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.ST (Statistical 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 reported daily Nasdaq Composite density forecast gain remained when both models had the same sign probabilities. We used frozen forecasts from an earlier dated-input study. Each source model had a fitted mean. We split log loss into sign loss and return-size loss within each sign. We also made proper densities that gave both models the same past positive-return probability. In 2,011 sessions in 2018–2025, the skewed Student-t model had a mean gain of 0.007826 nats per session over the symmetric Student-t model at equal sign probabilities. The paired 95% interval was 0.002802 to 0.012902 with 21-session blocks. The original full gain was 0.008046 nats. The sign component was 0.000220 nats, with an interval that included zero. Neither original model clearly beat past signs on binary log loss. The size gain remained in fixed fresh-input and without-2020 checks. Independent calculations, raw-source timing checks, and an exact replay passed. Code, forecasts, source records, aggregate results, figures, and negative findings are preserved. Restricted source-derived outcomes are retained separately. This is an audit on a known historical sample, not a new market test or evidence of 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 separate November–April and May–October means for monthly US market excess returns. Twenty annual fits used official French Data Library archives, with inputs stopped in July. Historical use assumes each archive preserved its stated version and was available by September 30. In 240 months from October 2005 through September 2025, seasonal means had 0.012% more squared error than a pooled past mean. The paired 95% two-year circular block interval for error reduction was −1.76% to +2.16%. Both forecasts were always positive and matched an always-positive direction accuracy of 65.0%. At 10 basis points per dollar traded, a seasonal stock-and-cash paper rule earned 8.65% a year against 10.51% for the pooled rule, with lower exposure and risk. Its annual mean-variance utility difference was −0.745 percentage points, with interval −4.044 to +2.862. Fixed history, shrinkage, label and block checks gave no clear full-test seasonal gain. Separate scalar checks passed. A fresh run matched 76 analysis and account files. The package preserves code, provenance, forecasts, all fixed results, uncertainty draws, figures and repeat instructions. Direct source-derived outcome ledgers remain separately retained under provider terms. The test uses one known seasonal split, slow updates, assumed release dates and reused US history. It does not establish reliable prediction or profit. Twelve future paper forecasts remain unscored.
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 past forecast errors improve daily Nasdaq Composite loss limits from a fitted Student-t model. The correction used the last 504 eligible probability errors from earlier delivered forecasts. Each error entered only after both source prices were available. The test used dated ALFRED inputs and 2,011 sessions in 2018–2025. The lower 5% mean quantile loss was 17.31764 basis-point score units, against 17.18733 for the unchanged model. The difference was +0.13031, with a paired 95% interval of -0.10909 to +0.36142 from 21-session blocks. The point estimate was 0.76% more loss. The lower breach rate moved from 6.22% to 5.42%, closer to 5%, but the score gave no clear gain. The upper 5% and central 90% interval scores also gave no clear gain. Different windows, a frozen correction, fresh-input masks and first-received labels remain in the package. A long source gap delayed 82 outcomes until one receipt date. We preserve code, source hashes, forecasts, state records, uncertainty draws, figures and negative findings. The question was motivated by known tail counts on the same historical sample. This is a chronological method test on reused data, not independent evidence of future skill. No trading strategy or profit is evaluated.
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 a fixed change in factor slopes in market loss months improves joint monthly forecasts for US market, size and value returns. Twenty annual source versions gave 240 later monthly outcomes from October 2005 to September 2025. Each fit used ten years of data through July. Forecasts stayed fixed for twelve later months. The test assumes that each archive preserves its stated version and was available by September 30. A linear model and a model with half the fitted slope change used the same market Student t margin and conditional residual covariance. The joint forecast integrates over the unknown future market return. The half change gave a log score gain of -0.00396 nats per monthly vector against linear, with a paired 95% interval from -0.01188 to +0.00364. It gained in 8 of 20 annual groups. The full change, longer training window, separate residual scales and source-version checks gave no evidence of improvement. A joint elliptical Student t control scored better on average. The size and value mean forecasts also gave no added mean squared error gain. This is a fixed negative test on a reused sample. It does not reject all asymmetric market relations or establish a trading advantage. The package preserves code, source provenance, forecasts, fitted states, uncertainty draws, figures, independent checks, an exact replay and fixed unscored future forecasts. Provider return rows remain in a separate retained record under provider rights.
