Algorithm-Based Low-Frequency Trading Using a Stochastic Oscillator and William%R: A Case Study on the U.S. and Korean Indices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using stochastics in stock market analysis is widely accepted for index estimation and ultra-high-frequency trading. However, previous studies linking index estimation to actual trading without applying low-frequency trading are limited. This study applied William%R to the existing research and used fixed parameters to remove noise from stochastics. We propose contributing to stock market stakeholders by finding an easy-to-apply algorithmic trading methodology for individual and pension fund investors. The algorithm constructed two oscillators with fixed parameters to identify when to enter and exit the index and achieved good results against the benchmark. We tested two ETFs, SPY (S&P 500) and EWY (MSCI Korea), from 2010 to 2022. Over the 12-year study period, our model showed it can outperform the benchmark index, having a high hit ratio of over 80%, a maximum drawdown in the low single digits, and a trading frequency of 1.5 trades per year. The results of our empirical research show that this methodology simplifies the process for investors to effectively implement market timing strategies in their investment decisions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".