Enhancing time series forecasting with Kolmogorov-Arnold networks and a robust hybrid loss function


Abstract

This paper studies Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks (KANs) for predictive modeling, with both theoretical value in improving interpretability and practical value for tasks such as financial time-series forecasting. Existing approaches typically use node-based activations and linear edge mappings, or global basis expansions such as Jacobi polynomials. However, these methods lack adaptive error penalization, are insensitive to directional bias, and can suffer from gradient instability. To address these issues, we relocate activation functions from nodes to edges and model edge mappings with univariate spline functions, which allow local refinement and greater flexibility. We also propose a Huber Log-Cosh quantile (HLQ) loss that combines Huber robustness, log-cosh smoothness, and quantile-aware penalization to adaptively weight errors by magnitude and direction. On 23 classic benchmark tests our framework reached the ideal optimum in 78.2% of cases. Experiments on Amazon stock price data using the enhanced KAN embedded in a GRU architecture show a 6% improvement on the training set and an 8% improvement on the test set versus the original KAN; additional validations with BiLSTM, TCN, and LSTM confirm the method's robustness and generalizability.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].