Risk-Adjusted Performance of Random Forest Models in High-Frequency Trading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the theoretical challenges posed by the Efficient Market Hypothesis with respect to technical analysis, the effectiveness of technical indicators in high-frequency trading remains inadequately explored, particularly at the minute-level frequency, where the effects of the microstructure of the market dominate. This study evaluates the integration of traditional technical indicators with Random Forest regression models using minute-level SPY data, analyzing 13 distinct model configurations. Our empirical results reveal a stark contrast between in-sample and out-of-sample performance, with R2 values deteriorating from 0.749–0.812 during training to negative values in testing. A feature importance analysis demonstrates that primary price-based features dominate the predictions made by the model, accounting for over 60% of the importance, while established technical indicators, such as RSI and Bollinger Bands, account for only 14–15%. Although the indicator-enhanced models achieved superior risk-adjusted metrics, with Rachev ratios between 0.919 and 0.961, they consistently underperformed a simple buy-and-hold strategy, generating returns ranging from −2.4% to −3.9%. These findings challenge conventional assumptions about the usefulness of technical indicators in algorithmic trading, suggesting that in high-frequency contexts, they may be more relevant to risk management rather than to predicting returns. For practitioners and researchers, our findings indicate that successful high-frequency trading strategies should focus on adaptive feature selection and regime-specific modeling rather than relying on traditional technical indicators, as well as indicating the critical importance of robust out-of-sample testing in the development of a model.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".