==== Front Entropy (Basel) Entropy (Basel) entropy Entropy 1099-4300 MDPI 33287007 10.3390/e22111239 entropy-22-01239 Article Training Multilayer Perceptron with Genetic Algorithms and Particle Swarm Optimization for Modeling Stock Price Index Prediction https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6174-3241Ecer Fatih 1 Ardabili Sina 23 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6605-498XBand Shahab S. 4 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4842-0613Mosavi Amir 567* 1 Department of Business Administration, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar 03030, Turkey; fecer@aku.edu.tr 2 Biosystem Engineering Department, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil 5619911367, Iran; s.ardabili@ieee.org 3 Kando Kalman Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Obuda University, 1034 Budapest, Hungary 4 Future Technology Research Center, College of Future, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 123 University Road, Section 3, Douliou, Yunlin 64002, Taiwan; shamshirbands@yuntech.edu.tw 5 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technische Universität Dresden, 01069 Dresden, Germany 6 Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Da Nang 550000, Vietnam 7 School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1430 As, Norway * Correspondence: amir.mosavi@mailbox.tu-dresden.de or amirhoseinmosavi@duytan.edu.vn 31 10 2020 11 2020 22 11 123922 8 2020 28 10 2020 © 2020 by the authors.2020Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Predicting stock market (SM) trends is an issue of great interest among researchers, investors and traders since the successful prediction of SMs’ direction may promise various benefits. Because of the fairly nonlinear nature of the historical data, accurate estimation of the SM direction is a rather challenging issue. The aim of this study is to present a novel machine learning (ML) model to forecast the movement of the Borsa Istanbul (BIST) 100 index. Modeling was performed by multilayer perceptron–genetic algorithms (MLP–GA) and multilayer perceptron–particle swarm optimization (MLP–PSO) in two scenarios considering Tanh (x) and the default Gaussian function as the output function. The historical financial time series data utilized in this research is from 1996 to 2020, consisting of nine technical indicators. Results are assessed using Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and correlation coefficient values to compare the accuracy and performance of the developed models. Based on the results, the involvement of the Tanh (x) as the output function, improved the accuracy of models compared with the default Gaussian function, significantly. MLP–PSO with population size 125, followed by MLP–GA with population size 50, provided higher accuracy for testing, reporting RMSE of 0.732583 and 0.733063, MAPE of 28.16%, 29.09% and correlation coefficient of 0.694 and 0.695, respectively. According to the results, using the hybrid ML method could successfully improve the prediction accuracy. stock marketmachine learningmultilayer perceptronfinancial dataartificial intelligenceartificial neural networksonline tradingbig datasocial science dataevolutionary algorithmsoptimization ==== Body 1. Introduction Accurately predicting the stock market (SM) index direction has frequently been a topic of great interest for many researchers, economists, traders and financial analysts [1]. Nonetheless, the SM field is neither static nor predictable. In fact, SM trends are sensitive to both external and internal drivers. Thus, SM index movement estimation can be categorized under complex systems [2]. Stock price movement is often interpreted as the direction of stock price and used for prediction. Determining the future direction of stock price movement is of utmost importance to investors to evaluate the market risks. Predicting direction of stock price movement has been seen as a challenging and complex task to model [3]. Complex system is a framework to work how a system’s sub-categories interact with each other and how the whole system interacts and manages relationships with its environment. Whereas modeling such complex systems, challenges have encountered during constructing a reliable and effective technique and deciding its architecture [4]. Stock price movement forecasting is a compelling task because of the high volatility, anomaly and noisy signal in the SMs’ area. Over the past two decades, this topic has attracted the attention of researchers in different fields, particularly artificial intelligence [5]. Stock prices are nonlinear with regard to historical data and other technical and macroeconomic indicators [6]. Many researchers often preferred to use time-series analyses which is utilized to estimate future events according to historical data before the capabilities of neural networks were discovered. Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA), autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (ARCH) model and Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model, support vector machine (SVM) are among the best-known models among the methodologies [7]. Moreover, regression analysis and artificial neural networks (ANNs) have frequently been used for forecasting and classification in order to cope with these nonlinear relationships [7,8,9,10]. Systems that utilize technical analysis, across expert systems, hybrid systems and various types of computational intelligence have as well been suggested [11,12,13]. Interests of researchers continue to increase for applying different types of artificial intelligence to forecast SM index direction. Due to the nonlinear structures of the problems, the prediction approaches are typically highly complex, meanly needing to develop efficient solution methods for such models. Technical analysts work with many data, technical tools and especially technical indicators to decide price trends and market trends on the basis of price and volume conversions in the market [14]. In light of existing literature, several technical indicators have been preferred as input data in the creating of forecasting methodologies to predict the direction of a SM index [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Cervelló Royo and Guijarro, 2019 employed four ML based prediction methods including gradient boosting machines (GBM), random forest (RF), generalized linear models (GLM) and deep learning (DL) for to address the estimation of market trends as a comparison analysis by accuracy rate (%) [23]. In several studies, technical indicators are used as input data. The trend was to identify novel methods that provide the highest accuracy for the classification methods in the index direction prediction. When we provide real-valued technical indicators as inputs to the models, forecasting techniques to be classified in accordance with the values of technical indicators are created [15,20]. When technical indicators are utilized, the prediction models consider each indicator as input data, regardless of the index being considered [7]. The studies in which the methods that deal with technical indicators as input data are used in the index direction prediction constitute the framework of this study. Estimating the BIST 100 index’s