Statistics for Algorithmic Traders

Models

Quant Beckman
2025
Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 2
Contents

Contents

3 Models 1
3.1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3.2 Modeling Financial Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.2.1 Identifying the Trading Problem and the Desired Outcome . . . . . . . . 2
3.2.2 Linking Problems to Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.3 The Research-to-Action Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Crafting Models and Trading System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.1 Taxonomy of Models in an Algorithmic Trading System . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.2 Algorithm vs. Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.3 The Learning Process and Its Inherent Pitfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com i

Contents

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com ii

Chapter 3. Models

Chapter 3

Models

3.1 Preliminaries
The preceding chapters have detailed the foundational work of quantitative research: the
formulation of a falsifiable hypothesis, the rigorous audit and screening of data, and the initial
exploration through graphical and tabular analysis. With this essential groundwork laid, we
now arrive at the heart of the quantitative endeavor: the construction of a formal trading model.
This is the intellectual and computational engine of a strategy, the precise algorithmic framework
that translates raw market data into actionable trading decisions. It is crucial to recognize
from the outset that any model of a financial market is an idealized representation, a necessary
simplification of a reality that is, for all practical purposes, infinitely complex. The market
is not a simple physical system governed by a few immutable laws; it is a complex adaptive
system characterized by feedback loops, non-stationarity, and emergent behavior driven by the
interactions of millions of agents. A model, therefore, is not a photograph of the market, but a
map. And as the dictum goes, "the map is not the territory." The goal is not to create a perfectly
detailed map of the entire world—an impossible and useless goal—but to create a map that
is specifically useful for a single, defined purpose: navigating a particular path to generating
risk-adjusted returns.
The choice of model architecture is perhaps the most critical implementation step in the
entire research process, as it is the precise language through which a qualitative trading idea is
translated into a testable, quantitative system.

Domain Translation
Economic or Behavioral Theory The qualitative idea, e.g., “investors underreact to news,”
which motivates the system.
Mathematics and Statistics The formal specification, e.g., an autoregressive model
of returns following an earnings surprise.
Computer Code The bug-free implementation of the statistical model in
software.

Table 3.1: Three-stage translation from qualitative idea to quantitative system

A flaw at any stage of this translation chain—a misunderstanding of the theory, an incorrect
statistical specification, or a subtle programming error—can render the entire enterprise invalid.
A model that is built on a flawed translation, such as one that uses an architecture inappropriate
for the data or the hypothesis, will lead to a rigorous test of the wrong concept.
This chapter bridges the gap between the foundational principles of statistical modeling, as
articulated in the classical literature by statisticians like Cox and Donnelly, and their direct
application in the uniquely adversarial and non-stationary environment of modern financial

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 1

Chapter 3. Models

markets. We will explore the nature of different model architectures, distinguish between
substantive and empirical approaches, and delve into the critical process of model selection and
diagnostics. The goal is to provide a structured framework for choosing, building, and validating
models that are not only statistically sound but also practically robust and interpretable in a
financial context, creating maps that are genuinely useful for navigating the territory of the
market.

3.2 Modeling Financial Problems

Before a single line of code is written or a statistical test is performed, a more fundamental,
almost philosophical, task must be undertaken: the precise identification of the problem the
model is intended to solve. This problem-first methodology stands in stark contrast to the
more common and perilous “signal-first” approach. The signal-first approach is seductive in its
simplicity: a researcher observes a pattern, such as a moving average crossover or an indicator
threshold being breached, that appears profitable on a historical chart. They then rush to build
a strategy around this signal. This approach, while occasionally fruitful, is often a prelude to
data snooping and the discovery of spurious correlations, as the "discovery" is not grounded in
any underlying market logic.
The professional discipline of quantitative trading demands a more structured path. It begins
not with an observation of a pattern, but with the articulation of a problem—a specific market
inefficiency or structural anomaly. In quantitative research, there are two seemingly simple yet
crucial situations that require a moment of pause and reflection: identifying the trading problem
you want to address and identifying the outcome in a structured and precise manner. Many
discretionary and quantitative traders, when pressed, struggle to articulate these two aspects
beyond generic aspirations for “alpha” or a high “ROI.” Worse still is the implicit belief that
the problem they are trying to solve is mechanistically connected to their desired outcome, or
that the outcome is the direct result of their actions rather than a fortunate coincidence within
a complex system. This lack of clarity is the primary source of failed strategies and wasted
research effort. A model built to solve a poorly defined problem is, at best, a solution in search of
a question. The structured framework that follows is designed to instill the discipline necessary
to move from a vague intention to a solvable, quantitative problem, thereby building durable
trading systems rather than just finding fleeting patterns.

