We tested whether past positive-month counts improve monthly US market excess-return sign probabilities over a normal model. Both primary models used the same 120 past months. Twenty annual French Data Library archives supplied 240 later outcomes from October 2005 to September 2025. Historical release by September 30 and preservation of the old archive files are assumptions. The count model had Brier loss 0.229218, versus 0.236032 for normal. Its gain was 0.006814, with a paired 95% two-year-block interval from -0.003094 to +0.016486. The primary test gave no clear gain. The count rule always predicted a positive direction and matched the always-positive accuracy of 65%. A descriptive loss split added after scoring showed that a better average rise probability supplied most of the point gain. Fixed release-delay, revision, crisis-exclusion and block-length checks retained an uncertain primary gain. An expanding-count model beat an expanding-normal model on a secondary score interval, but both always selected a positive direction. Independent checks and a complete numerical repeat passed. The package preserves code, provenance, 6720 forecasts, fit summaries, all planned results, 5.04 million uncertainty gain draws, figures, negative findings and seven unscored November 2026 paper probabilities. Restricted outcomes remain separately retained under provider terms. This is a retrospective benchmark on a reused US market path. It does not establish timing skill or trading profit.
Filters: arxiv: q-fin.CP (Computational Finance) ×
We tested whether returns after weekends and holidays need a different tail parameter in a daily Nasdaq Composite forecast. All models used dated ALFRED inputs, a fixed recent-risk scale and annual fits from earlier data. The primary reference fitted two calendar-gap scales and one common Student-t tail parameter. The candidate fitted a tail parameter in each gap group. The final test had 2,011 sessions in 2018–2025, including 441 after gaps longer than one calendar day. The candidate changed mean negative log density by -0.000253 nats per session. The paired 95% interval from six-month blocks was -0.001164 to +0.000719. All fixed sample and block-length checks also gave intervals that include zero. The candidate gave no clear lower-tail quantile or loss-event probability gain. A pooled Student-t model did improve log loss against a fitted normal reference. The package preserves forecasts, fits, failed optimizer attempts, source provenance, code, aggregate scores, figures and repeat instructions. This is a test of one symmetric daily density system on known market history. It does not establish return-direction skill or trading profit.
We tested whether a 13-week rise in the four-week mean of US initial jobless claims improves next-week Nasdaq Composite loss probabilities after past price returns and variation are known. Fixed logistic models used historical ALFRED inputs and only outcome labels released before each fit. The main event was a price loss of at least 2%. In 394 fresh weeks in 2018–2025, with 79 events, adding claims increased Brier loss by 0.48%. The paired 95% 13-week block interval for loss reduction was -1.64% to +0.47%. This gives no clear added gain. The past event share had lower point loss than either fitted model. Fixed penalty, period, block, label and 1% and 3% loss checks gave no clear added gain. A direction check also gave no clear gain. Four separate dated claims downloads matched the reconstructed archive. All 4,992 fit states passed timing checks. A full repeat matched 14 result files exactly. Removing future source releases preserved 155 earlier forecast rows and 1,860 fit states. The package preserves code, public claims data, source records, all forecasts, fit states, scores, 15,000 block draws, figures and negative findings. Protected source features and individual outcomes are retained separately under provider rights. This is a retrospective benchmark on one index and a known market history. It does not establish trading profit or reliable future prediction skill.
We tested whether a skewed Student-t model improves daily return probability forecasts when both it and a symmetric model can fit a nonzero mean. Both models used the same dated ALFRED inputs, volatility rule, five-year residual window, and monthly fit schedule. The test had 2,011 Nasdaq Composite price-return sessions in 2018–2025. The skewed model cut mean log loss by 0.008046 nats per session. The paired 95% interval from 21-session blocks was 0.003041 to 0.013182 nats. The interval stayed positive with 5- and 63-session blocks, fresh inputs, and removal of 2020. The gain was positive in seven of eight years. Neither fitted-mean model gave a clear Brier gain over the past positive-return rate. A fitted mean also gave no clear log-score gain within either shape family. The test uses the same historical sample as earlier SCI work. It supports a limited density-score gain after allowing a fitted mean, but does not establish independent market validation, useful direction timing, or trading profit. We preserve code, source hashes and rights, all 11,064 forecasts, 132 fit states, all fixed scores and uncertainty draws, figures, a fixed local plan and its disclosed start detail, negative findings, and checks. A separate process matched all ten core public numeric outputs and the protected daily ledger exactly. Raw provider outcomes remain in separate retained storage.
