfolio optimization, and order execution, together with datasets spanning markets, frequencies, and information types, a model zoo of temporal, spatiotemporal, and graph-based learners, and task-specific plus task-agnostic evaluation metrics. Its empirical study, run on the platform, reports that frequent rolling model updates beat stale models; that adaptive graph models outperform fixed relational graphs; that deep models produce higher information coefficients but not consistently higher returns than XGBoost; and that averaging many seeded runs improves robustness. The paper frames these results as evidence that the benchmark can surface research directions worth pursuing, not as a final ranking of methods.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on the assumption that the backtest data has no survivorship or lookahead bias and that the top-300 stock-selection results are meaningful without modeling transaction costs or turnover, so if stocks that later delisted or statements not available at trade time are absent, the reported returns and model rankings would not be trustworthy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers get a common ground where a new model can be compared against a fixed set of baselines and datasets, so gains can be attributed to the method rather than to data preprocessing or evaluation choices.
  • Frequent retraining (three-month rolling) noticeably beats no rolling, which argues that continual and online learning methods are a priority for quant AI.
  • Fixed relational graphs from industry classifications or knowledge bases do not reliably help predictions, while adaptive graph models that learn relations from data do, pointing to latent-relation modeling as the promising direction.
  • Deep networks' higher information coefficient does not translate into better returns or Sharpe ratios than tree models on some feature sets, so training objectives and evaluation targets need to be aligned.
  • Averaging predictions across repeated runs of the same model reduces variance and improves backtest results, indicating that ensemble methods are a partial answer to low signal-to-noise overfitting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If transaction costs and turnover were added to the top-300 backtests, the gap between tree models and deep models could widen or narrow; cost-aware evaluation is a testable extension the paper does not carry out.
  • Inference: The finding that fixed relational graphs rarely help while adaptive graphs do suggests a concrete next experiment: vary the graph construction (industry taxonomy, knowledge-base edges, learned similarity) while holding the predictor fixed, to isolate where relational information actually enters.
  • Inference: The combination of low correlation across models and high variance within one model implies that reporting single-seed results in quant papers is probably misleading; a minimum of multiple seeds and an ensemble baseline could become a reporting standard.
  • Inference: Alpha decay results imply benchmark leaderboards need time-stamped validity; an interesting design would be to track how long each model's edge survives after publication.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces QuantBench, a proposed benchmark platform for AI methods in quantitative investment. The platform is designed to cover the full quant pipeline—data preparation, factor mining, alpha modeling, portfolio optimization, and order execution—and to provide standardized datasets, model implementations, and evaluation metrics. The authors report empirical studies using the platform: comparisons of tree models versus deep networks (Section 6.1), a broad model comparison (Section 6.2), training-objective comparisons (Section 6.3), rolling-window retraining for alpha decay (Section 6.4), validation set selection for hyperparameter tuning (Section 6.5), and ensembling to mitigate overfitting (Section 6.6). From these experiments, the paper draws research directions including continual learning, relational modeling, and overfitting mitigation. The central claim is that QuantBench is an industrial-grade, standardized benchmark whose empirical studies reveal critical research directions for AI in quantitative investment.

