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 sensitive to execution timing, funding alignment, trading costs, and reuse of evaluation windows during parameter search. In high-friction markets, attractive results may therefore reflect hidden implementation choices as much as signal quality. Using BTC/USDT, ETH/USDT, SOL/USDT, and AVAX/USDT perpetual contracts, this study examines whether an auditable execution-aware configuration-selection pipeline can reduce performance overestimation and expose parameter fragility more clearly than naive one-stage tuning. This paper proposes AutoQuant, an expert-system-style decision-support framework for configuration selection. AutoQuant encodes strict execution timing, funding visibility, cost realism, and feasibility constraints as explicit rules; combines Bayesian search with two-stage screening across windows and cost scenarios; and exports deterministic artifacts with accounting-invariant checks for traceability. The resulting governance protocol selects and documents configurations within a pre-specified signal family under strict semantics. Empirically, fee-only and zero-cost backtests materially inflate apparent performance relative to fully costed runs with funding and slippage. Two-stage screening does not guarantee higher returns; in the BTC anchor case and several replications, it more often surfaces lower-drawdown or less extreme alternatives under identical strict semantics. Same-budget optimizer comparison, module and screening-policy ablations, funding-rule diagnostics, inferential checks, cross-asset replications, and third-party replay checks position AutoQuant as auditable validation infrastructure for configuration selection under explicit execution and cost assumptions. The experiments use small-account simulations under linear costs and exclude market impact and institutional capacity constraints.

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, revised Aug 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2512.22476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://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. Thomas Philippon, 2016. "The FinTech Opportunity," NBER Working Papers 22476, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Jim Gatheral, 2010. "No-dynamic-arbitrage and market impact," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(7), pages 749-759.
    8. 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. Wu, Haomin & Yang, Yuting & Wang, Jiani, 2026. "Flexible fintech regulation and corporate digital innovation: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Thibault Jaisson, 2014. "Market impact as anticipation of the order flow imbalance," Papers 1402.1288, arXiv.org.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Rzayev, Khaladdin & Sakkas, Athanasios & Urquhart, Andrew, 2025. "An adoption model of cryptocurrencies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 323(1), pages 253-266.
    8. Norashikin Adam & Ngau Duo Seng & Norzahidah Binti Yacob & Mohd Sufian Ab Kadir, 2026. "Financial Literacy in the Era of Digital Finance: A Bibliometric Analysis and Future Research Agenda (2008–2026)," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 10(3), pages 5952-5963, March.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. McCracken, Michael W., 2007. "Asymptotics for out of sample tests of Granger causality," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 719-752, October.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. 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, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    20. 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.

    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: https://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.