direction is a significant financial issue that has carefully monitored in financial markets around the world [24,25]. In this context, this research aims to predict stock price movement direction through an integrated multilayer perceptron methodology. More specifically, two novel models, i.e., multilayer perceptron–genetic algorithms (MLP–GA) and multilayer–particle swarm optimization (MLP–PSO) with Tanh (x) as the output function, have been proposed and applied for prediction compared with the default Gaussian function. Thus, it is intended to fill a gap in SM direction prediction literature. PSO has been employed by researchers for the prediction of stock market. Lahmiri, 2018 developed spectrum analysis and support vector regression integrated with PSO to estimate the stock price using time series data [26]. Pulido et al., 2014 employed PSO for the optimization of a hybrid ANN–Fuzzy model for the prediction of Mexican Stock Exchange [27]. Lahmiri, 2016 employed PSO for the optimization of the architecture of a feed forward neural network in the prediction of stock market [28]. The rest of this research is organized as follows: The next section reviews the relevant literature. Section 3 deals with the research methodology. The results are given in Section 4, while the findings are discussed in Section 5. The conclusions are presented in the final section. 2. Literature Review In recent years, there have been a great deal of papers investigating the direction of the next day trends of SMs. Academicians and traders have made enormous efforts to forecast the next day trends of SM index for translating the predictions into profits (Kara et al., 2011). In this section, we focus the review of methods and technical indicators utilized for forecasting of direction movement of stock index. As shown in Table 1, an ANN model was used in some of the studies [18,25,29,30], whilst hybrid models were preferred in other studies [17,21,31,32,33] as displayed in Table 2. In Table 1. the notable algorithms are back-propagation neural network (BPNN), independent component analysis- BPNN (ICA–BPNN), Naive Bayes (NB), and k-nearest neighbors algorithm (k-NN). Table 1 summarizes several machine learning methods proposed for stock exchange index direction prediction. The most popular methods are RF, SVM and ANN, followed by k-NN and NB, with dissimilar accuracy outcomes. The state of the art shows a research gap in using hybrid models. Table 2 summarizes the notable machine learning models. Hybrid models of the SVM trained with simple evolutionary algorithms such as GA have been the most popular. The state of the art of hybrid models shows a research gap in using more sophisticated machine learning models trained with advanced soft computing techniques. Technical Indicators As mentioned above, technical indicators have been useful and effective financial instruments for estimating direction of stock price index for years. Technical indicators used for SM direction prediction from past to present can be seen in Table 3. In summary, MACD, %K, %D, RSI, %R, A/D, MOM, EMA, CCI, OSCP and SMA are the technical indicators that are frequently preferred by researchers. Furthermore, ANN and its extensions (MLP, PNN, etc.) are the most used methods. As far as the authors know, MLP–GA and MLP–PSO methodologies with and without Tanh (x) as the output function have not been proposed to forecast stock exchange movement prediction for any stock exchange in the literature. As a result, it is anticipated that this paper will constitute a significant contribution to the related field. 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Data As shown in Table 4, nine technical indicators for each trading day were utilized as input data. Plenty of investors and traders handle certain criteria for technical indicators. A great deal of technical indicators is available. As already mentioned above, technical indicators have often been considered as input variables in the construction of forecasting systems for estimating the trend of movement of SM index [24]. As a result, we determined nine technical indicators by previous studies and the opinion of area experts. The input variables utilized in this work are technical indicators described in Table 4 and the direction of change in the daily Borsa Istanbul (BIST 100) SM index. The entire data contains the period from 28 March 1996 to 7 February 2020, providing a total of 5968 trading day observations. Furthermore, information about opening and closing price is available for each trading day. The number of entire data with decreasing direction is 2827 (47.36%), whereas the number of entire data with increasing direction is 3141 (52.64%). All the data were obtained from Matriks Information Delivery Services Inc. (https://www.matriksdata.com). 3.2. Methods 3.2.1. Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) The architecture of ANN is based on connections of layers by nodes called neurons as well as the biological neurons of brain [50]. Each path transmits a signal among neurons in a manner similar to that of synapses [51]. MLP, as a feedforward ANN, contains three main parts: one input layer, one or more hidden layers and one output layer, which can be successfully employed for prediction, classification, signal processing and error filtering [52]. Each node employs one nonlinear function. MLP employs backpropagation learning algorithm for training process [53,54]. MLP as popular and frequently used techniques among other MLPs was employed to predict the direction value. MLP was developed by the use of MATLAB software. Figure 1 indicates the architecture of developed network. Initially, the network divided data into two sets of training data (with a share of 80%) and testing data (with a share of 20%) randomly. In the first step of the training process, training to find the optimum number of neurons in the hidden layer. In each training process, Mean Square Error (MSE) was computed as the performance function. Genetic algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO), as evolutionary algorithms, have been employed to train the neural network. This approach of hybridization of ANN has a lot of advantages such as increasing the accuracy of ANN by updating the weights and bias values using GA and PSO [55,56]. The aim of this study is to estimate the weights of hidden and output layers of an ANN architecture using GA and PSO during a convergence and accurate estimation process to generate accurate results, and, on the other hand, to control the deviation from target point in such a way that it prevents deviation and large errors even in different performances. However, the neural network needs to be left alone due to the random selection of a sample in order to arrive at an answer with appropriate accuracy. Therefore, this can be attributed to the stability and reliability of the neural network through GA and PSO. 3.2.2. Genetic Algorithm (GA) GA is a subset of approximation techniques in computer science to estimate a proper solution for optimization problems. GA is a type of evolutionary algorithm (EA) that employs biological techniques such as heredity and mutations [57,58]. The hypothesis begins with a completely random population and continues for generations. In each