Significance. If the platform and its empirical results are sound, QuantBench would be a useful community resource: it covers a broad range of models and data types, includes temporal relational data with explicit leakage-aware snapshots, and proposes task-agnostic metrics such as alpha decay and robustness. The breadth of model coverage and the attempt to unify the pipeline are genuinely valuable. However, the paper's central empirical claims currently rest on backtests whose data universe, cost assumptions, and release status are not adequately specified. The reported findings (for example, the advantage of adaptive graph models over homogeneous GNNs, or the superiority of frequent rolling retraining) cannot yet be considered reliable evidence for the stated research directions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1 / Section 6.1 / Table 6] The backtest universe is not demonstrated to be point-in-time or free of survivorship bias. Table 6 lists universes by current index names (CSI 300, S&P 500, etc.) with no statement about historical constituent membership, delisted stocks, or point-in-time availability. Section 6.1 selects the top 300 stocks at each cross-section without specifying whether the candidate set is the historical index membership or today's constituents applied retrospectively. If current constituent lists are used for past dates, the results in Tables 2 and 3 will be inflated and model rankings biased. The authors must describe how membership is constructed over time, whether delisted stocks are included, and how the data provider handles corporate actions and old tickers.
  2. [Section 6.1 / Section 6.2 / Appendix A] Transaction costs, slippage, and market impact are not modeled, yet the paper reports gross annualized returns such as 24.58% (Table 2) and Sharpe ratios near 3.4 (Table 3). The strategies rebalance a top-300 portfolio at each cross-section, which implies substantial turnover; ignoring costs can change both absolute performance and the relative ordering of models. The paper itself concedes in Appendix A that 'implementing more realistic and efficient backtesting methods' is future work. This directly conflicts with the 'industrial-grade' and 'standardization' claims for the empirical component. The backtests should either include realistic cost and turnover modeling or be explicitly labeled as cost-free and interpreted with that caveat.
  3. [Section 6.2 / Appendix C.1] The data universe used in the main model comparison is inconsistent with the supplementary figure. The text of Section 6.2 says the experiment used US stock data, while Appendix C.1 labels Figure 6 as 'Comparison of diffrent models on CSI300 dataset.' This discrepancy makes it unclear which tables correspond to which market and undermines the reproducibility of the claimed findings. The authors should state the exact market, date range, and universe for each table in Section 6 and reconcile the appendix labels.
  4. [Sections 3.2/4, Appendix A, and code availability] The paper repeatedly refers to 'supplementary materials' for full descriptions of models, data levels, and implementation details, but no supplementary material or repository link is included with the manuscript. For a benchmark paper, the ability to verify implementations and data pipelines is load-bearing; the statement that the code 'will be open-sourced' is not sufficient. The authors should provide a working repository link, an explicit data schema, and versioned evaluation code as part of the submission.
  5. [Section 6.2 / Table 3] Several conclusions in Section 6.2 are drawn from comparisons with very high variance. For example, Hawkes-GRU has return 0.35% ± 10.81% and Sharpe -0.0195 ± 0.7246, while several Transformer and GNN models have standard errors that overlap with zero on some metrics. The claim that 'adaptive graph models outperformed others' rests on point estimates (THGNN IC 4.93 vs. GAT 3.90) without reporting the number of repeated runs, seeds, or significance tests. The paper should report the evaluation protocol (number of seeds, train/validation/test split, fixed random seeds) and avoid strong research-direction conclusions from differences that are within noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] The text contains a typo: 'charaterstic-sorted portfolios' should be 'characteristic-sorted portfolios'.
  2. [Table 2] The meaning of the 'Diff' row is not defined. Clarify whether it is the relative difference (XGBoost minus LSTM divided by LSTM) and specify this in the caption.
  3. [Section 4.1 / Table 3] The model name 'STHCN' in the text is listed as 'STHGCN' in the table; please unify the naming.
  4. [Appendix C.2 / Table 9] In Table 9, the 'VPFNW' row for XGBoost is reported as '-', but no explanation is given for the missing value. State why this condition is absent.
  5. [Appendix C.1] Figure 6(b) shows a correlation matrix but the caption does not define the color scale or the metric being correlated (e.g., predictions vs. returns). A brief definition would make the figure interpretable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: QuantBench's empirical claims are produced by running submitted models on a common pipeline, not by fitting or deriving the reported metrics from the benchmark's own definitions.

full rationale

QuantBench is a benchmarking platform rather than a derivation chain. The central claims—standardization, flexibility, full-pipeline coverage, and the empirical findings in Sections 6.1–6.6 and Appendix C—are supported by dataset construction, model reimplementation, and backtests. Reported metrics (IC, ICIR, return, Sharpe, MDD) are outputs of those backtests, not inputs. Models from the authors' prior work (e.g., Ding et al. 2021; FinRL-Meta in Liu et al. 2022) appear only as benchmarked methods or related platforms, and no performance claim is justified by citing those papers rather than by the reported experiments. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work to force a conclusion. The Appendix A limitation statement that 'implementing more realistic and efficient backtesting methods' remains future work is a validity caveat about transaction costs and realism, not a circularity; it does not make the reported numbers equal to the paper's inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step can be quoted, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

