financial data scientists

Abstract: Financial research agents can generate and monitor trading rules faster than a human can document the resulting selection process. Candidates appear at data-dependent times, weak rules are abandoned, and promising ones are watched until they cross a reporting threshold. We introduce PROMOTE, a protocol that assigns every candidate predictable testing wealth at birth and accumulates a cost-aware e-process only from subsequent returns. If lifetime allocations sum to at most one, a weighted Ville argument bounds the probability of ever promoting a rule whose declared bounded net score has always had nonpositive conditional mean. The result permits dependent candidates, adaptive births, and indefinite monitoring. We audit the implementation in two settings. A retrospective pseudo-out-of-sample replay contains 24 panel--rule hypotheses, 3,000 shared-sign null paths, injected alternatives, and public ETF and industry data. Repeated unadjusted tests produce a family crossing in 94.5% of null paths, versus 0.0% for PROMOTE; at a 15-bp aligned ETF-component perturbation, PROMOTE has 70.1% target power and median crossing session 2,327. A separate exact mean-zero experiment lets an agent select candidate identities and birth times from past scores; the funded gate has 1.77% false-family crossings across 3,000 programs. The market replay produces zero promotions after costs. The certificate controls historical false promotion under the declared null; it is not a certificate that an earlier edge remains profitable at deployment. AI-use disclosure. Generative AI tools, including OpenAI Codex, assisted manuscript preparation. For this preprint version, Codex assisted with LaTeX editing, author and venue metadata, compilation, and layout checks.

Abstract: Wavelet-based financial forecasters typically use the transform only to denoise, or reduce it to a single spectral snapshot at the forecast origin, and the convolution that produces the coefficients is usually bilateral, so it can read past the forecast origin. DSTNet instead retains the recent evolution of filter-bank magnitudes as a causal Dynamic Spectral Trajectory, built from seven trailing technical indicators over a twenty-day lookback with a one-sided Morlet-derived filter bank and an explicit burn-in for the left-boundary transient. A factorized Scale-Temporal Spectral Transformer attends along the time and filter-bank axes separately, a learned gate fuses the spectral branch with a CNN-BiLSTM, and horizon-specific gates emit one, three, five, and ten day forecasts in a single pass. We evaluate seven equity indices and gold under a common expanding-window protocol and an untouched one-year hold-out, against nine learned baselines and a random-walk persistence benchmark. Under MAE and MAPE, persistence is the strongest of the ten fixed competitors in 29 of the 32 series-horizon cells and DSTNet is the only model below it in every cell, by 0.7 to 0.9 percent at one day and 3.4 to 4.5 percent at ten days. At one day, paired testing favours DSTNet against the weaker learned baselines but is inconclusive against persistence and the strongest learned forecasters. A downstream allocation diagnostic does not support an equity-timing advantage on any of the seven indices.

Abstract: Feature selection for imbalanced classification tasks such as credit card fraud and consumer default detection requires balancing predictive relevance, inter-feature redundancy, and computational feasibility. We benchmark three computing paradigms, classical branch-and-bound optimization (Gurobi), photonic entropy computing (QCI Dirac-3), and simulated photonic boson sampling (Piquasso), across thirteen feature-selection methods on two datasets: ULB Credit Card Fraud (30 features) and AmEx consumer default (159 features). Each method is routed to the solver matched to its mathematical structure. On ULB, Dirac-3 MI-Spearman matches the all-features model using 13 of 30 features (mean F1 0.873 +/- 0.023 over five runs, best run 0.896), and Piquasso is the best method at k=5. On AmEx, performance rises steadily with the feature budget and every paradigm approaches F1 = 0.80 only near the full feature set. Most differences between Gurobi and Dirac-3 on identical methods fall within run-to-run variation; the large gaps occur where the certified optimum generalizes poorly, most sharply for distance correlation on AmEx at k=25 (Gurobi F1 = 0.422 vs. a Dirac-3 mean of 0.746). At matched budgets, F1 varies about ten times more across methods on ULB than on AmEx, which we trace to how concentrated the predictive signal is in each feature space.