generation, the total population capacity is assessed, several individuals are selected in a random process from the current generation (based on competencies) and modified (deducted or re-combined) to form a new generation, and the next repetition of the algorithm becomes the current generation [59,60,61]. The optimization process in the genetic algorithm is based on a randomly guided process. This method is based on Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution and fundamental ideas. In this method, a set of objective parameters is randomly generated for a fixed number of so-called populations. Or the fit of that set of information is attributed to that member of that population [62,63,64]. This process is repeated for each of the created members, then formed by calling the operators of the genetic algorithm, including mutation and next-generation selection, and this process will continue until the convergence criterion is met [59,65]. There are three common criteria for stopping: Algorithm execution time, the number of generations that are created and the convergence of the error criterion. The process of implementing GA, which is the basis of evolutionary algorithms, is presented in Figure 2. which is adapted and regenerated from [66]. The main components of the Genetic algorithm include: representation of the environment, evaluation function, Population (set of answers), the process of choosing parents, Operators of Diversity (Generation), The process of selecting the living (choosing the best population to build the next generation) and stop condition. Genetic organization determines how each person displays themselves and behaves, and their physical quality. Differences in genetic organization are one of the criteria for distinguishing between different methods of evolutionary computation. The genetic algorithm uses linear binary organization. The most standard type of this organization is the use of an array of bits. Of course, an array of other types of data can also be used. This is due to their constant size. This facilitates integration operations [61,67,68]. However, it is possible to use variable length structures in organizing GA, which makes the implementation of integration very complex. In this research, the genetic algorithm was utilized to find the optimal point of complex nonlinear functions in integrating with the artificial neural network. Genetic algorithms optimize artificial neural network weights and bias values. In fact, the objective function of the genetic algorithm is a function of the statistical results of the MLP. To train, the P number of population of each generation, MLP was randomly initialized and the error rate was calculated using training data. In the next step, the network characteristics were updated according to the input and output values. The training process of the algorithm was repeated until the network features improved, taking into account the newly population. In the last step, the output gathered from the network execution was compared with the actual values and the model execution finished by minimizing the difference between the two values. Figure 3 presents the flowchart of the MLP–GA algorithm. Table 5 presents the setting parameters for GA. 3.2.3. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) PSO is a popular and robust optimization method to deal with problems in the n-dimensional space. The PSO is a mass search algorithm that is modeled on the social behavior of bird groups. Initially, the algorithm was employed for pattern detection of flight of birds at the same time and to suddenly change their path and optimize the shape of the handle. In PSO, particles flow in the search space which is affected by their experience and knowledge of their neighbors; thus the position of another particle mass affects how a particle is searched. Results of recognition of this behavior is the searching for particles to reach successful areas. The particles follow each other and move towards their best neighbors. In PSO particles are regulated throughout their neighborhood [69,70,71,72]. At the beginning of the work, a group of particles are produced to reach the best solution. Each particle is updated through the finest position (pbest) and the finest position ever obtained by the particle population used by the algorithm (gbest) in each step, which is presented in Figure 4 based on an adaptation from [73,74,75,76,77]. Updating the velocity and location of each particle is the next step after finding the best values, Equations (1) and (2): (1) v(t+1)=v(t)+c1×rand(t)×(pbest(t)−position(t)+c2×rand(t)×(gbest(t)−position(t)) (2) position(t+1)=v(t+1)+position(t) Equation (1) has three parts in the right side, current particle velocity  v(t), the second part c1×rand(t)×(pbest(t)−position(t)) and third part c2×rand(t)×(gbest(t)−position(t)) are responsible for the rate of change of particle velocity and its direction towards the best personal experience (nostalgia) and the finest experience of the group (collective intelligence). If the first part is not considered in this equation v(t), then the velocity of the particles is determined according to the current position and the best particle experience, and in practice the effect of the current velocity and its inertia is eliminated. Accordingly, the best particle in the group stays in place, and the others move toward that particle. In fact, the mass movement of particles without the first part of Equation (1) will be a process in which the search space gradually shrinks and local search is formed around the best particle. The parameters c1 and c2 (the value is about 2) determine the importance and weight of collective intelligence and nostalgia [74,75,76]. As for the condition of stopping, the following ways are available:A certain number of repetitions, Achieve a decent threshold, A number of repetitions that do not change the competence (for example, if after 10 repetitions the competency was constant and did not improve), The last way is based on the aggregation density around the optimal point. One of the advantages of PSO over GA is the simplicity and its low parameters. Selecting the best values for the cognitive and social component leads to accelerating the algorithm and preventing premature convergence occurs locally at optimal points. In PSO optimization, the proposed variables are included in the training of a neural network, including network weights and bias. The process is as follows: First, N vector of position Xi, which N is equal to the number of members of the category, is generated randomly. The neural network is executed according to the parameters equal to the variables of these vectors and the error obtained from each run is considered as the degree of fit of the variable vector of that network. This process is repeated till the final convergence is achieved. The ultimate convergence is to achieve the optimal position vector (values of optimal weights and bias) so that the training error is minimized. So the objective function in this optimization need to be minimized as the amount of error Forecast [78,79,80]. Table 6 presents the setting values of the MLP–PSO. 3.2.4. Training Phase Training process categorized into two main steps. First is to select the best architecture of the ANN, the second is to integrate MLP with optimizers. Therefore, training was developed with 10 to 19 neurons in the first hidden layer and 2 neurons in the second hidden layer with the 80 percent of total data, according to Table 7. MLP models called as Models 1–6. After this process, MLP was integrated with GA using population size 50, 100 and 150 (models 7–9, respectively) and PSO using particle size 50, 75, 100 and 125 (models 10–13, respectively). Training was performed into two scenarios, with Tanh (x) as the output function and with Gaussian function as the default function. Figure 5 indicates a sample of the training process with MLP–GA which is extracted from the training process. The rest of data (20 percent) was employed in testing process. 