QuantBench is a software platform, not a theoretical entity. The central empirical claims rest on practical assumptions about data quality, point-in-time availability, and the absence of trading costs, which are not validated in the preprint.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Backtests without transaction costs or market impact remain representative of industrial investment performance.
    All reported return and Sharpe numbers in Section 6 use ranking-based stock selection; costs and turnover are not mentioned, so the numbers are gross, not net, returns.
  • domain assumption The historical universes used for backtests reflect the stocks that were actually tradable at each time.
    Section 3.1 and Table 6 list current index constituents; no point-in-time membership or delisting handling is described.
  • domain assumption Wikidata relational snapshots capture temporal relation information without information leakage.
    Section 3.1 says temporal information is taken into account and graph snapshots are supported at any timestamp, but the actual correctness of entity alignment and snapshot timestamps is not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QuantBench: Benchmarking AI Methods for Quantitative Investment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WGJCYXTD

@misc{pith2026250418600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QuantBench: Benchmarking AI Methods for Quantitative Investment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WGJCYXTD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18600}
}
read the original abstract

The field of artificial intelligence (AI) in quantitative investment has seen significant advancements, yet it lacks a standardized benchmark aligned with industry practices. This gap hinders research progress and limits the practical application of academic innovations. We present QuantBench, an industrial-grade benchmark platform designed to address this critical need. QuantBench offers three key strengths: (1) standardization that aligns with quantitative investment industry practices, (2) flexibility to integrate various AI algorithms, and (3) full-pipeline coverage of the entire quantitative investment process. Our empirical studies using QuantBench reveal some critical research directions, including the need for continual learning to address distribution shifts, improved methods for modeling relational financial data, and more robust approaches to mitigate overfitting in low signal-to-noise environments. By providing a common ground for evaluation and fostering collaboration between researchers and practitioners, QuantBench aims to accelerate progress in AI for quantitative investment, similar to the impact of benchmark platforms in computer vision and natural language processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18600 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of QuantBench. Upper: Quant research pipeline covered in QuantBench. Lower: The layered design of QuantBench. the importance of a unified dataset, constructing datasets with both breadth and depth while maintaining consistency in data format across varied data types. Moreover, QuantBench offers a detailed market simulation framework that can vary in realism depending on the specific trading scenario. This r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Data processing pipeline of QuantBench. Blocks with green background are already supported in QuantBench, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A non-exhaustive illustration of models covered in QuantBench and their evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of different rolling schemes 6.5 Hyperparameter tuning for quant models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ensemble curve with variance illustrated. Shaded area indicates different rolling periods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of diffrent models on CSI300 dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

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. AlphaEval: A Comprehensive and Efficient Evaluation Framework for Formula Alpha Mining

    cs.AI 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AlphaEval scores alpha mining models on prediction, stability, robustness, logic, and diversity, replacing backtests with fast parallel metrics that the paper claims align with backtest outcomes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    ImageNet : A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. ImageNet : A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 248--255, June 2009. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2009.5206848. ISSN: 1063-6919

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. GLUE : A Multi - Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding . In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations , ICLR 2019, New Orleans , LA , USA , May 6-9, 2019 . OpenReview.net, 2019 a . URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=rJ4km2R5t7

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Introduction to Alpha Design

    Igor Tulchinsky. Introduction to Alpha Design . In Finding Alphas , pages 1--6. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2019. ISBN 978-1-119-57127-8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119571278.ch1. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119571278.ch1

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119571278.ch1 2019

  4. [4]

    AutoAlpha : an Efficient Hierarchical Evolutionary Algorithm for Mining Alpha Factors in Quantitative Investment , April 2020

