MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404135788 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17110501

Algorithm-Based Low-Frequency Trading Using a Stochastic Oscillator, Williams%R, and Trading Volume for the S&P 500

2024· article· en· W4404135788 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chan Kyu Paik, Jinhee Choi, Iván Ureta Vaquero

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh-frequency tradingVolume (thermodynamics)Algorithmic tradingEconomicsFinancial economicsPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research in algorithmic trading has primarily focused on ultra-high-frequency strategies and index estimation. In response to the need for a low-frequency, real-world trading model, we developed an enhanced algorithm that builds on existing models with high hit ratios and low maximum drawdowns. We utilized established price indicators, including the stochastic oscillator and Williams %R, while introducing a volume factor to improve the model’s robustness and performance. The refined algorithm achieved superior returns while maintaining its high hit ratio and low maximum drawdown. Specifically, we leveraged 2X and 3X signals, incorporating volume data, the 52-week average, standard deviation, and other variables. The dataset comprised SPY ETF price and volume data spanning from 2010 to 2023, over 13 years. Our enhanced algorithmic model outperformed both the benchmark and previous iterations, achieving a hit rate of over 90%, a maximum drawdown of less than 1%, an average of 1.5 trades per year, a total return of 519.3%, and an annualized return (AnnR) of 15.1%. This analysis demonstrates that the model’s simplicity, ease of use, and interpretability provide valuable tools for investors, although it is important to note that past performance does not guarantee future returns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies→French-language works237,207→