3.2.5. Evaluation Metrics Table 8 presents evaluation criteria which compares predicted and output values. These equations are metrics for indicating the performance of models in predicting the target values as the model output values. In fact, this metrics compares the output of models and target values to calculate a value for indicating the accuracy of models [51,56,81]. 4. Results Training was performed by 80% of total data. Results were evaluated in terms of correlation coefficient, MAPE and RMSE, according to Table 9 and Table 10. Table 9 presents results of the training step without the use of Tanh (x) (using the Gaussian function as default) as the output function and Table 10 gives results of the training step with Tanh (x) as the output function. As is clear from Table 9 and Table 10, Model 13 provides higher accuracy compared with other models. It is also clear that using Tanh (x) as the output function of MLP increases the accuracy of the prediction. According to the results, the hybrid methods increase the processing time (s) compared with those for the single methods. This was also claimed by Mosavi et al., 2019 [82] and Ardabili et al., 2019 [83]. The main reason can be due to the optimizing process on setting the weights and bias values of the MLP which consumes more processing time (s). On the other hand, according to the Table 9 and Table 10, it is clear that the GA requires more processing time compared with that of the PSO. More processing time also can be due to the complexity of the optimizers [84,85]. Using Tanh (x) reduced the processing time. Testing Results Table 11 and Table 12 present the testing results, respectively, for the Gaussian function and with Tanh (x). as is clear, in testing process, results are different from those of training process. According to results of testing process, Model 7 followed by Model 13 for both scenarios, with Tanh (x) and Gaussian function, provide higher accuracy and lower error compared with other models. It is clear that the presence of Tanh (x) as the output function increases the accuracy and reduces the error values. Figure 6 presents the deviation from target values of all models into two scenarios with the Gaussian function as the default and with Tanh(x) as the output function. According to Figure 6, it can be concluded that the presence of Tanh (x) as the output function reduces the range of deviation. Models with a high accuracy have lower deviation values compared to others. Figure 7 indicates a simple yet essential form of Taylor diagram for the testing process of the developed models. This diagram is developed according to correlation coefficient and standard deviation. A point with a lower standard deviation and higher correlation coefficient has higher accuracy compared with other points. As is clear from Figure 7, Model 13 and Model 7 present higher accuracy compared with other models. According to the results, the advantage of the single models is their lower processing time, but the lowest accuracy can be the most important limitation and disadvantage of the single models compared with the hybrid ones. This was also claimed by several researches. In the case of using the hybrid models, the advantages of MLP–PSO such as higher accuracy and lower processing time overtake the MLP–GA. 5. Conclusions In this paper, modeling was performed by MLP–GA and MLP–PSO in two scenarios including with Tanh (x) and with the Gaussian function as default as the output function in thirteen categories. Research outcomes were evaluated using RMSE and correlation coefficient values to compare the accuracy and performance of the developed models in training and testing steps. Based on the results, using Tanh (x) as the output function improved the accuracy of models significantly. MLP–PSO with population size 125 followed by MLP–GA with population size 50 provided higher accuracy in the testing step by RMSE 0.732583 and 0.733063, MAPE of 28.16%, 29.09% and correlation coefficient 0.694 and 0.695, respectively. As is clear, the only advantage of the single MLP is its lower processing time but the important disadvantage can be claimed the lower accuracy compared with the hybrid models. According to the results, using hybrid ML method could successfully improve the prediction accuracy. Accordingly, MLP–PSO with lower processing time and higher accuracy (as the main advantage of the PSO compared with GA) overtakes the MLP–GA. In this way, the problem statements were successfully covered by the solution presented in the study. The main limitation for the future, is about presenting and beating a new stock market index using evolutionary methods. The future work will address the beating of stock market, that the variance of stock market will be successfully addressed. Thus, the return variance poses a limitation of the present research. Acknowledgments The support of Alexander von Humboldt foundation is acknowledged. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Author Contributions Conceptualization, F.E. and A.M.; methodology, F.E. and A.M.; software, A.M.; validation, S.A. and A.M.; formal analysis, F.E. and A.M.; investigation, F.E.; resources, F.E.; data curation, F.E.; writing—original draft preparation, F.E, A.M. and S.A.; writing—review and editing, A.M., S.S.B. and F.E.; visualization, S.A.; supervision, F.E., S.S.B. and A.M.; project administration, A.M.; funding acquisition, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding We acknowledge the financial support of this work by the Hungarian State and the European Union under the EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00010 project and the 2017-1.3.1-VKE-2017-00025 project. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Abbreviations MLP Multilayer perceptron TEPIX Tehran stock exchange price index MV Moving variance LDA linear discriminant analysis GA Genetic algorithms BPNN Back propagation neural network RMSE Root mean square error BSE-SENSEX Bombay Stock Exchange ANN Artificial neural network TAPI 10 10-day total amount weight stock price index MOM momentum ICA Independent Component Analysis SVM Support vector machine TAIEX Taiwan Stock Exchange Capitalization Weighted Stock Index ROC rate of change KOSPI Korea Composite Stock Price Index BIST 100 Borsa Istanbul 100 index MAPE Mean Absolute Percentage Error %D stochastic D CSI 300 Capitalization-weighted SM index CROBEX Zagreb stock index CNX Nifty Standard & Poor’s CNX Nifty stock index DAX-30 German DAX-30 DJIA Dow Jones Industrial Average HIS Hang Seng Index FTSE Financial Times Stock Exchange k-NN k-nearest neighbor QDA quadratic discriminant analysis S&P 500 Standard & Poor’s 500 GMM Gaussian mixture model RBF Radial basis function RKELM Robust kernel extreme learning machine SMA simple moving average KLCI Kuala Lumpur Composite Index RSI relative strength index BOVESPA Bolsa de Valores de São Paulo %K stochastic K PNN Probabilistic neural network %R Larry William’s R% A/D Accumulation/Distribution OSCP price oscillator CCI Commodity Channel Index SO Stochastic oscillator MSO Moving stochastic oscillator SSO Slow stochastic oscillator PSO Particle swarm optimization MVR Moving variance ratio EMA Exponential moving average LRL Linear regression line MACD Moving average convergence and divergence NB Naive Bayes SM Stock market RS Rough sets DWT Discrete wavelet transform IBEX-35 Spanish SM ARIMA Autoregressive integrated moving average Figure 1 The architecture of MLP. Figure 2 The implementation process of GA. Figure 3 The flowchart of the MLP–GA algorithm. Figure 4 The performance of PSO. Figure 5 MLP–GA training process. Figure 6 Deviation from target values for the developed models. (a,d) with the Gaussian function as default, (b,c) with the Tanh (x) function. Figure 7 Taylor diagram for the best response of the models in testing step. entropy-22-01239-t001_Table 1Table 1 Stock market index direction forecasting with machine learning considering comparative analysis involving ANN-based methods. References Method/s Application/Data Result [15] ANN, ARIMA KLCI (1984–1991) ANN outperformed ARIMA model. [16] SVM, BPNN KOSPI (1989–1998) SVM outperformed ANN. [32] ICA–BPNN, BPNN TAIEX (2003–2006) ICA–BPNN is superior. [17] ANN, NB, DT BSE (2003–2010) Hybrid RSs outperformed ANN. [34] PNN, SVM S&P 500 (2000–2008) PNN provided high accuracy. [24] ANN, SVM BIST 100 (1997–2007) 75% accuracy using ANN. [29] ANN TEPIX (2002–2009) ANN showed promising results. [35] ANN, GA TEPIX (2000–2008) ANN delivered next day estimates. [25] ANN BIST 100 (2002–2007) ANN achieved success with 82.7%. [36] SVM, ANN IBEX-35 (1990–2010) SVM outperformed ANN. [37] k-NN, PNN S&P 500 (2003–2008) k-NN outperformed PNN. [18] ANN BOVESPA (2000–2011) ANN suitable for direction estimation. [38] LSSVM, PNN, CSI 300 (2005–2012) LSSVM outperformed other models. [39] Random walk, ANN, SVM, fuzzy BSE-SENSEX (2011–2012) The fuzzy metagraph-based model has reached a classification rate of 75%. [40] ANN, RF, k-NN Amadeus (2009–2010) RF outperformed ANN. [20] NB, ANN, SVM CNX Nifty (2003–2012) NB outperformed other models. [41] DWT, ANN, SVM–MLP DJIA-S&P500 (2000–2012) SVM–MLP is superior. [42] Probit, Logit, Extreme Value S&P 500 (2011–2015) Extreme Value outperfomed Logit and Probit. [7] PSO–ANN S&P 500, IXIC (2008–2010) Acceptable prediction and robustness. [43] RF & ANN S&P 500 (2009–2017) RF outperformed ANN. [44] Hybrid fuzzy NN DAX-30 (1999–2017) minimum risky strategies. [45] GA, SVM, ANN BM&FBOVESPA PETR4 (1999–2017) SVM performed better than ANN. entropy-22-01239-t002_Table 2Table 2 Stock market index direction studies using methods other than ANNs. Author/s Method/s Application Result [31] GA–SVM, random walk, SVM, ARIMA, BPNN S&P 500 (2000–2004) GA–SVM has been shown to outperform other models. [14] Fuzzy sets, physical, support vector regression, partial least squares regression TAIEX and HIS (1998–2006) Their proposed models outperform the compared models according to the RMSE. [46] Random forest CROBEX (2008–2013) Random forests can be successfully preferred to estimate. [19] Fuzzy rule-based expert system Apple company (2010–2014) The fuzzy expert system has significant performance with minimal error. [21] GMM–SVM Indonesia ASII.JK (2000–2017) The GMM–SVM model has been found to be superior to other models. [47] Bayesian network iBOVESPA (2005–2012) Mean accuracy with the proposed model configuration was almost 71%. [48] TOPSIS, SVM, NB, Decision tree, kNN BSE SENSEX, S&P500 (2015–2017) While SVM model performs better in BSE SENSEX index, k-NN is superior to other models in S&P 500 index. [22] ANFIS Apple stock data (2005–2015) The proposed method outperformed the existing methods. [49] RKELM BSE, HIS, FTSE (2010–2015) They proved the superiority of the RKELM model over the ANN, naive Bayes and SVM. [3] Mean Profit Rate (MPR) DJIA, S&P500, HSI, Nikkei 225, SSE (2007–2017) MPR is an effective classifier. entropy-22-01239-t003_Table 3Table 3 Technical indicators used in SM direction estimation. Author/s Technical Indicators [15] Simple moving average (SMA), stochastic K (%K), momentum (MOM), stochastic D (%D), relative strength index (RSI). [16] Slow D%, MOM, rate of change (ROC), K%, Larry William’s R% (%R), Accumulation/Distribution (A/D) oscillator, disparity5, RSI, disparity10, price oscillator (OSCP), D%, Commodity Channel Index (CCI). [31] OSCP, Stochastic oscillator (SO), Slow stochastic oscillator (SSO), CCI, ROC, MOM, SMA, Moving variance (MV), Moving variance ratio (MVR), Exponential moving average (EMA), Moving average convergence and divergence (MACD), A/D oscillator, Price (P), disparity5, disparity10, Moving stochastic oscillator (MSO), RSI, linear regression line (LRL). [32] The previous day’s cash market high, low, volume, 6-day RSI, today’s opening cash index, 10-day total amount weighted stock price index. [17] %K, Positive volume index, %R, negative volume index, %D, on balance volume, RSI, MACD, MOM, A/D oscillator, 25-day SMA. [34] SMA, OSCP, MOM, %D, ROC, disparity, %K. [29] MACD, SMA, %R, CCI, A/D oscillator, %D, weighted moving average (WMA), RSI, MOM, %K. [24] %D, %K, RSI, MOM, MACD, WMA, %R, A/D oscillator, SMA, CCI. [35] SMA, MACD, RSI, OSCP, MOM, volume. [18] MACD, RSI, %D, SMA, Bollinger band, MOM, %R. [14] SMA for 5 days, SMA for 10 days, bias to moving average (BIAS), RSI, psychological line (PSY), %R, MACD, MOM. [38] %K, %R, %D, CCI, A/D oscillator, MOM, MACD, RSI, SMA and WMA. [39] MA, exponential moving average (EMA), MACD, RSI. [19] High price, low price, volume, change of closed price, MACD, MA, BIAS, RSI, %R. [20] %D, RSI, WMA, MACD, CCI, A/D oscillator, %K, %R, SMA. [46] 5-day SMA, 5-day WMA, 10-day SMA, 10-day WMA, %K, %D, MACD, CCI, 5-day disparity, 10-day disparity, OSCP, ROC, MOM, RSI, 5-day standard deviation. [41] SMA, EMA, A/D oscillator, %K, RSI, OSCP, closing price, maximum price. [42] SMA, WMA, MOM, %K, %D, %R, RSI, MACD. [7] Change of price, change of volume, 5-day SMA, 10-day SMA, 30-day SMA, moving price level (30 days), moving price level (120 days), percentage price oscillator. [21] A/D oscillator, mean of rising days, CCI, SMA, MACD, MOM, on balance volume, ratio of rising days, RSI, %R. [44] Triangular moving average (TMA), RSI, SMA, EMA, modified moving averages (MMA), volatility ratio (VR), %R, true strength index (TSI), average true range (ATR). [48] SMA, %K, %D, %R, MACD, RSI. [45] SMA, WMA, MOM, RSI. [22] 1-week SMA, 2-week SMA, 14-day disparity, R%. [3] %D, %K, RSI, MOM, MACD, WMA, %R, A/D oscillator, SMA, CCI. [49] SMA, MACD, %K, %D, RSI, %R. entropy-22-01239-t004_Table 4Table 4 Selected technical indicators. Technical Indicators Abbreviation Formulas Simple n (10 here)-day Moving Average SMA SMA=Ct + Ct − 1+⋯+ Ct − nn Simple n (10 here)-day Moving Average WMA WMA=10 × Ct + 9 × Ct−1+⋯+C1n + (n − 1) +⋯+ 1 Momentum