Contrastive Learning and Self-Supervised Pre-Training for Stock Prediction: A Graph-Based Representation Learning Approach

Keywords

Contrastive Learning

Abstract

The scarcity of labeled financial data presents a fundamental challenge for supervised learning approaches to stock prediction, as the cost of obtaining expert-labeled data is prohibitively high while the amount of unlabeled market data grows exponentially. Self-supervised contrastive learning offers a principled solution by enabling models to learn useful representations from unlabeled data through the optimization of contrastive objectives that encourage augmented views of the same sample to be similar while views of different samples are dissimilar. This paper proposes a novel self-supervised pre-training framework for stock prediction based on contrastive learning over graph-augmented temporal views of financial time series. Our approach, Contrastive Stock State Space Graph (CS-S3G), builds upon the Stock State Space Graph architecture introduced by Lu, Hu, and Zhang, and integrates temporal and graph augmentation strategies to learn robust stock representations without relying on labeled data. We adapt explanation-based bias decoupling regularization principles from Zang and Liu's work on natural language inference to ensure that the learned representations capture genuine market dynamics rather than spurious correlations. Through extensive experiments on benchmark financial datasets, we demonstrate that self-supervised pre-training substantially improves downstream prediction accuracy, particularly in data-scarce scenarios, and that the learned representations transfer effectively across different markets and asset classes. Our work contributes to the growing body of research on self-supervised learning in finance, providing a principled framework for leveraging unlabeled data to improve prediction performance.

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