We tested whether the ratio of three-month to one-month implied volatility improves next-month Nasdaq Composite mean return forecasts. We used dated ALFRED records and fixed ridge models. The reference model used past price variation and one-month VIX. The added model used the log term ratio. The main test has 93 available months in 2018–2025. The added ratio increased squared error by 0.37%. The descriptive 95% six-month block interval for error reduction was -2.78% to +1.45%. The added model also gave no clear gain over the past mean or zero. Its sign accuracy was 65.59%, equal to always predicting a rise. Its nominal 90% residual intervals covered 81.72% of test returns. Three scheduled months had stale inputs and no forecast. Historical training rows used the source version available at each fit. They are backfill, not certified first-release rows. A first-receipt outcome check left the finding unchanged. Separate calculations checked all 774 fitted states and all 129 monthly labels. The package preserves code, 1,161 forecasts, fit states, source hashes, figures, fixed negative comparisons, and repeat instructions. Restricted source and outcome rows are retained under provider terms. This is a forecast test. It gives no evidence of a trading gain.
We tested whether past yen gains improve monthly Nasdaq Composite price-return forecasts after the past index return is known. Each monthly fit used an earlier ALFRED version and 120 complete past targets. Both target closes came after the forecast origin. The main test had 128 fresh-input months from January 2015 to November 2025. Adding yen increased squared error by 2.22% against the model with only the index input. The 95% paired six-month block interval for error reduction was -6.73% to +1.10%. The model with yen had 5.81% more error than the matched past mean. Fixed block lengths, all 131 months and removal of 2020 gave no clear added gain. This test uses delayed weekly currency releases and fixed linear models. It does not reject small or more timely effects. No trading strategy was tested. The package preserves all forecasts, fit states, source records, 360,000 uncertainty estimates, code, figures and repeat instructions. Restricted source-derived rows are retained separately. A full repeat matched eight core result files byte for byte. This is a monthly extension on a reused market period, not an independent market sample.
We tested a fixed equal mixture of fast and slow normal return forecasts against one normal forecast with the same mean and variance. The final test used 2,011 Nasdaq Composite sessions in 2018–2025. Inputs used earlier ALFRED data versions. Outcomes used the first version with both endpoint prices. The mixture cut mean negative log density by 0.01233 nats per session. The paired 95% 21-session block interval for mixture minus normal was −0.02157 to −0.00548. The gain remained without 2020, with fresh inputs, and with longer blocks. However, a fixed Student t forecast with five degrees of freedom had 0.02544 nats less loss than the mixture. The mixture gave no clear CRPS or lower 5% quantile gain over the matched normal. Both models have identical variance loss and give probability 0.5 to a rise. This is a limited distribution-shape result on a known historical sample. It does not establish direction skill or trading profit. The package preserves code, source records, all forecasts, annual fits, aggregate scores, resampling draws, figures, a local plan, checks and an exact replay. Protected source outcomes remain in separate retained research data.
We tested whether ten-year industry return means predict monthly returns relative to an equal-weight industry basket. Ten dated archives supplied fixed forecasts for thirty US industries. A full calendar-month buffer followed each capture month. Each forecast stayed fixed for up to twelve months. The test has 71 distinct target months in 2016–2026, with gaps. A simple moment rule reduced the past means toward zero. It had 0.698% more squared error than a zero relative-return forecast. Its error-reduction score was -0.698%, with a descriptive 95% interval from -1.868% to +0.165% across seven capture-year groups. The full and half past means also gave negative point scores. The moment rule had 1.017% less error than the full mean, but that interval included zero. Revised-data checks gave similar results. Most of the primary error increase came from the 2020 capture-year group. Sparse old inputs, seven groups, late labels, source changes and the simple noise estimate limit inference. No trading strategy was tested. Code, source hashes, all forecasts, states, uncertainty draws, negative findings, independent checks and an exact thirteen-file replay are preserved. Fixed forecasts for December 2026 to November 2027 remain unscored.
