2016issue C0426-29
Walk-forward evaluation of a five-parameter parabolic stop-and-reversal
A five-parameter parabolic stop-and-reversal can search starting acceleration, increment, maximum acceleration, a noise-crossover amount, and an initial-stop offset as one procedure. Walk-forward analysis then judges those chosen inputs on later unseen bars rather than on a single full-sample optimization.
- Starting acceleration, increment, maximum acceleration, a noise-crossover amount, and an initial-stop offset can be searched together as one five-parameter parabolic stop-and-reversal procedure.
- Software that freezes the starting acceleration factor and varies only the increment and maximum restricts the trend-following shapes that can be tested.
- An in-sample combinatorial search can fit both repeatable structure and one-time noise, so chosen inputs are not shown to hold on later data.
- Many calendar-day in-sample windows paired with following one-week out-of-sample windows, with those weekly results averaged, are presented as the check on luck in the in-sample metric.
The stop as one searchable procedure
A five-parameter parabolic stop-and-reversal variant can be specified so that starting acceleration, increment, maximum acceleration, a noise-crossover amount, and an initial-stop offset are searched together as one procedure.
The stop update uses the prior stop plus the current acceleration factor times the gap between the extreme price and that prior stop. The acceleration factor rises only when a new extreme is made, up to a stated maximum.
A noise-crossover increment can be added so a small penetration of the stop does not reverse the position. That addition addresses whipsaws from minor price noise.
Walk-forward analysis after system optimization
System optimization can select the five inputs from an in-sample combinatorial search. That selection does not establish that those inputs will hold on later data, because the search can fit both repeatable structure and one-time noise.
A single full-sample optimization is not a substitute for repeated walk-forward checks. The best searched inputs on a fixed noisy series are guaranteed to include curve-fit noise.
An evaluation design can pair many calendar-day in-sample windows with following one-week out-of-sample windows so chosen inputs are judged on unseen bars.
Robustness testing across many weeks
Averaging many out-of-sample weekly results, rather than relying on one or two windows, is presented as the way to reduce luck in the chosen in-sample metric and to estimate an expected weekly return and its dispersion.
Editorial reading
TradersWeek editorial: treat a trailing-stop rule as a testable procedure whose shape, slope, speed, and noise filters must survive many in-sample searches and out-of-sample windows. A single optimized backtest is not that check.
All readings on this track · 51 readings
- 1986Degrees of freedom in trading system optimization
- 1988Walk-forward and neighborhood tests after optimization
- 1988Undisclosed rules block system robustness tests
- 1988Testing re-optimization calendars against random parameter controls
- 1989Binary search limits on multi-peak average grids
- 1989Parameter neighborhoods that survive a shift
- 1990Use profit mapping to keep a cycle and stop plateau
- 1990Why popular indicator optimization fails robustness
- 1991Retesting weighted indicator balances across horizons
- 1992Constructing forecast models with regression, walk-forward, and robustness
- 1992Diagnose regimes before you lock parameters
- 1992When stops change system timing
- 1993Walk-forward halt rules for forecast models
- 1994Walk-forward evaluation of genetic index rules
- 1995Input pruning as walk-forward system evaluation
- 1995Critiquing neural nets as incomplete trading systems
- 1996Rebuild the equity-path ratio before it ranks a designed system
- 1996Parameter grids can fit random walks
- 1996Walk-forward analysis belongs in the design of a mechanical trading system
- 1997When a holdout fails, discard the rule set
- 1997Test rewarded rule breaks before replacing the system
- 1997Walk-forward rules keep system research from rewriting live trades
- 1999Keep a channel-breakout to two lookbacks and test neighbor stability
- 1999Constant investment size in stock system evaluation
- 2000Forcing optimization maps mechanical system failure boundaries
- 2000Robust parameter selection with surface charts
- 2001A two-gate classroom test for a two-window momentum trend filter
- 2002How a two-sided continuation factor becomes a testable trend rule
- 2002Evaluating two-window trend intensity as a reversal rule
- 2003Discounting speculative bubbles in system robustness tests
- 2003Walk-forward evaluation of locked stochastic oscillator rules
- 2003Critiquing mechanical system design after extreme price regimes
- 2004Evaluating a two-window trend trigger
- 2005Grade backtested signals with holdouts and optimization plateaus
- 2006Reserved-sample evaluation of trading system design
- 2006Walk-forward critique of hindsight crossover systems
- 2008Condition-matched walk-forward evaluation for mechanical systems
- 2011Session-split evaluation of regular and overnight systems
- 2012Walk-forward evaluation as operator rehearsal
- 2013Two-window evaluation of mechanical trading systems
- 2013Walk-forward filter selection for repeated-median velocity
- 2014Walk-forward evaluation for fading-memory velocity systems
- 2015Test oscillator events before tuning rules
- 2016Walk-forward evaluation of a five-parameter parabolic stop-and-reversal
- 2016Walk-forward optimization without curve fitting
- 2017Optimization without overfitting in trend-system evaluation
- 2017Parameter stability is a better guide than a larger crossover grid
- 2018Point-in-time universes for system evaluation
- 2018Walk-forward robustness evaluation for optimized systems
- 2018Critiquing breakout systems through robustness tests
- 2018A critique of parameter fitting in system design