We tested whether a Baa corporate bond spread improves next-week Nasdaq Composite variation forecasts after past stock variation and VIX are known. Each forecast used a dated ALFRED archive, an earlier observation cutoff and only past fitting labels. Fixed ridge models used 520 common training weeks. The main test has 483 fresh weeks in 2016–2025. Adding spread level and recent change gave a mean QLIKE loss change of -0.00780, with a 95% paired eight-week block interval from -0.03403 to +0.01396. All planned credit checks gave intervals that include zero. Without 2020, the change was +0.00248. Variance mean squared error was 27.3% higher with credit, with wide uncertainty. Thus the test gives no clear added credit forecast gain in this scope. This is a retrospective test on one price index and one fixed model family. It shares a market sample with earlier SCI work and does not establish a trading profit. The package preserves code, source request records, forecasts, fits, scores, figures, uncertainty estimates, negative results and repeat instructions. Source data and measured outcomes keep their provider terms in separate retained records.
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 daily Nikkei 225 return distributions. We compared a Student-t distribution with five degrees of freedom and a normal distribution at equal variance. Each forecast used an ALFRED data version dated before the entry close. In 1,951 sessions in 2018–2025, mean negative log density fell by 0.05083 nats per session. The paired 95% 21-session block interval for the gain was 0.01754 to 0.10016. CRPS fell by 0.46740 basis-point score units, with interval 0.20685 to 0.76309. Source-age, block-length, later-label and removal-of-2020 checks kept a positive log-score interval. Fitting an extra tail parameter gave no clear added gain. Five sessions supplied 54.2% of net log-score gain. The years 2024–2025 supplied 69.6%. Some tail rates remained above their targets. All independent checks passed. A full repeat matched 14 core numerical files. The package preserves the plan, code, provenance, forecasts, fit states, figures and repeat instructions. It also preserves 720,000 uncertainty estimates. Individual source outcomes remain separately retained under provider rights. This test uses known methods on one price index and a reused historical period. Both main models assign rise probability 0.5. The result does not establish direction skill, complete calibration, reliable future skill or trading profit.
We tested whether a published weekly variance forecast gain from VIX also improved lower 5% Nasdaq Composite return thresholds. We reused dated, past-only variance paths for 504 available weeks in 2016–2025. A fixed normal shape with location zero converted each variance into a return quantile. Adding VIX reduced mean quantile loss by 0.668 return basis points, or 1.94%. The paired 95% eight-week block interval for the relative gain was −1.21% to +5.36%. Thus, the test gave no clear added gain. The year 2020 supplied 82.2% of the observed loss reduction. Without 2020, the gain was 0.44%, with an interval of −1.79% to +2.36%. Fixed Student t and past-mean controls also gave no clear added tail gain. The package has 10,008 forecasts, code, aggregate results, source hashes, fit states, timing checks, and a clean numerical repeat. Restricted outcomes and loss ledgers are retained separately. This is an extension on a reused historical sample, with inherited source gaps and a known holiday-row error in variance inputs. It is not an independent market replication or evidence of trading profit.
We tested whether Baa credit spreads improve next-week Nasdaq price risk forecasts after VIX and recent equity risk are known. Dated ALFRED records give 483 fresh test weeks in 2016–2025. Every fit used earlier data and a fixed delay. Adding the spread level and its recent change reduced mean QLIKE by 0.00538. The 95% paired eight-week block interval was -0.03117 to +0.01718. Thus credit inputs gave no clear added gain. Squared error was 22.2% higher, with a wide secondary interval. The small QLIKE gain changed to a loss when 2020 was removed. All planned added-credit intervals included zero. This is a retrospective test of one price index and a fixed ridge model. It does not establish return prediction or trading profit. The package preserves code, dated source requests, hashes, 573 forecasts, complete fitted states, uncertainty draws, figures, checks and reproduction instructions. Provider data remain external under their source terms.
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.