Optimal and Non-Optimal MACD Parameter Values and Their Ranges for Stock-Index Futures: A Comparative Study of Nikkei, Dow Jones, and Nasdaq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the optimal and non-optimal parameter values of the MACD (Moving Average Convergence Divergence) technical analysis indicator for three major stock market index futures: the Nikkei 225, the Dow Jones, and the Nasdaq. Using a recently developed methodology, it reveals the existence of specific ranges of optimal and non-optimal values for each of the three parameters of the MACD indicator in these indices. Sample models employing the optimal parameter values in the three index futures generated significantly higher returns, outperforming both a non-technical buy-and-hold strategy and a random strategy that did not incorporate any market information. This discovery suggests that the three market indices may not be weak-form efficient. Therefore, this study contributes to the research on market efficiency by verifying inefficiency using a new approach. The highlight of this study is identifying that the ranges of optimal parameter values for the three indices are different from each other, but the optimal parameter value combinations for each of the three indices share a unique characteristic form. This issue and its finding have not been explored in the existing literature. Several interesting findings and valuable insights for market participants and researchers arise from this study. The new methodology is unique in finding optimal and non-optimal parameter values through the analysis of parameter sets used in well-performing and poorly performing sample models. Its validity and reliability have been confirmed by this study, making a useful contribution to the field of technical analysis research, particularly in parameter optimization insight.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".