<?xml version="1.0"?>
<metadata xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><dc:title>Bio-inspired spiking recurrent networks with evolutionary optimization for non-stationary cryptocurrency forecasting</dc:title><dc:creator>Walugembe,	Francis Noah	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Wielgosz,	Maciej	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Mertik,	Matej	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Gams,	Matjaž	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:subject>cryptocurrency</dc:subject><dc:subject>bitcoin</dc:subject><dc:subject>time-series forecasting</dc:subject><dc:description>Forecasting cryptocurrency prices remains difficult because market dynamics are highly volatile, non-stationary, and regime-dependent. This study investigates whether combining a spiking-inspired recurrent architecture with the Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) can improve one-step-ahead Bitcoin forecasting within a controlled model family. We compare four configurations, LSTM, SLSTM, GWO-LSTM, and GWO-SLSTM, on 4039 daily BTC–USD closing prices from 17 September 2014 to 9 October 2025 using Min–Max normalization, strict chronological splitting, windowed regime-based robustness analysis across three distinct market regimes, and repeated-run testing. The proposed SLSTM replaces the conventional hidden-state recurrence with leaky integrate-and-fire-inspired synaptic, membrane, and adaptive-threshold dynamics, functioning as a spiking-inspired recurrent model with thresholded event gating (reset = `none’, learnable threshold). On the primary hold-out split, GWO-SLSTM achieved a test RMSE of 1840.97 and a test MAPE of 1.76%, compared with 2217.24 and 2.46% for GWO-LSTM, 3501.48 and 3.86% for SLSTM, and 4030.10 and 4.40% for LSTM. Both GWO-optimized models exhibited substantial improvements over their non-optimized counterparts, while the SLSTM baseline also outperformed the plain LSTM, indicating gains from both spiking-inspired recurrence and evolutionary hyperparameter optimization. Both optimized models exhibited near-zero bias (PBIAS 0.11% for GWO-LSTM and 0.36% for GWO-SLSTM). Within the present implementation, GWO-SLSTM also trained faster than GWO-LSTM (39.71 s vs. 137.28 s), although this runtime difference should be interpreted as setup-specific because the model families were implemented in different frameworks and stopped after different numbers of epochs. Overall, within the expanded univariate BTC–USD setting, the results support GWO-SLSTM as a strong within-family candidate for one-step-ahead forecasting under non-stationary conditions.</dc:description><dc:publisher>MDPI</dc:publisher><dc:date>2026</dc:date><dc:date>2026-07-03 11:30:08</dc:date><dc:type>Neznano</dc:type><dc:identifier>30786</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>UDK: 004.8</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>ISSN pri članku: 2504-2289</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>DOI: 10.3390/bdcc10070200</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>COBISS_ID: 283359491</dc:identifier><dc:source>Švica</dc:source><dc:language>sl</dc:language><dc:rights>© 2026 by the authors.</dc:rights></metadata>