    Tianping Zhang, Yuanqi Li, Yifei Jin, and Jian Li. AutoAlpha : an Efficient Hierarchical Evolutionary Algorithm for Mining Alpha Factors in Quantitative Investment , April 2020. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.08245. arXiv:2002.08245 [q-fin]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    AlphaEvolve : A Learning Framework to Discover Novel Alphas in Quantitative Investment

    Can Cui, Wei Wang, Meihui Zhang, Gang Chen, Zhaojing Luo, and Beng Chin Ooi. AlphaEvolve : A Learning Framework to Discover Novel Alphas in Quantitative Investment . In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data , pages 2208--2216, Virtual Event China, June 2021. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-8343-1. doi:10.1145/3448016.3457324. URL htt...

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Generating Synergistic Formulaic Alpha Collections via Reinforcement Learning , May 2023

    Shuo Yu, Hongyan Xue, Xiang Ao, Feiyang Pan, Jia He, Dandan Tu, and Qing He. Generating Synergistic Formulaic Alpha Collections via Reinforcement Learning , May 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12964. arXiv:2306.12964 [cs, q-fin]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Kelvin J. L. Koa, Yunshan Ma, Ritchie Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. Learning to Generate Explainable Stock Predictions using Self - Reflective Large Language Models , February 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03659. arXiv:2402.03659 [cs, q-fin]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Temporal Relational Ranking for Stock Prediction

    Fuli Feng, Xiangnan He, Xiang Wang, Cheng Luo, Yiqun Liu, and Tat-Seng Chua. Temporal Relational Ranking for Stock Prediction . ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 37 0 (2): 0 1--30, March 2019. ISSN 1046-8188, 1558-2868. doi:10.1145/3309547. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.09441. arXiv: 1809.09441

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Cattaneo, Richard K

    Matias D. Cattaneo, Richard K. Crump, Max H. Farrell, and Ernst Schaumburg. Characteristic- Sorted Portfolios : Estimation and Inference . The Review of Economics and Statistics, 102 0 (3): 0 531--551, July 2020. ISSN 0034-6535. doi:10.1162/rest_a_00883. URL https://doi.org/10...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Portfolio Selection

    Harry Markowitz. Portfolio Selection . The Journal of Finance, 7 0 (1): 0 77--91, 1952. ISSN 0022-1082. doi:10.2307/2975974. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2975974

    1952

  3. [11]

    Markowitz

    Harry M. Markowitz. Portfolio Selection : Efficient Diversification of Investments . Yale University Press, 1959. ISBN 978-0-300-01372-6. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bh4c8h

    1959

  4. [12]

    Optimal control of execution costs

    Dimitris Bertsimas and Andrew Lo. Optimal control of execution costs. Journal of Financial Markets, 1 0 (1): 0 1--50, 1998. ISSN 1386-4181. URL https://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeefinmar/v_3a1_3ay_3a1998_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a1-50.htm. Publisher: Elsevier

    1998

  5. [13]

    Optimal execution of portfolio transactions

    Robert Almgren and Neil Chriss. Optimal execution of portfolio transactions. Journal of Risk, pages 5--39, 2000

    2000

  6. [14]

    Yuriy Nevmyvaka, Yi Feng, and Michael J. Kearns. Reinforcement learning for optimized trade execution. In William W. Cohen and Andrew W. Moore, editors, Machine Learning , Proceedings of the Twenty - Third International Conference ( ICML 2006), Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USA ...

    2006

  7. [15]

    Universal Trading for Order Execution with Oracle Policy Distillation

    Yuchen Fang, Kan Ren, Weiqing Liu, Dong Zhou, Weinan Zhang, Jiang Bian, Yong Yu, and Tie-Yan Liu. Universal Trading for Order Execution with Oracle Policy Distillation . In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 35, pages 107--115, May 2021. doi...

