IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2512.22476.html

AutoQuant: An Auditable Expert-System Framework for Execution-Constrained Auto-Tuning in Cryptocurrency Perpetual Futures

Author

Listed:
  • Kaihong Deng

Abstract

Backtests of cryptocurrency perpetual futures are fragile when they ignore microstructure frictions and reuse evaluation windows during parameter search. We study four liquid perpetuals (BTC/USDT, ETH/USDT, SOL/USDT, AVAX/USDT) and quantify how execution delay, funding, fees, and slippage can inflate reported performance. We introduce AutoQuant, an execution-centric, alpha-agnostic framework for auditable strategy configuration selection. AutoQuant encodes strict T+1 execution semantics and no-look-ahead funding alignment, runs Bayesian optimization under realistic costs, and applies a two-stage double-screening protocol across held-out rolling windows and a cost-sensitivity grid. We show that fee-only and zero-cost backtests can materially overestimate annualized returns relative to a fully costed configuration, and that double screening tends to reduce drawdowns under the same strict semantics even when returns are not higher. A CSCV/PBO diagnostic indicates substantial residual overfitting risk, motivating AutoQuant as validation and governance infrastructure rather than a claim of persistent alpha. Returns are reported for small-account simulations with linear trading costs and without market impact or capacity modeling.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaihong Deng, 2025. "AutoQuant: An Auditable Expert-System Framework for Execution-Constrained Auto-Tuning in Cryptocurrency Perpetual Futures," Papers 2512.22476, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2512.22476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.22476
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Gomber & Jascha-Alexander Koch & Michael Siering, 2017. "Digital Finance and FinTech: current research and future research directions," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(5), pages 537-580, July.
    2. Hansen, Peter Reinhard, 2005. "A Test for Superior Predictive Ability," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 23, pages 365-380, October.
    3. Ryan Sullivan & Allan Timmermann & Halbert White, 1999. "Data‐Snooping, Technical Trading Rule Performance, and the Bootstrap," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(5), pages 1647-1691, October.
    4. Yukun Liu & Aleh Tsyvinski & Xi Wu, 2022. "Common Risk Factors in Cryptocurrency," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 77(2), pages 1133-1177, April.
    5. Bence Toth & Yves Lemperiere & Cyril Deremble & Joachim de Lataillade & Julien Kockelkoren & Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, 2011. "Anomalous price impact and the critical nature of liquidity in financial markets," Papers 1105.1694, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2011.
    6. Jim Gatheral, 2010. "No-dynamic-arbitrage and market impact," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(7), pages 749-759.
    7. Hung, Jui-Cheng & Liu, Hung-Chun & Yang, J. Jimmy, 2021. "Trading activity and price discovery in Bitcoin futures markets," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 107-120.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bajgrowicz, Pierre & Scaillet, Olivier, 2012. "Technical trading revisited: False discoveries, persistence tests, and transaction costs," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(3), pages 473-491.
    2. Thibault Jaisson, 2014. "Market impact as anticipation of the order flow imbalance," Papers 1402.1288, arXiv.org.
    3. J. Doyne Farmer & Austin Gerig & Fabrizio Lillo & Henri Waelbroeck, 2013. "How efficiency shapes market impact," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(11), pages 1743-1758, November.
    4. Weibing Huang & Charles-Albert Lehalle & Mathieu Rosenbaum, 2015. "Simulating and Analyzing Order Book Data: The Queue-Reactive Model," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(509), pages 107-122, March.
    5. Psaradellis, Ioannis & Laws, Jason & Pantelous, Athanasios A. & Sermpinis, Georgios, 2023. "Technical analysis, spread trading, and data snooping control," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 178-191.
    6. Rzayev, Khaladdin & Sakkas, Athanasios & Urquhart, Andrew, 2025. "An adoption model of cryptocurrencies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 323(1), pages 253-266.
    7. Dan Anghel, 2013. "How Reliable is the Moving Average Crossover Rule for an Investor on the Romanian Stock Market?," The Review of Finance and Banking, Academia de Studii Economice din Bucuresti, Romania / Facultatea de Finante, Asigurari, Banci si Burse de Valori / Catedra de Finante, vol. 5(2), pages 089-115, December.
    8. Martin D. Gould & Mason A. Porter & Stacy Williams & Mark McDonald & Daniel J. Fenn & Sam D. Howison, 2010. "Limit Order Books," Papers 1012.0349, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2013.
    9. McCracken, Michael W., 2007. "Asymptotics for out of sample tests of Granger causality," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 719-752, October.
    10. Paul Jusselin & Mathieu Rosenbaum, 2020. "No‐arbitrage implies power‐law market impact and rough volatility," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1309-1336, October.
    11. Thierry Roncalli & Amina Cherief & Fatma Karray-Meziou & Margaux Regnault, 2021. "Liquidity Stress Testing in Asset Management -- Part 2. Modeling the Asset Liquidity Risk," Papers 2105.08377, arXiv.org.
    12. Shynkevich, Andrei, 2013. "Time-series momentum as an intra- and inter-industry effect: Implications for market efficiency," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 64-85.
    13. Chen, Shi & Bao, Si & Zhou, Yu, 2016. "The predictive power of Japanese candlestick charting in Chinese stock market," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 457(C), pages 148-165.
    14. Wang, Shan & Jiang, Zhi-Qiang & Li, Sai-Ping & Zhou, Wei-Xing, 2015. "Testing the performance of technical trading rules in the Chinese markets based on superior predictive test," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 439(C), pages 114-123.
    15. Fong, Tom Pak Wing & Wu, Shui Tang, 2020. "Predictability in sovereign bond returns using technical trading rules: Do developed and emerging markets differ?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    16. Romano, Joseph P. & Shaikh, Azeem M. & Wolf, Michael, 2008. "Formalized Data Snooping Based On Generalized Error Rates," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 404-447, April.
    17. Taylor, Mark & Hsu, Po-Hsuan, 2014. "Forty Years, Thirty Currencies and 21,000 Trading Rules: A Large-scale, Data-Snooping Robust Analysis of Technical Trading in t," CEPR Discussion Papers 10018, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Degenhardt, Thomas & Auer, Benjamin R., 2018. "The “Sell in May” effect: A review and new empirical evidence," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 169-205.
    19. Olivier Guéant, 2016. "The Financial Mathematics of Market Liquidity: From Optimal Execution to Market Making," Post-Print hal-01393136, HAL.
    20. Shan Wang & Zhi-Qiang Jiang & Sai-Ping Li & Wei-Xing Zhou, 2015. "Testing the performance of technical trading rules in the Chinese market," Papers 1504.06397, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2512.22476. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.