MOM MOM=Ct−Ct−9 Stochastic D% STOCH Stokastik%D=∑i=0n−1Kt−i10% Relative Strength Index RSI RSI=100−1001+(∑i=0n−1UPt−i/n)/(∑i=0n−1DWt−i/n) Moving Average Convergence Divergence MACD MACD=MACD(n)t−1+2n + 1×(DIFFt−MACD(n)t − 1) Larry William’s R% LWR William′s%R=Hn − CtHn − Ln×100 Accumulation/Distribution Oscillator A/D A/D=Ht − Ct − 1Ht − Lt Commodity Channel Index CCI CCI=Mt − SMt0.015Dt Ct is the closing price, Lt the low price, Ht the high price at time t, DIFF: EMA(12)t– EMA(26)t, EMA exponential moving average, EMA=a×xt+(1−a)×xt−m, α smoothing factor: 2/(1 + k), k is time period of k day exponential moving average, LLt and HHt mean lowest low and highest high in the last t days, respectively, Mt: (Ht+Lt+Ct)/3; SMt:(∑i=1nMt−i+1/n), Dt=(∑i=1n|Mt−i+1−SMt|)/n, Upt means the upward price change, Dwt means the downward price change at time t. entropy-22-01239-t005_Table 5Table 5 The characteristics of the MLP–GA. Input Neuron 9 Hidden layer 2 Hidden layer activation function Logsig Output layer activation function Gaussian, Tanh (x) Pop. type Double vector Pop. size 50, 100 and 150 Crossover function Scattered Crossover fraction 0.8 Selection function Uniform Migration interval 10 Migration fraction 0.2 entropy-22-01239-t006_Table 6Table 6 The characteristics of the MLP–PSO. Input Neuron 9 Hidden layer 2 Hidden layer activation function logsig Output layer activation function Gaussian, Tanh (x) Number of Max. Iteration 500 Pop. size 50, 75, 100 and 125 c1 2 c2 2 entropy-22-01239-t007_Table 7Table 7 The description of the developed models. Model 1 MLP (9-10-2-1) Model 8 MLP–GA (100) Model 2 MLP (9-12-2-1) Model 9 MLP–GA (150) Model 3 MLP (9-14-2-1) Model 10 MLP–PSO (50) Model 4 MLP (9-15-2-1) Model 11 MLP–PSO (75) Model 5 MLP (9-17-2-1) Model 12 MLP–PSO (100) Model 6 MLP (9-19-2-1) Model 13 MLP–PSO (125) Model 7 MLP–GA (50) entropy-22-01239-t008_Table 8Table 8 Model Evaluation metrics. Accuracy and Performance Index Description Correlation coefficient = N∑  (XY) −∑  (X) ∑  (Y) [N∑  X2−(∑  X) 2][N∑  X2−(∑  XY) 2]   N: Number of Data X: Target value Y: Output value. MAPE (%)=1N∑i=1N|Xi−YiXi| RMSE = 1N∑  (X−Y)2 entropy-22-01239-t009_Table 9Table 9 Results for training phase with the Gaussian function as default. Model Correlation Coefficient RMSE MAPE (%) Processing Time (s) Model Correlation Coefficient RMSE MAPE (%) Processing Time (s) Model 1 0.67 0.741035 32.02% 3.82 Model 8 0.694 0.718928 30.57% 8.33 Model 2 0.68 0.733079 31.55% 4.11 Model 9 0.70 0.713458 30.31% 10.82 Model 3 0.676 0.735209 31.52% 4.97 Model 10 0.692 0.721568 30.40% 6.78 Model 4 0.682 0.730448 30.88% 5.11 Model 11 0.689 0.724479 30.89% 7.32 Model 5 0.689 0.723326 30.84% 5.22 Model 12 0.693 0.720478 30.28% 9.02 Model 6 0.693 0.719818 30.59% 5.30 Model 13 0.704 0.708774 29.93% 10.03 Model 7 0.692 0.720763 30.59% 7.22 entropy-22-01239-t010_Table 10Table 10 Results for training phase with tanh(x) function. Model Correlation Coefficient RMSE MAPE (%) Processing Time (s) Model Correlation Coefficient RMSE MAPE (%) Processing Time (s) Model 1 0.684 0.745674 30.12% 3.82 Model 8 0.709 0.72298 28.79% 7.96 Model 2 0.692 0.738467 29.59% 4.11 Model 9 0.716 0.717001 28.69% 9.87 Model 3 0.69 0.739543 29.62% 4.97 Model 10 0.710 0.720822 28.93% 6.22 Model 4 0.698 0.730832 29.09% 5.11 Model 11 0.703 0.728695 29.03% 7.12 Model 5 0.709 0.724664 29.23% 5.22 Model 12 0.708 0.721266 28.48% 8.45 Model 6 0.707 0.724155 28.66% 5.30 Model 13 0.720 0.712372 28.16% 9.23 Model 7 0.708 0.723435 28.78% 7.05 entropy-22-01239-t011_Table 11Table 11 Results for testing phase with the Gaussian function as default. Model Correlation Coefficient MAPE (%) RMSE Correlation Coefficient MAPE (%) RMSE Model 1 0.648 32.63% 0.759687 Model8 0.681 31.00% 0.730846 Model 2 0.661 32.11% 0.748273 Model 9 0.664 31.44% 0.746575 Model 3 0.657 32.07% 0.752376 Model 10 0.680 31.11% 0.731245 Model 4 0.673 31.31% 0.737857 Model 11 0.663 31.89% 0.747604 Model 5 0.663 31.71% 0.747776 Model 12 0.678 30.97% 0.733873 Model 6 0.671 31.24% 0.740842 Model 13 0.677 31.04% 0.735221 Model 7 0.681 30.84% 0.729959 entropy-22-01239-t012_Table 12Table 12 Results for testing phase with Tanh (x). Model Correlation Coefficient MAPE (%) RMSE Model Correlation Coefficient MAPE (%) RMSE Model 1 0.662 30.92% 0.76042 Model 8 0.692 29.10% 0.734701 Model 2 0.673 30.15% 0.751537 Model 9 0.679 29.95% 0.744885 Model 3 0.669 30.13% 0.753864 Model 10 0.694 29.50% 0.73393 Model 4 0.688 29.54% 0.738487 Model 11 0.674 30.10% 0.749981 Model 5 0.670 30.29% 0.74539 Model 12 0.694 29.20% 0.733235 Model 6 0.684 29.48% 0.740869 Model 13 0.694 29.09% 0.732583 Model 7 0.695 29.16% 0.733063 ==== Refs References 1. Adebiyi A.A. Ayo C.K. Adebiyi M.O. Otokiti S.O. Stock price prediction using neural network with hybridized market indicators J. Emerg. Trends Comput. Inf. Sci. 2012 3 1 9 2. Hafezi R. Shahrabi J. Hadavandi E. A bat-neural network multi-agent system (BNNMAS) for stock price prediction: Case study of DAX stock price Appl. Soft Comput. 2015 29 196 210 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.12.028 3. Liu G. Wang X. A new metric for individual stock trend prediction Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2019 82 1 12 10.1016/j.engappai.2019.03.019 4. Rahman A. Saadi S. Random walk and breaking trend in financial series: An econometric critique of unit root tests Rev. Financ. Econ. 2008 17 204 212 10.1016/j.rfe.2007.05.002 5. Lo A.W. MacKinlay A.C. Stock market prices do not follow random walks: Evidence from a simple specification test Rev. Financ. Stud. 1988 1 41 66 10.1093/rfs/1.1.41 6. Vejendla A. Enke D. Performance evaluation of neural networks and GARCH models for forecasting volatility and option strike prices in a bull call spread strategy J. Econ. Policy Res. 2013 8 1 7. Chiang W.-C. Enke D. Wu T. Wang R. An adaptive stock index trading decision support system J. Econ. Policy Res. 2016 59 195 207 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.04.025 8. Hadavandi E. Shavandi H. Ghanbari A. Integration of genetic fuzzy systems and artificial neural networks for stock price forecasting Knowl. Based Syst. 2010 23 800 808 10.1016/j.knosys.2010.05.004 9. Enke D. Mehdiyev N. Stock market prediction using a combination of stepwise regression analysis, differential evolution-based fuzzy clustering, and a fuzzy inference neural network Intell. Autom. Soft Comput. 2013 19 636 648 10.1080/10798587.2013.839287 10. Qiu M. Song Y. Akagi F. Application of artificial neural network for the prediction of stock market returns: The case of the Japanese stock market Chaos Solitons Fractals 2016 85 1 7 10.1016/j.chaos.2016.01.004 11. Gorgulho A. Neves R. Horta N. Applying a GA kernel on optimizing technical analysis rules for stock picking and portfolio composition Expert Syst. Appl. 2011 38 14072 14085 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.216 12. Lin X. Yang Z. Song Y. Intelligent stock trading system based on improved technical analysis and Echo State Network Expert Syst. Appl. 2011 38 11347 11354 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.001 13. Cervelló-Royo R. Guijarro F. Michniuk K. Stock market trading rule based on pattern recognition and technical analysis: Forecasting the DJIA index with intraday data Expert Syst. Appl. 2015 42 5963 5975 10.1016/j.eswa.2015.03.017 14. Chen Y.