Can an asymmetric return density improve a daily forecast after a symmetric heavy-tailed model uses recent volatility? We test a known skewed Student-t density for 2,011 Nasdaq Composite price-return sessions in 2018–2025. Monthly fits use 1,260 earlier residuals from dated ALFRED records. Both forecast means are zero, and both models use the same volatility signal and delivery cutoff. The skewed model reduced mean log loss by 0.01251 nats per date, with a paired 95% 21-session block interval of 0.00584 to 0.01875 nats of gain. The gain remained on fresh-input dates and without 2020. The model had lower annual loss in six of eight years. Lower and upper 5% quantile score gains were uncertain. A later direction control found no clear Brier gain over the past positive-return rate. This is a test on a known historical sample for one price index and one horizon. It does not establish reliable direction timing or trading profit. The package preserves code, source hashes and rights, all forecast parameters and fit attempts, aggregate scores, uncertainty draws, negative controls, and exact repeat checks. Protected source outcomes remain in a separate retained research ledger.
We tested whether disagreement between fast and slow volatility estimates improves next-session Nasdaq Composite return distributions. Each forecast used ALFRED prices with observation and release dates before its origin. An equal mixture of two zero-mean normals changed shape with that disagreement. The main control held mixture shape fixed from 2015–2017 inputs and used the same current variance. In 2,010 origins in 2018–2025, the changing mixture gave a mean log-score gain of 0.004240 nats per origin. Its paired 95% 21-session block interval was -0.000778 to +0.010364. Thus the main gain was uncertain. In secondary tests it beat a normal with the same variance by 0.014045 nats, but had 0.022745 nats higher loss than a Student t(5) with the same variance. Five dates supplied 81.7% of the primary total gain. CRPS gave no clear gain over fixed shape. First-label, freshness, block-length and time-split controls left the main conclusion unchanged. An independent check found one skipped observation-date boundary in the first-receipt control; we corrected it without changing primary scores. The source audit found two release dates before observation dates. A post-plan exclusion of nine nearby origins gave the same broad result. All 13 core numerical files matched a clean repeat byte for byte. We preserve code, data provenance, all forecasts, 5.04 million resampled contrasts, figures, checks, initial failed results and repeat instructions. Provider price series and direct outcome ledgers remain separately retained under source terms. This is a reused historical sample for one price index and fixed symmetric models. It does not establish return-direction skill or trading profit.
We tested whether a fixed James–Stein rule that shrinks three past return means toward zero improves monthly forecasts. The targets were US market excess, size and value factor returns. Twenty annual origins gave 240 outcomes in October 2005–September 2025. Each fit used 120 months through July from its own annual source file. Forecasts stayed fixed for twelve later monthly targets. The test assumes that the annual files preserve their stated versions and were available by September 30. The primary covariance-scaled squared loss was 0.079% lower than for the past mean, with a paired 95% two-year-block interval of −0.159% to +0.302%. Loss was 0.168% lower than for zero, with interval −1.631% to +2.135%. The planned requirement for a clear gain over both benchmarks was not met. A fixed half mean also gave no clear gain. Training-window, covariance, source-revision and crisis checks did not establish improvement over both main benchmarks. The shrinkage rule kept every forecast sign unchanged. Its market MSE point estimate was 0.333% higher than the past mean. This is a dated-input extension on a reused market sample, not an independent replication or a trading test. Code, provenance, all forecasts, scores, uncertainty draws, figures, passed checks and a byte-exact replay are preserved. Individual source returns remain in a separate retained record under provider rights. The package also has unscored forecasts for November 2026–October 2027. The result does not establish reliable return prediction or profit after costs.
We tested whether a rise in US four-week initial unemployment insurance claims above their one-year low improves next-week Nasdaq Composite price-return forecasts. Each claims input uses its own historical ALFRED version and stays fixed in later fits. Weekly models use 260 earlier available return labels. In 550 fresh test weeks from 2015 to 2025, a fixed ridge model reduced mean squared error by 1.10% against the past mean. The paired 95% 13-week-block interval was -0.19% to +2.82%. The test therefore gave no clear forecast gain. The 2020 weeks supplied 95.65% of the net score gain. Without 2020, the reduction was 0.06%, with interval -0.42% to +0.52%. Both main models always predicted a positive return and matched the always-positive direction accuracy of 61.27%. All planned penalty, input-cap, time-period, revision, freshness, and block-length intervals included zero. The source audit preserved one invalid claims sequence and 22 stale forecast cases. A separate checker matched all forecasts and 148,720 training labels. The package preserves code, claims source records, price-source provenance, forecasts, fits, 130,000 uncertainty draws, figures, and negative findings. This is a retrospective test of one index and one claims rule on market history shared with earlier SCI studies. It does not establish reliable stock-return prediction or net trading profit. Raw Nasdaq prices and individual measured returns remain separately retained under provider terms.