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Learning Multi - Agent Intention - Aware Communication for Optimal Multi - Order Execution in Finance

    Yuchen Fang, Zhenggang Tang, Kan Ren, Weiqing Liu, Li Zhao, Jiang Bian, Dongsheng Li, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Tie-Yan Liu. Learning Multi - Agent Intention - Aware Communication for Optimal Multi - Order Execution in Finance . In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conferenc...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Qlib: An AI -oriented Quantitative Investment Platform

    Xiao Yang, Weiqing Liu, Dong Zhou, Jiang Bian, and Tie-Yan Liu. Qlib: An AI -oriented Quantitative Investment Platform . arXiv:2009.11189 [cs, q-fin], September 2020. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.11189. arXiv: 2009.11189

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    101 Formulaic Alphas

    Zura Kakushadze. 101 Formulaic Alphas . arXiv:1601.00991 [q-fin], March 2016. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00991. arXiv: 1601.00991

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Multi-factor Stock Selection via Short -term Volume -price Patterns

    Chen Li and Fubing Liu. Multi-factor Stock Selection via Short -term Volume -price Patterns . Technical report, Guotai Junan Securities, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    XGBoost : A Scalable Tree Boosting System

    Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. XGBoost : A Scalable Tree Boosting System . In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , KDD '16, pages 785--794, New York, NY, USA, 2016. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 978-...

    2016

  13. [21]

    LightGBM : A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree

    Guolin Ke, Qi Meng, Thomas Finley, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chen, Weidong Ma, Qiwei Ye, and Tie-Yan Liu. LightGBM : A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. URL https://papers...

    2017

  14. [22]

    CatBoost : unbiased boosting with categorical features

    Liudmila Prokhorenkova, Gleb Gusev, Aleksandr Vorobev, Anna Veronika Dorogush, and Andrey Gulin. CatBoost : unbiased boosting with categorical features. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018. URL https://papers.nips.cc/...

    2018

  15. [23]

    Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on typical tabular data? June 2022

    Leo Grinsztajn, Edouard Oyallon, and Gael Varoquaux. Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on typical tabular data? June 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Fp7__phQszn

    2022

  16. [24]

    Long short-term memory

    Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9 0 (8): 0 1735--1780, 1997. Publisher: MIT Press

    1997

  17. [25]

    Stock Price Prediction via Discovering Multi - Frequency Trading Patterns

    Liheng Zhang, Charu Aggarwal, and Guo-Jun Qi. Stock Price Prediction via Discovering Multi - Frequency Trading Patterns . In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 2141--2149, Halifax NS Canada, August 2017. A...

    2017

  18. [26]

    Cottrell

    Yao Qin, Dongjin Song, Haifeng Chen, Wei Cheng, Guofei Jiang, and Garrison W. Cottrell. A Dual - Stage Attention - Based Recurrent Neural Network for Time Series Prediction . In Proceedings of the Twenty - Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages...

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Exploring the Scale - Free Nature of Stock Markets : Hyperbolic Graph Learning for Algorithmic Trading

    Ramit Sawhney, Shivam Agarwal, Arnav Wadhwa, and Rajiv Shah. Exploring the Scale - Free Nature of Stock Markets : Hyperbolic Graph Learning for Algorithmic Trading . In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 , WWW '21, pages 11--22, New York, NY, USA, 2021 a . Association for ...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Zico Kolter, and Vladlen Koltun

    Shaojie Bai, J. Zico Kolter, and Vladlen Koltun. An Empirical Evaluation of Generic Convolutional and Recurrent Networks for Sequence Modeling . CoRR, abs/1803.01271, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.01271

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    MLP - Mixer : An all- MLP Architecture for Vision

    Ilya Tolstikhin, Neil Houlsby, Alexander Kolesnikov, Lucas Beyer, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Jessica Yung, Andreas Steiner, Daniel Keysers, Jakob Uszkoreit, Mario Lucic, and Alexey Dosovitskiy. MLP - Mixer : An all- MLP Architecture for Vision . arXiv:2105.01601 [cs], J...

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Informer: Beyond Efficient Transformer for Long Sequence Time - Series Forecasting

    Haoyi Zhou, Shanghang Zhang, Jieqi Peng, Shuai Zhang, Jianxin Li, Hui Xiong, and Wancai Zhang. Informer: Beyond Efficient Transformer for Long Sequence Time - Series Forecasting . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35 0 (12): 0 11106--11115, May 202...

