ClusterLOB: Enhancing Trading Strategies by Clustering Orders in Limit Order Books
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the rapidly evolving world of financial markets, understanding the dynamics of limit order book (LOB) is crucial for unraveling market microstructure and participant behavior. We introduce ClusterLOB‡ as a method to cluster individual order in a stream of market-by-order (MBO) data into different groups. To do so, each order is augmented with six time-dependent features. By applying the K-means++ clustering algorithm to the resulting order features, we are then able to assign each new order to one of three distinct clusters, which we identify as directional, opportunistic, and market-making participants, each capturing unique trading behaviors. Our experimental results are performed on one year of MBO data containing small-tick, medium-tick, and large-tick stocks from NASDAQ. To validate the usefulness of our clustering, we compute order flow imbalances across each cluster within 30-min buckets during the trading day. We treat each cluster's imbalance as a signal that provides insights into trading strategies and participants' responses to varying market conditions. To assess the effectiveness of these signals, we identify the trading strategy with the highest Sharpe ratio in the training dataset, and demonstrate that its performance in the test dataset is superior to benchmark trading strategies that do not incorporate clustering. We also evaluate trading strategies based on order flow imbalance decompositions across different market event types, including add, cancel, and trade events, to assess their robustness in various market conditions. This work establishes a robust framework for clustering orders in LOB, which enhances our understanding of market microstructure and participant behavior, and informs the development of more effective predictive trading signals with practical applications in algorithmic trading and quantitative finance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".