We tested a fixed mix of three daily volatility scales on the Nasdaq Composite. Each input used a dated ALFRED record from before entry and prices from session t-2 or earlier. We selected one half-life on 754 eligible rows from 2015–2017. The chosen value was 20 sessions. All models then used annual calibration from earlier dated forecasts and released labels. In 2,011 test sessions in 2018–2025, an equal-weight mix of 5-, 20- and 60-session scales cut mean QLIKE loss by 0.03831 against the selected scale. The paired 95% interval for the loss change was -0.06760 to -0.01569. The gain remained without 2020 and with first-release outcome labels. Against a standard 0.94 EWMA, the change was +0.01347, with interval -0.01077 to +0.03786. This gives no clear gain over that reference. The five-session component also had lower point loss than the mix. The later four-year gain was uncertain. We preserve the fixed plan, all forecasts, fit states, source records, code, figures, negative findings and uncertainty draws. Independent checks passed. Eleven numerical files matched in a separate execution. This test supports a limited second-moment forecast comparison. It does not establish return-direction skill or trading profit.
We tested whether the recent 10-year minus 3-month Treasury yield spread improves next-month Nasdaq Composite log price return forecasts. We used dated ALFRED archives, fixed monthly fits, and 131 nonoverlapping outcomes from January 2015 to November 2025. A ridge model with 120 earlier monthly targets had forecast skill of -0.04% versus the past mean. The 95% paired six-month block interval was -1.91% to +2.20%. Adding the twelve-month spread change gave skill of -1.63%, with an interval of -4.31% to +1.69%. The primary spread forecast was always positive, so its 70.23% sign accuracy matched always-up. Removing four stale price-input months did not establish a gain. An independent reconstruction checked all 15,720 training rows. Four future-source removal checks passed. A full repeat matched eight core output files byte for byte. The package preserves code, forecasts, fit states, source requests and hashes, all planned cases, uncertainty draws, figures and negative findings. This is one historical price-index test, with no trading strategy or net-return claim. Small gains remain possible. The exact Treasury archive is retained under its source rights; raw provider rows are excluded from the public package.
We tested whether recent returns improve joint monthly forecasts of US market, size, and value returns. Each of 20 annual decisions used its own French Data Library archive. Fits used 120 months through July. Forecasts stayed fixed from October through the next September. The test has 240 monthly vectors in 2005–2025. All models shared the same mean forecast and a 50% cut in estimated correlations. The primary covariance rule halved input weights for each extra year of age. Against equal weights, its mean Gaussian log score gain was -0.0487 nats per month. A paired 95% annual-block interval was -0.3690 to +0.2318. The test showed no clear gain and did not prove harm. A fixed half-and-half covariance blend gained 0.0716 nats, with interval -0.0288 to +0.1802. Data-version checks also gave no clear primary gain. Nominal 90% joint regions covered 82.9% to 87.1% of outcomes across models. The main limits are only 20 annual decisions, old inputs, a reused US factor sample, working normal distributions, and assumed archive availability by September 30. Labels are the earliest annual records in the collection, not first monthly releases. We evaluated no trading strategy. The package preserves the fixed plan, code, provenance, all forecasts and scores, uncertainty draws, figures, independent checks, and unscored future paper forecasts. A clean run matched all 14 analysis files.
We tested whether delayed US risk inputs improve next-session Nikkei 225 squared-return forecasts beyond Japanese risk history. Dated ALFRED versions, a two-calendar-day cutoff, fixed historical features and receipt-aware monthly fits supplied 1,862 fresh test sessions in 2018–2025. The mean QLIKE gain from adding 5- and 60-return Nasdaq risk inputs was 0.01941. The paired 95% block interval was -0.00698 to +0.04806. The gain was uncertain with an extra two-day delay, without 2020 and against a simple Japanese filter with extra weight on past losses. The US input model had more loss than the fitted Japan-only model in three of eight years. These tests gave no clear added forecast gain. They do not establish trading skill. We preserve code, the fixed local plan, source requests and hashes, 32,480 forecast values, fitted states, all planned results, 340,000 uncertainty draws and figures. Independent source and numerical checks passed. A fresh process matched all 22 analysis files byte for byte. Source-derived input and outcome ledgers are retained separately under provider terms. The test is retrospective and applies to this delayed archive system; it does not test a direct market feed.
