Skip to main content
Track Robustness testing
42 / 51
Library

2014issue C0632-35

Walk-forward evaluation for fading-memory velocity systems

Untrended price meandering is treated as noise until fading-memory velocity leaves a deadband. The same rules enter, exit, or stand aside. Walk-forward analysis, system optimization, and robustness testing then score locked inputs on later unused weeks instead of one fitted sample.

  • Untrended price meandering is treated as noise, and a velocity threshold withholds trades until estimated trend speed leaves that deadband.
  • A fading-memory polynomial weights recent bar errors more than distant ones, and the search may choose the polynomial degree.
  • System optimization is a grid search over polynomial degree, memory length, and velocity thresholds so entry, exit, and abstention are tested as one procedure.
  • Walk-forward analysis ranks inputs on an in-sample window and scores the locked rules on the next unused out-of-sample week.
Entries in this reading3 entries

Withholding trades inside the noise band

The fading-memory adaptive polynomial velocity procedure treats polynomial order, the number of prices used to estimate coefficients, and two velocity thresholds as unknown inputs, and it issues a trade only after those thresholds leave the noise band. Untrended price meandering can be treated as noise, with trading withheld until estimated trend velocity rises above a minimum noise threshold.

Fading-memory velocity as the trend encoding

A fading-memory polynomial is a polynomial fit that down-weights older price errors so recent bars dominate the estimated path and its velocity. That weighting differs from an equal-weight least-squares polynomial. The zero-order case reduces to an exponential moving average.

Higher-order fading-memory velocity includes acceleration-like terms, so second- through fourth-order velocity can change faster than first-order straight-line velocity. The search is allowed to choose the degree.

One procedure for entry, exit, and abstention

A velocity threshold is a noise gate that withholds long or short signals until estimated velocity leaves a deadband around zero. Trading stays withheld while estimated trend velocity remains inside that noise band.

The stated rules buy when velocity exceeds an upside threshold, sell when velocity falls below a separate downside threshold, ignore signals before 7:00 am, and flatten at 1:50 pm so no position is held overnight.

System optimization as one procedure

System optimization is a grid search over polynomial degree, memory length, and velocity thresholds so entry, exit, and abstention are tested as one procedure. It is specified over four inputs: polynomial degree, the exponential decay weight alpha, the long velocity threshold, and the short velocity threshold.

The in-sample search grid covers degree 1 through 4, memory length N from 20 to 70 in steps of 10, and both velocity thresholds from 0.25 to 3 in steps of 0.25, producing 3456 input combinations in each window.

Walk-forward analysis on unused weeks

Walk-forward analysis is a rolling split that ranks inputs on a recent in-sample window and then scores the locked rules on the next unused out-of-sample week. The in-sample window is the stretch of bars used only to rank candidate input sets. The out-of-sample window is the unused stretch reserved to test inputs chosen from the prior in-sample window.

The specified design uses 30-calendar-day in-sample windows followed by the next one-week unused window, rolled week by week across 314 weeks of one-minute eurodollar futures bars to create 310 paired files.

Robustness testing after in-sample ranking

Robustness testing is a check that inputs chosen from in-sample rankings are not accepted until they are examined on later bars that were not used to select them. In-sample rankings after that search are treated as mostly curve-fit, so the later unused bars are the check on whether those chosen inputs still hold.

Educational research material, not investment advice. Historical source context does not establish present-day performance.
42 of 51 in the Robustness testing track
201528-31 pp.Next on Robustness testingTest oscillator events before tuning rulesBegin system design by asking whether an identifiable event has a statistical association with later prices, before a full entry-exit procedure is written.
All readings on this track · 51 readings
  1. 1986Degrees of freedom in trading system optimization
  2. 1988Walk-forward and neighborhood tests after optimization
  3. 1988Undisclosed rules block system robustness tests
  4. 1988Testing re-optimization calendars against random parameter controls
  5. 1989Binary search limits on multi-peak average grids
  6. 1989Parameter neighborhoods that survive a shift
  7. 1990Use profit mapping to keep a cycle and stop plateau
  8. 1990Why popular indicator optimization fails robustness
  9. 1991Retesting weighted indicator balances across horizons
  10. 1992Constructing forecast models with regression, walk-forward, and robustness
  11. 1992Diagnose regimes before you lock parameters
  12. 1992When stops change system timing
  13. 1993Walk-forward halt rules for forecast models
  14. 1994Walk-forward evaluation of genetic index rules
  15. 1995Input pruning as walk-forward system evaluation
  16. 1995Critiquing neural nets as incomplete trading systems
  17. 1996Rebuild the equity-path ratio before it ranks a designed system
  18. 1996Parameter grids can fit random walks
  19. 1996Walk-forward analysis belongs in the design of a mechanical trading system
  20. 1997When a holdout fails, discard the rule set
  21. 1997Test rewarded rule breaks before replacing the system
  22. 1997Walk-forward rules keep system research from rewriting live trades
  23. 1999Keep a channel-breakout to two lookbacks and test neighbor stability
  24. 1999Constant investment size in stock system evaluation
  25. 2000Forcing optimization maps mechanical system failure boundaries
  26. 2000Robust parameter selection with surface charts
  27. 2001A two-gate classroom test for a two-window momentum trend filter
  28. 2002How a two-sided continuation factor becomes a testable trend rule
  29. 2002Evaluating two-window trend intensity as a reversal rule
  30. 2003Discounting speculative bubbles in system robustness tests
  31. 2003Walk-forward evaluation of locked stochastic oscillator rules
  32. 2003Critiquing mechanical system design after extreme price regimes
  33. 2004Evaluating a two-window trend trigger
  34. 2005Grade backtested signals with holdouts and optimization plateaus
  35. 2006Reserved-sample evaluation of trading system design
  36. 2006Walk-forward critique of hindsight crossover systems
  37. 2008Condition-matched walk-forward evaluation for mechanical systems
  38. 2011Session-split evaluation of regular and overnight systems
  39. 2012Walk-forward evaluation as operator rehearsal
  40. 2013Two-window evaluation of mechanical trading systems
  41. 2013Walk-forward filter selection for repeated-median velocity
  42. 2014Walk-forward evaluation for fading-memory velocity systems
  43. 2015Test oscillator events before tuning rules
  44. 2016Walk-forward evaluation of a five-parameter parabolic stop-and-reversal
  45. 2016Walk-forward optimization without curve fitting
  46. 2017Optimization without overfitting in trend-system evaluation
  47. 2017Parameter stability is a better guide than a larger crossover grid
  48. 2018Point-in-time universes for system evaluation
  49. 2018Walk-forward robustness evaluation for optimized systems
  50. 2018Critiquing breakout systems through robustness tests
  51. 2018A critique of parameter fitting in system design
All 58 readings tagged Robustness testing
Also on Robustness testing5 readings