-S. Cheng C.-H. Tsai W.-L. Modeling fitting-function-based fuzzy time series patterns for evolving stock index forecasting Appl. Intell. 2014 41 327 347 10.1007/s10489-014-0520-6 15. Yao J. Tan C.L. Poh H.-L. Neural networks for technical analysis: A study on KLCI Int. J. Theor. Appl. Financ. 1999 2 221 241 10.1142/S0219024999000145 16. Kim K.-J. Financial time series forecasting using support vector machines Neurocomputing 2003 55 307 319 10.1016/S0925-2312(03)00372-2 17. Nair B.B. Mohandas V. Sakthivel N.R. A decision tree—Rough set hybrid system for stock market trend prediction Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2010 6 1 6 10.5120/1106-1449 18. De Oliveira F.A. Nobre C.N. Zarate L.E. Applying Artificial Neural Networks to prediction of stock price and improvement of the directional prediction index—Case study of PETR4, Petrobras, Brazil Expert Syst. Appl. 2013 40 7596 7606 10.1016/j.eswa.2013.06.071 19. Shakeri B. Zarandi M.F. Tarimoradi M. Turksan I. Fuzzy clustering rule-based expert system for stock price movement prediction Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS) Redmond, WA, USA 17–19 August 2015 1 6 20. Patel J. Shah S. Thakkar P. Kotecha K. Predicting stock and stock price index movement using trend deterministic data preparation and machine learning techniques Expert Syst. Appl. 2015 42 259 268 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.07.040 21. Santoso M. Sutjiadi R. Lim R. Indonesian Stock Prediction using Support Vector Machine (SVM) MATEC Web of Conferences EDP Sciences Les Ulis, France 2018 01031 22. Chandar S.K. Stock market prediction using subtractive clustering for a neuro fuzzy hybrid approach Clust. Comput. 2019 22 13159 13166 10.1007/s10586-017-1321-6 23. Cervelló-Royo R. Guijarro F. Forecasting stock market trend: A comparison of machine learning algorithms Financ. Mark. Valuat. 2020 6 37 49 24. Kara Y. Boyacioglu M.A. Baykan Ö.K. Predicting direction of stock price index movement using artificial neural networks and support vector machines: The sample of the Istanbul Stock Exchange Expert Syst. Appl. 2011 38 5311 5319 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.027 25. Karymshakov K. Abdykaparov Y. Forecasting stock index movement with artificial neural networks: The case of istanbul stock exchange Trak. Univ. J. Soc. Sci. 2012 14 231 241 26. Lahmiri S. Minute-ahead stock price forecasting based on singular spectrum analysis and support vector regression Appl. Math. Comput. 2018 320 444 451 10.1016/j.amc.2017.09.049 27. Pulido M. Melin P. Castillo O. Particle swarm optimization of ensemble neural networks with fuzzy aggregation for time series prediction of the Mexican Stock Exchange Inf. Sci. 2014 280 188 204 10.1016/j.ins.2014.05.006 28. Lahmiri S. Interest rate next-day variation prediction based on hybrid feedforward neural network, particle swarm optimization, and multiresolution techniques Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 2016 444 388 396 10.1016/j.physa.2015.09.061 29. Aldin M.M. Dehnavi H.D. Entezari S. Evaluating the employment of technical indicators in predicting stock price index variations using artificial neural networks (case study: Tehran Stock Exchange) Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2012 7 25 30. Gurjar M. Naik P. Mujumdar G. Vaidya T. Stock market prediction using ANN Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. (IRJET) 2018 5 2758 2761 31. Yu L. Wang S. Lai K.K. Mining stock market tendency using GA-based support vector machines Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics Hong Kong, China 15–17 December 2005 336 345 32. Lu C.-J. Integrating independent component analysis-based denoising scheme with neural network for stock price prediction Expert Syst. Appl. 2010 37 7056 7064 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.03.012 33. Dash R. Dash P. Efficient stock price prediction using a self evolving recurrent neuro-fuzzy inference system optimized through a modified differential harmony search technique Expert Syst. Appl. 2016 52 75 90 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.01.016 34. Lahmiri S. A comparison of PNN and SVM for stock market trend prediction using economic and technical information Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2011 29 24 30 35. Dastgir M. Enghiad M.H. Short-term prediction of Tehran Stock Exchange Price Index (TEPIX): Using artificial neural network (ANN) J. Secur. Exch. 2012 4 237 261 36. Dunis C.L. Rosillo R. de la Fuente D. Pino R. Applications. Forecasting IBEX-35 moves using support vector machines Neural Comput. Appl. 2013 23 229 236 10.1007/s00521-012-0821-9 37. Lahmiri S. Boukadoum M. Chartier S. Information fusion and S&P500 trend prediction Proceedings of the 2013 ACS International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA) Ifrane, Morocco 27–30 May 2013 1 7 38. Wang S. Shang W. Forecasting direction of China security index 300 movement with least squares support vector machine Procedia Comput. Sci. 2014 31 869 874 10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.338 39. Anbalagan T. Maheswari S.U. Classification and prediction of stock market index based on fuzzy metagraph Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015 47 214 221 10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.200 40. Ballings M. Van den Poel D. Hespeels N. Gryp R. Evaluating multiple classifiers for stock price direction prediction Expert Syst. Appl. 2015 42 7046 7056 10.1016/j.eswa.2015.05.013 41. Anish C. Majhi B. Hybrid nonlinear adaptive scheme for stock market prediction using feedback FLANN and factor analysis J. Korean Stat. Soc. 2016 45 64 76 10.1016/j.jkss.2015.07.002 42. Jabbarzadeh A. Shavvalpour S. Khanjarpanah H. Dourvash D. A multiple-criteria approach for forecasting stock price direction: Nonlinear probability models with application in S&P 500 Index Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2016 11 3870 3878 43. Jiao Y. Jakubowicz J. Predicting stock movement direction with machine learning: An extensive study on S&P 500 stocks Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) Boston, MA, USA 11–14 December 2017 4705 4713 44. Garcia F. Guijarro F. Oliver J. Tamošiūnienė R. Hybrid fuzzy neural network to predict price direction in the German DAX-30 index Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2018 24 2161 2178 10.3846/tede.2018.6394 45. Nadh V.L. Prasad G.S. Stock market prediction based on machine learning approaches Computational Intelligence and Big Data Analytics Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany 2019 75 79 46. Manojlović T. Štajduhar I. Predicting stock market trends using random forests: A sample of the Zagreb stock exchange Proceedings of the 2015 38th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO) Opatija, Croatia 25–29 May 2015 1189 1193 47. Malagrino L.S. Roman N.T. Monteiro A.M. Forecasting stock market index daily direction: A Bayesian Network approach Expert Syst. Appl. 2018 105 11 22 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.03.039 48. Dash R. Samal S. Rautray R. Dash R. A TOPSIS approach of ranking classifiers for stock index price movement prediction Soft Computing in Data Analytics Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany 2019 665 674 49. Bisoi R. Dash P. Parida A. Hybrid Variational Mode Decomposition and evolutionary robust kernel extreme learning machine for stock price and movement prediction on daily basis Appl. Soft Comput. 