We tested daily Nasdaq Composite log-return forecasts from weekday and month boundary inputs. Each model used ten years of earlier returns and fit once each month. Training prices came from the ALFRED version dated seven calendar days before the first target session of the month. The final test had 2,011 sessions in 2018–2025. The combined calendar model gave 0.085% more mean squared error than the rolling mean. Relative forecast skill was -0.0846%, with a paired 95% three-month block interval of -0.3897% to +0.1394%. Turn-of-month inputs alone also gave no clear gain. Combined sign accuracy was 54.45%, against 55.79% for an always-positive rule. Planned period, block, and outcome-version checks gave no clear primary gain. A post-plan check removed both months with unscheduled full-day closures and gave the same result. The test assumes the target calendar state was known before entry. The package preserves code, source hashes and requests, all 2,766 forecast rows, 132 monthly fit records, uncertainty draws, figures, and reproduction instructions. Independent checks passed. This is a negative forecast result for one index and model family. It does not establish equal performance or trading profit. Raw source prices retain provider rights and remain outside the public package.
We tested whether past Japanese stock-market returns improve next-session Nasdaq mean-return forecasts after a conservative input delay. Each input used its own dated ALFRED source record. The target return began at a US close after the cutoff. Monthly linear fits used 1,260 earlier examples. The model added one- and five-session Nikkei returns to the same Nasdaq return inputs. In 2,011 final-test sessions in 2018–2025, adding Japan raised mean squared error by 0.64%. The paired 95% interval from 21-session blocks was 0.16% to 1.05%. Out-of-sample R squared against the past mean was -1.27%. Direction accuracy was 52.71%, against 55.79% for always positive. Fresh-input, outcome-version and without-2020 checks kept the negative gain. Two more sessions of input delay gave an uncertain difference. Independent source, fit, forecast and outcome checks passed. The package preserves the fixed local plan, source hashes and requests, 16,596 forecasts, 264 fit states, all planned scores, uncertainty draws, figures and repeat code. Protected source inputs and labels remain in a retained research ledger. This is a test on a known historical sample with reconstructed calendars. It does not establish that Japanese markets lack useful information or that a trading rule is profitable. No trading strategy or real order was tested.
We tested whether the level and recent change of the Baa corporate yield spread improve next-week Nasdaq Composite log price return forecasts. Each fit used an earlier ALFRED archive, delayed inputs and 520 completed weekly labels. The fixed test saved 573 forecasts for 2015–2025. Source-age rules left 535 fresh cases for the main score. Adding credit inputs to a price-input ridge model reduced mean squared error by 0.16%. The 95% eight-week paired block interval ran from a 1.14% error increase to a 1.25% reduction. The credit model had 0.87% more error than the past-return mean. All planned sensitivity intervals included zero. Thus these inputs gave no clear return forecast gain in this scope. The package preserves forecasts, fits, uncertainty draws, source requests and hashes, figures, code and repeat instructions. Raw provider data remain external under their source terms. No trading strategy or net profit was tested.
We tested whether the log ratio of three-month to one-month implied volatility adds information about weekly Nasdaq Composite price losses of at least 3%. Each input used an ALFRED archive valid by the preceding Friday. All main-test training inputs came from their own origin dates. Fixed logistic models used past price variation and VIX, with or without the term ratio. The 2020–2025 test had 296 available weeks and 39 events. Adding the ratio changed mean Brier loss by -0.001298, a 1.12% reduction, with a paired 95% eight-week block interval from -0.003928 to +0.000552. The year 2020 supplied 97.9% of the observed reduction. Without that year, the change was -0.000033, with interval -0.001148 to +0.000954. Binary log loss and fixed 2% and 5% event checks gave no clear added gain. We preserve all 400 forecast rows, model states, fixed comparisons, source requests and hashes, code, figures, checks, and repeat instructions. Direct source-derived records are retained separately under provider rights. The test covers one index, a small model family, and a reused historical sample with a 16-week source outage. It does not establish trading profit or a reliable added benefit from this ratio.