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Autoformer: Decomposition Transformers with Auto - Correlation for Long - Term Series Forecasting , January 2022

    Haixu Wu, Jiehui Xu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Autoformer: Decomposition Transformers with Auto - Correlation for Long - Term Series Forecasting , January 2022. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.13008. arXiv:2106.13008 [cs]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    FEDformer : Frequency Enhanced Decomposed Transformer for Long -term Series Forecasting , June 2022

    Tian Zhou, Ziqing Ma, Qingsong Wen, Xue Wang, Liang Sun, and Rong Jin. FEDformer : Frequency Enhanced Decomposed Transformer for Long -term Series Forecasting , June 2022. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.12740. arXiv:2201.12740 [cs, stat]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam

    Yuqi Nie, Nam H. Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam. A Time Series is Worth 64 Words : Long -term Forecasting with Transformers . 2022. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2211.14730. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.14730. Publisher: arXiv Version Number: 2

    2022 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Graph Attention Networks

    Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph Attention Networks . arXiv:1710.10903 [cs, stat], February 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10903. arXiv: 1710.10903

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. Semi- Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks . arXiv:1609.02907 [cs, stat], February 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02907

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling

    Michael Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. Modeling Relational Data with Graph Convolutional Networks . In Aldo Gangemi, Roberto Navigli, Maria-Esther Vidal, Pascal Hitzler, Raphaël Troncy, Laura Hollink, Anna Tordai, ...

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Efficient Integration of Multi - Order Dynamics and Internal Dynamics in Stock Movement Prediction , November 2022

    Thanh Trung Huynh, Minh Hieu Nguyen, Thanh Tam Nguyen, Phi Le Nguyen, Matthias Weidlich, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, and Karl Aberer. Efficient Integration of Multi - Order Dynamics and Internal Dynamics in Stock Movement Prediction , November 2022. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.07...

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Spatiotemporal Hypergraph Convolution Network for Stock Movement Forecasting

    Ramit Sawhney, Shivam Agarwal, Arnav Wadhwa, and Rajiv Ratn Shah. Spatiotemporal Hypergraph Convolution Network for Stock Movement Forecasting . In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining ( ICDM ) , pages 482--491, November 2020. doi:10.1109/ICDM50108.2020.00057. ISS...

    2020

  31. [39]

    Stock Selection via Spatiotemporal Hypergraph Attention Network : A Learning to Rank Approach

    Ramit Sawhney, Shivam Agarwal, Arnav Wadhwa, Tyler Derr, and Rajiv Ratn Shah. Stock Selection via Spatiotemporal Hypergraph Attention Network : A Learning to Rank Approach . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35 0 (1): 0 497--504, May 2021 b . ISSN ...

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Deep Inception Networks : A General End -to- End Framework for Multi -asset Quantitative Strategies , July 2023

    Tom Liu, Stephen Roberts, and Stefan Zohren. Deep Inception Networks : A General End -to- End Framework for Multi -asset Quantitative Strategies , July 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05522. arXiv:2307.05522 [q-fin]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    E2EAI : End -to- End Deep Learning Framework for Active Investing

    Zikai Wei, Bo Dai, and Dahua Lin. E2EAI : End -to- End Deep Learning Framework for Active Investing . In 4th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance , ICAIF 2023, Brooklyn , NY , USA , November 27-29, 2023 , pages 55--63. ACM, 2023. doi:10.1145/3604237.3626848. URL https...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Advances in Financial Machine Learning

    Marcos Lopez de Prado. Advances in Financial Machine Learning . Wiley Publishing, 1st edition, 2018. ISBN 978-1-119-48208-6

    2018

  35. [43]

    Financial Machine Learning

    Bryan Kelly and Dacheng Xiu. Financial Machine Learning . Foundations and Trends® in Finance, 13 0 (3-4): 0 205--363, 2023. ISSN 1567-2395. doi:10.1561/0500000064. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0500000064

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Knowledge graph-based event embedding framework for financial quantitative investments

    Dawei Cheng, Fangzhou Yang, Xiaoyang Wang, Ying Zhang, and Liqing Zhang. Knowledge graph-based event embedding framework for financial quantitative investments. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, ...