2019 74 652 678 10.1016/j.asoc.2018.11.008 50. Ecer F. Artificial Neural Networks in Predicting Financial Performance: An Application for Turkey’s Top 500 Companies Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Studies Res. 2013 47 103 114 51. Ardabili S.F. Mahmoudi A. Gundoshmian T.M. Modeling and simulation controlling system of HVAC using fuzzy and predictive (radial basis function, RBF) controllers J. Build. Eng. 2016 6 301 308 10.1016/j.jobe.2016.04.010 52. Ecer F. Comparing the bank failure prediction performance of neural networks and support vector machines: The Turkish case Econ. Res. 2013 26 81 98 10.1080/1331677X.2013.11517623 53. Gundoshmian T.M. Ardabili S. Mosavi A. Varkonyi-Koczy A.R. Prediction of combine harvester performance using hybrid machine learning modeling and response surface methodology Proceedings of the International Conference on Global Research and Education Balatonfüred, Hungary 4–7 September 2019 54. Ardabili S.F. Simulation and Comparison of Control System in Mushroom Growing Rooms Environment Master’s Thesis University of Tabriz Tabriz, Iran 2014 55. Lee T.K. Cho J.H. Kwon D.S. Sohn S.Y. Global stock market investment strategies based on financial network indicators using machine learning techniques Expert Syst. Appl. 2019 117 228 242 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.09.005 56. Zhong X. Enke D. Predicting the daily return direction of the stock market using hybrid machine learning algorithms Financ. Innov. 2019 1 14 24 10.1186/s40854-019-0138-0 57. Harik G.R. Lobo F.G. Goldberg D.E. The compact genetic algorithm IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1999 3 287 297 10.1109/4235.797971 58. Khan W. Predicting stock market trends using machine learning algorithms via public sentiment and political situation analysis Soft Comput. 2019 12 1 25 10.1007/s00500-019-04347-y 59. Mühlenbein H. Schomisch M. Born J. The parallel genetic algorithm as function optimizer Parallel Comput. 1991 17 619 632 10.1016/S0167-8191(05)80052-3 60. Kampouropoulos K. Andrade F. Sala E. Espinosa A.G. Romeral L. Multiobjective optimization of multi-carrier energy system using a combination of ANFIS and genetic algorithms IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2018 9 2276 2283 10.1109/TSG.2016.2609740 61. Sahay R.R. Srivastava A. Predicting monsoon floods in rivers embedding wavelet transform, genetic algorithm and neural network Water Resour. Manag. 2014 28 301 317 10.1007/s11269-013-0446-5 62. Wang J. Wan W. Optimization of fermentative hydrogen production process using genetic algorithm based on neural network and response surface methodology Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2009 34 255 261 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.10.010 63. Maertens K. De Baerdemaeker J. Babuška R. Genetic polynomial regression as input selection algorithm for non-linear identification Soft Comput. 2006 10 785 795 10.1007/s00500-005-0008-8 64. Pandey P.M. Thrimurthulu K. Reddy N.V. Optimal part deposition orientation in FDM by using a multicriteria genetic algorithm Int. J. Prod. Res. 2004 42 4069 4089 10.1080/00207540410001708470 65. Horn J. Nafpliotis N. Goldberg D.E. A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence) Orlando, FL, USA 27–29 June 1994 82 87 66. Mansoor A.-K.Z. Salih T.A. Hazim M.Y. Self-tuning PID Controller using Genetic Algorithm Iraqi J. Stat. Sci. 2011 11 369 385 67. Song S. Singh V.P. Frequency analysis of droughts using the Plackett copula and parameter estimation by genetic algorithm Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2010 24 783 805 10.1007/s00477-010-0364-5 68. Abdullah S.S. Malek M. Abdullah N.S. Mustapha A. Feedforward backpropagation, genetic algorithm approaches for predicting reference evapotranspiration Sains Malays. 2015 44 1053 1059 10.17576/jsm-2015-4407-18 69. Poli R. Kennedy J. Blackwell T. Particle swarm optimization Swarm Intell. 2007 1 33 57 10.1007/s11721-007-0002-0 70. Sun J. Feng B. Xu W. Particle swarm optimization with particles having quantum behavior Proceedings of the 2004 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No. 04TH8753) Portland, OR, USA 19–23 June 2004 325 331 71. Parsopoulos K.E. Vrahatis M.N. Particle swarm optimization method in multiobjective problems Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Applied computing New York, NY, USA 22–27 March 2002 603 607 72. Kennedy J. Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization Proceedings of the ICNN’95-International Conference on Neural Networks Perth, WA, Australia 27 November–1 December 1995 1942 1948 73. Baltar A.M. Fontane D.G. Use of multiobjective particle swarm optimization in water resources management J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2008 134 257 265 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2008)134:3(257) 74. Clerc M. Particle Swarm Optimization John Wiley & Sons Hoboken, NJ, USA 2010 Volume 93 75. Shi Y. Particle swarm optimization: Developments, applications and resources Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No. 01TH8546) Seoul, Korea 27–30 May 2001 81 86 76. Shi Y. Eberhart R.C. Parameter selection in particle swarm optimization Proceedings of the International Conference on Evolutionary Programming San Diego, CA, USA 25–27 March 1998 591 600 77. Allaoua B. Laoufi A. Gasbaoui B. Abderrahmani A. Technologies. Neuro-fuzzy DC motor speed control using particle swarm optimization Leonardo Electron. J. Pract. Technol. 2009 15 1 18 78. Gharghan S.K. Nordin R. Ismail M. Ali J.A. Accurate wireless sensor localization technique based on hybrid PSO-ANN algorithm for indoor and outdoor track cycling IEEE Sensors J. 2015 16 529 541 10.1109/JSEN.2015.2483745 79. Armaghani D.J. Raja R.S.N.S.B. Faizi K. Rashid A.S.A. Developing a hybrid PSO–ANN model for estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of rock-socketed piles Neural Comput. Appl. 2017 28 391 405 10.1007/s00521-015-2072-z 80. Liou S.-W. Wang C.-M. Huang Y.-F. Integrative Discovery of Multifaceted Sequence Patterns by Frame-Relayed Search and Hybrid PSO-ANN J. UCS 2009 15 742 764 81. Pang X. Zhou Y. Wang P. Lin W. Chang V. An innovative neural network approach for stock market prediction J. Supercomput. 2020 76 2098 2118 10.1007/s11227-017-2228-y 82. Mosavi A. Salimi M. Faizollahzadeh Ardabili S. Rabczuk T. Shamshirband S. Varkonyi-Koczy A.R. State of the art of machine learning models in energy systems, a systematic review Energies 2019 12 1301 10.3390/en12071301 83. Liu H. Long Z. An improved deep learning model for predicting stock market price time series Digit. Signal Process. 2020 7 102741 10.1016/j.dsp.2020.102741 84. Nabipour M. Nayyeri P. Jabani H. Shahab S. Mosavi A. Predicting Stock Market Trends Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Algorithms Via Continuous and Binary Data: A Comparative Analysis IEEE Access 2020 8 150199 150212 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3015966 85. Nabipour M. Nayyeri P. Jabani H. Mosavi A. Salwana E. Deep learning for stock market prediction Entropy 2020 22 840 10.3390/e22080840