IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/quantf/v15y2015i10p1683-1703.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gaussian process-based algorithmic trading strategy identification

Author

Listed:
  • Steve Y. Yang
  • Qifeng Qiao
  • Peter A. Beling
  • William T. Scherer
  • Andrei A. Kirilenko

Abstract

Many market participants now employ algorithmic trading, commonly defined as the use of computer algorithms, to automatically make certain trading decisions, submit orders and manage those orders after submission. Identifying and understanding the impact of algorithmic trading on financial markets has become a critical issue for market operators and regulators. Advanced data feeds and audit trail information from market operators now allow for the full observation of market participants' actions. A key question is the extent to which it is possible to understand and characterize the behaviour of individual participants from observations of trading actions. In this paper, we consider the basic problems of categorizing and recognizing traders (or, equivalently, trading algorithms) on the basis of observed limit orders. These problems are of interest to regulators engaged in strategy identification for the purposes of fraud detection and policy development. Methods have been suggested in the literature for describing trader behaviour using classification rules defined over a feature space consisting of summary trading statistics of volume and inventory, along with derived variables that reflect the consistency of buying or selling behaviour. Our principal contribution is to suggest an entirely different feature space that is constructed by inferring key parameters of a sequential optimization model that we take as a surrogate for the decision-making process of the traders. In particular, we model trader behaviour in terms of a Markov decision process. We infer the reward (or objective) function for this process from observations of trading actions using a process from machine learning known as inverse reinforcement learning (IRL). The reward functions learned through IRL then constitute a feature space that can be the basis for supervised learning (for classification or recognition of traders) or unsupervised learning (for categorization of traders). Making use of a real-world data-set from the E-Mini futures contract, we compare two principal IRL variants, linear IRL and Gaussian Process IRL, against a method based on summary trading statistics. Results suggest that IRL-based feature spaces support accurate classification and meaningful clustering. Further, we argue that, because they attempt to learn traders' underlying value propositions under different market conditions, the IRL methods are more informative and robust than the summary statistic-based approach and are well suited for discovering new behaviour patterns of market participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve Y. Yang & Qifeng Qiao & Peter A. Beling & William T. Scherer & Andrei A. Kirilenko, 2015. "Gaussian process-based algorithmic trading strategy identification," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(10), pages 1683-1703, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:quantf:v:15:y:2015:i:10:p:1683-1703
    DOI: 10.1080/14697688.2015.1011684
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14697688.2015.1011684
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14697688.2015.1011684?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mahmoud Mahfouz & Angelos Filos & Cyrine Chtourou & Joshua Lockhart & Samuel Assefa & Manuela Veloso & Danilo Mandic & Tucker Balch, 2019. "On the Importance of Opponent Modeling in Auction Markets," Papers 1911.12816, arXiv.org.
    2. Adamantios Ntakaris & Martin Magris & Juho Kanniainen & Moncef Gabbouj & Alexandros Iosifidis, 2017. "Benchmark Dataset for Mid-Price Forecasting of Limit Order Book Data with Machine Learning Methods," Papers 1705.03233, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2020.
    3. Marcello Rambaldi & Emmanuel Bacry & Jean-Franc{c}ois Muzy, 2018. "Disentangling and quantifying market participant volatility contributions," Papers 1807.07036, arXiv.org.
    4. Gkillas, Konstantinos & Konstantatos, Christoforos & Floros, Christos & Tsagkanos, Athanasios, 2021. "Realized volatility spillovers between US spot and futures during ECB news: Evidence from the European sovereign debt crisis," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. Guang Zhang, 2020. "Pairs Trading with Nonlinear and Non-Gaussian State Space Models," Papers 2005.09794, arXiv.org.
    6. Mahmoud Mahfouz & Tucker Balch & Manuela Veloso & Danilo Mandic, 2021. "Learning to Classify and Imitate Trading Agents in Continuous Double Auction Markets," Papers 2110.01325, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    7. Iwao Maeda & David deGraw & Michiharu Kitano & Hiroyasu Matsushima & Kiyoshi Izumi & Hiroki Sakaji & Atsuo Kato, 2020. "Latent Segmentation of Stock Trading Strategies Using Multi-Modal Imitation Learning," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-12, October.
    8. Dimitrios Vortelinos & Konstantinos Gkillas (Gillas) & Costas Syriopoulos & Argyro Svingou, 2017. "Asymmetric and nonlinear inter-relations of US stock indices," International Journal of Managerial Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(1), pages 78-129, December.
    9. Mark E. Paddrik & Richard Haynes & Andrew E. Todd & William T. Scherer & Peter A. Beling, 2016. "Visual analysis to support regulators in electronic order book markets," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 167-182, June.
    10. Qifeng Qiao & Peter A. Beling, 2016. "Decision analytics and machine learning in economic and financial systems," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 109-113, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:quantf:v:15:y:2015:i:10:p:1683-1703. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RQUF20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.