    2020

  37. [45]

    A Survey of Forex and Stock Price Prediction Using Deep Learning

    Zexin Hu, Yiqi Zhao, and Matloob Khushi. A Survey of Forex and Stock Price Prediction Using Deep Learning . Applied System Innovation, 4 0 (1): 0 9, February 2021. ISSN 2571-5577. doi:10.3390/asi4010009. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2571-5577/4/1/9

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Stock price prediction using artificial intelligence: A survey

    Priyank Sonkiya, Vikas Bajpai, and Anukriti Bansal. Stock price prediction using artificial intelligence: A survey. In 2022 IEEE 7th International conference for Convergence in Technology (I2CT), pages 1--9. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Adarnn: Adaptive learning and forecasting of time series

    Yuntao Du, Jindong Wang, Wenjie Feng, Sinno Pan, Tao Qin, Renjun Xu, and Chongjun Wang. Adarnn: Adaptive learning and forecasting of time series. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management, pages 402--411, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Hierarchical Adaptive Temporal - Relational Modeling for Stock Trend Prediction

    Heyuan Wang, Shun Li, Tengjiao Wang, and Jiayi Zheng. Hierarchical Adaptive Temporal - Relational Modeling for Stock Trend Prediction . volume 4, pages 3691--3698, August 2021 a . doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/508. URL https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2021/508. ISSN: 1045-0823

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Knowledge-driven stock trend prediction and explanation via temporal convolutional network

    Shumin Deng, Ningyu Zhang, Wen Zhang, Jiaoyan Chen, Jeff Z Pan, and Huajun Chen. Knowledge-driven stock trend prediction and explanation via temporal convolutional network. In Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference, pages 678--685, 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    Hierarchical multi-scale Gaussian transformer for stock movement prediction

    Qianggang Ding, Sifan Wu, Hao Sun, Jiadong Guo, and Jian Guo. Hierarchical multi-scale Gaussian transformer for stock movement prediction. In Proceedings of the Twenty - Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , IJCAI '20, pages 4640--4646, Yokohama, Yo...

    2021

  43. [51]

    Incorporating corporation relationship via graph convolutional neural networks for stock price prediction

    Yingmei Chen, Zhongyu Wei, and Xuanjing Huang. Incorporating corporation relationship via graph convolutional neural networks for stock price prediction. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 1655--1658, 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    A review on graph neural network methods in financial applications

    Jianian Wang, Sheng Zhang, Yanghua Xiao, and Rui Song. A review on graph neural network methods in financial applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.15367, 2021 b

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hist: A graph-based framework for stock trend forecasting via mining concept-oriented shared information

    Wentao Xu, Weiqing Liu, Lewen Wang, Yingce Xia, Jiang Bian, Jian Yin, and Tie-Yan Liu. Hist: A graph-based framework for stock trend forecasting via mining concept-oriented shared information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.13716, 2021

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    A Deep Reinforcement Learning Framework for the Financial Portfolio Management Problem , July 2017

    Zhengyao Jiang, Dixing Xu, and Jinjun Liang. A Deep Reinforcement Learning Framework for the Financial Portfolio Management Problem , July 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.10059. arXiv:1706.10059 [cs, q-fin]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Cost- Sensitive Portfolio Selection via Deep Reinforcement Learning

    Yifan Zhang, Peilin Zhao, Qingyao Wu, Bin Li, Junzhou Huang, and Mingkui Tan. Cost- Sensitive Portfolio Selection via Deep Reinforcement Learning . IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 34 0 (1): 0 236--248, 2022. ISSN 1558-2191. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2020.2979700. C...

