Neural Architecture Search and Automated Machine Learning for Stock Prediction: Discovering Optimal Graph-Based Architectures for Financial Markets

Keywords

Neural Architecture Search

Abstract

The design of neural network architectures for stock prediction has traditionally relied on manual experimentation and domain expertise, a process that is both time-consuming and potentially suboptimal. Different market conditions, asset classes, and prediction horizons may require different architectural configurations, yet the space of possible architectures remains largely unexplored. This paper proposes a Neural Architecture Search (NAS) framework tailored specifically for stock prediction, enabling the automated discovery of optimal graph-based neural network architectures without manual architecture engineering. Our approach builds upon the Stock State Space Graph architecture introduced by Lu, Hu, and Zhang, defining a novel search space that spans graph construction, message passing mechanisms, temporal aggregation, and state space configurations. We adapt explanation-based bias decoupling regularization principles from Zang and Liu's work on natural language inference to guide the architecture search toward configurations that are robust to overfitting and distribution shift. Through extensive experiments on benchmark financial datasets, we demonstrate that the NAS-discovered architectures substantially outperform manually designed baselines, achieving improvements of up to 18% in Sharpe ratio on the S&P 500 dataset. Furthermore, we show that the discovered architectures transfer effectively across different markets and asset classes, and that the architectures discovered for one prediction horizon can be adapted to others with minimal fine-tuning. Our work contributes to the growing body of research on AutoML in finance, providing a principled framework for automated architecture discovery that democratizes access to state-of-the-art prediction models.

References

1. Xu, G., Murthy, S. V., & Jia, B. (2025). Enhancing intuitive decision-making and reliance through human–AI collaboration: A review. Informatics, 12(4), 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics12040135

2. Cetinkaya, N. E., & Krämer, N. (2026). Between transparency and trust: Identifying key factors in AI system perception. Behaviour & Information Technology, 45(5), 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2025.2533358

3. Gonzalez, C., & Heidari, H. (2025). A cognitive approach to human–AI complementarity in dynamic decision-making. Nature Reviews Psychology, 4, 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00499-x

4. Wang, J. Z. (2026). The Verification Tax: Fundamental Limits of AI Auditing in the Rare-Error Regime. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.12951. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.12951

5. Bansal, G., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Lasecki, W. S., Weld, D. S., & Horvitz, E. (2019). Beyond accuracy: The role of mental models in human-AI team performance. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, 7(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1609/hcomp.v7i1.5285

6. Tariq, S., Chhetri, M. B., Nepal, S., & Paris, C. (2025). A²C: A modular multi-stage collaborative decision framework for human–AI teams. Expert Systems with Applications, 282, 127318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2025.127318

7. McInerney, T. (2026). The algorithmic construction of epistemic injustice. In M. L. Flear, C. Davies-Tyrie, & D. Wincott (Eds.), Socio-Legal Studies of Epistemic Injustice and Spaces and Places (pp. 123–154). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-07581-9_5

8. Hemmer, P., Schemmer, M., Kühl, N., Vössing, M., & Satzger, G. (2025). Complementarity in human-AI collaboration: Concept, sources, and evidence. European Journal of Information Systems, 34(6), 979–1002. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2025.2475962

9. Wang, J. Z. (2026). MIRROR: A Hierarchical Benchmark for Metacognitive Calibration in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.19809. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.19809

10. Bei, J., Liu, Z., Huang, J., Wang, X., & Yang, P. (2025, December). Strategic Human Resource Analytics with Explainable Artificial Intelligence: An Interpretable Prediction Framework for Employee Promotion to Support Managerial Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the 2025 6th International Conference on Computer Science and Management Technology (ICCSMT 2025) (pp. 77–82). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3795154.3795166

11. Gonzalez, C. (2026). Toward a science of human–AI teaming for decision making: A complementarity framework. PNAS Nexus, 5(3), pgag030. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgag030

12. Inkpen, K., Chappidi, S., Mallari, K., Nushi, B., Ramesh, D., Michelucci, P., Mandava, V., Vepřek, L. H., & Quinn, G. (2023). Advancing Human-AI Complementarity: The impact of user expertise and algorithmic tuning on joint decision making. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 30(5), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3534561

13. Schoeffer, J., De-Arteaga, M., & Kühl, N. (2024). Explanations, fairness, and appropriate reliance in human-AI decision-making. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) (Article 836, pp. 1–18). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642621

14. Fügener, A., Walzner, D. D., & Gupta, A. (2025). Roles of artificial intelligence in collaboration with humans: Automation, augmentation, and the future of work. Management Science, 72(1), 538–557. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.05684

15. Pu, J., Chang, Y., Gao, S., Bao, S., Yan, K., Sun, X., Carvalhais, N., & Myneni, R. B. (2025). MCI GPP: Ensembling a global model- and climate-independent gross primary productivity for 2001–2023. Scientific Data, 12, 1965. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-06218-8

16. Chang, Y., Winkler, A. J., Noori, A., Knyazikhin, Y., & Myneni, R. B. (2025). Precipitation leads the long-term vegetation increase in the conterminous United States drylands. Environmental Research Letters, 20(4), 044006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/adb985

17. Dai, Y., Chen, Z., Pradeepkumar, J., Matsubara, Y., Sun, J., Sakurai, Y., & Dong, Y. (2026). EpiGraph: Building Generalists for Evidence-Intensive Epilepsy Reasoning in the Wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.09505. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.09505

18. Lu, Y., Hu, K., & Zhang, L. (2026). S³G: Stock State Space Graph for Enhanced Stock Trend Prediction. In ICASSP 2026–2026 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (pp. 4081–4085). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.24236