    2022

  48. [56]

    DeepTrader : A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach for Risk - Return Balanced Portfolio Management with Market Conditions Embedding

    Zhicheng Wang, Biwei Huang, Shikui Tu, Kun Zhang, and Lei Xu. DeepTrader : A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach for Risk - Return Balanced Portfolio Management with Market Conditions Embedding . In Thirty- Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , AAAI 2021, Thirty ...

    2021

  49. [57]

    AlphaStock : A Buying - Winners -and- Selling - Losers Investment Strategy using Interpretable Deep Reinforcement Attention Networks

    Jingyuan Wang, Yang Zhang, Ke Tang, Junjie Wu, and Zhang Xiong. AlphaStock : A Buying - Winners -and- Selling - Losers Investment Strategy using Interpretable Deep Reinforcement Attention Networks . In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Di...

    1900

  50. [58]

    MetaTrader : An Reinforcement Learning Approach Integrating Diverse Policies for Portfolio Optimization

    Hui Niu, Siyuan Li, and Jian Li. MetaTrader : An Reinforcement Learning Approach Integrating Diverse Policies for Portfolio Optimization . In Mohammad Al Hasan and Li Xiong, editors, Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management , A...

    2022

  51. [59]

    Adaptive Quantitative Trading : An Imitative Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach

    Yang Liu, Qi Liu, Hongke Zhao, Zhen Pan, and Chuanren Liu. Adaptive Quantitative Trading : An Imitative Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34 0 (02): 0 2128--2135, April 2020. ISSN 2374-3468. doi:10.1609/aaai.v...

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    Probabilistic Framework for Modeling Event Shocks to Financial Time Series

    Yada Zhu, Wenyu Chen, Yang Zhang, Tian Gao, and Jianbo Li. Probabilistic Framework for Modeling Event Shocks to Financial Time Series . In Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on AI in Finance , ICAIF '21, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Ma...

    2021

  53. [61]

    DDG - DA : Data Distribution Generation for Predictable Concept Drift Adaptation

    Wendi Li, Xiao Yang, Weiqing Liu, Yingce Xia, and Jiang Bian. DDG - DA : Data Distribution Generation for Predictable Concept Drift Adaptation . In Proceedings of the First MiniCon Conference , February 2022. URL https://aaai-2022.virtualchair.net/poster_aaai10902

    2022

  54. [62]

    Mastering Stock Markets with Efficient Mixture of Diversified Trading Experts

    Shuo Sun, Xinrun Wang, Wanqi Xue, Xiaoxuan Lou, and Bo An. Mastering Stock Markets with Efficient Mixture of Diversified Trading Experts . In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , KDD '23, pages 2109--2119, New York, NY, USA, 20...

    2023

  55. [63]

    DoubleAdapt : A Meta -learning Approach to Incremental Learning for Stock Trend Forecasting

    Lifan Zhao, Shuming Kong, and Yanyan Shen. DoubleAdapt : A Meta -learning Approach to Incremental Learning for Stock Trend Forecasting . In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , KDD '23, pages 3492--3503, New York, NY, USA, 2023...

    2023

  56. [64]

    FinRL - Meta : Market Environments and Benchmarks for Data - Driven Financial Reinforcement Learning

    Xiao-Yang Liu, Ziyi Xia, Jingyang Rui, Jiechao Gao, Hongyang Yang, Ming Zhu, Christina Wang, Zhaoran Wang, and Jian Guo. FinRL - Meta : Market Environments and Benchmarks for Data - Driven Financial Reinforcement Learning . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35...

    2022

  57. [65]

    TradeMaster : A Holistic Quantitative Trading Platform Empowered by Reinforcement Learning

    Shuo Sun, Molei Qin, Wentao Zhang, Haochong Xia, Chuqiao Zong, Jie Ying, Yonggang Xie, Lingxuan Zhao, Xinrun Wang, and Bo An. TradeMaster : A Holistic Quantitative Trading Platform Empowered by Reinforcement Learning . November 2023 b . URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=l7Ggnzaws5

    2023

  58. [66]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  59. [67]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  60. [68]

    ImageNet

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

    2009 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.