3.2.1 Identifying the Trading Problem and the Desired Outcome

Designing a quantitative trading system begins with deconstructing the generic, amorphous
goal of “making money” into a specific, addressable problem and a meticulously defined and
measurable outcome. This crucial first step transforms the endeavor from the domain of
hopeful speculation into the structured, rigorous discipline of engineering. It demands a shift
in mindset from being a passive pattern-finder, susceptible to chasing statistical ghosts and
spurious correlations, to becoming an active problem-solver. This requires asking a sequence of
probing, often difficult, questions designed to convert a nebulous idea or a qualitative market
hunch into a concrete, falsifiable proposition. A well-defined problem becomes the bedrock
of a falsifiable hypothesis, which serves as the unwavering north star for the entire research
project, guiding every subsequent decision regarding data acquisition, model architecture, and
the interpretation of results. This problem-first methodology is the primary defense against
the common and perilous “signal-first” approach, where a researcher, seduced by a seemingly
profitable pattern on a historical chart, rushes to build a strategy without understanding the
underlying mechanism, a path that frequently leads to overfitted models that fail spectacularly
in live trading.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 2

Chapter 3. Models

Defining the Problem

A true trading problem is a specific, observable, and persistent market inefficiency, a structural
anomaly, or a documented behavioral bias that creates a predictable and therefore potentially
exploitable opportunity. The identification process is an exercise in achieving relentless precision,
forcing the researcher to move from a high-level, abstract concept to a granular, operational
definition that can be translated into code. This process can be guided by three critical questions
that build upon each other to form a complete picture of the opportunity.
1. What is the problem? This initial question demands a precise and unambiguous
description of the market phenomenon. Vague statements that serve as common trading
adages, such as “finding cheap stocks,” “trading with the trend,” or “predicting the
market,” are mere starting points for brainstorming; they are not solvable problems in
a quantitative sense. For example, “finding cheap stocks” is insufficient because it fails
to specify the metric for “cheap” (Price-to-Earnings, Price-to-Book, EV/EBITDA?), the
universe of stocks to which this applies (large-cap, small-cap, specific sectors?), the expected
time horizon for the “cheapness” to correct itself, and the benchmark against which the
performance will be measured. A well-defined problem, in contrast, is an assertion about
the world that is specific enough to be tested and potentially proven false.
• Behavioral: A well-defined behavioral problem might be: “Investors systematically
underreact to the information contained in corporate earnings announcements, leading
to a predictable post-earnings announcement drift in the stock’s price over the
subsequent 5-20 trading days. This is caused by the cognitive bias of conservatism,
where agents anchor on their prior beliefs and only slowly update their views in the
face of new evidence. Consequently, the initial price move on the announcement day
only partially incorporates the full extent of the news, creating a tradable trend in the
direction of the surprise.” This is a specific, testable claim about market psychology
and its effect on price dynamics.
• Microstructure: A well-defined microstructure problem could be: “The fragmen-
tation of liquidity across multiple lit exchanges and dark pools, combined with the
non-zero latency of the consolidated market data feed (the Securities Information Pro-
cessor, or SIP), creates frequent, small (sub-penny), and short-lived (sub-millisecond)
statistical arbitrage opportunities between the officially reported National Best Bid
and Offer (NBBO) and the actual, faster prices available on specific direct exchange
data feeds. These fleeting discrepancies represent a failure of the market’s price
discovery mechanism at the microsecond level.” This identifies a specific technological
and structural flaw as the source of the opportunity.
• Structural: A well-defined structural problem could be: “The forced, non-discretionary
rebalancing of large, market-cap-weighted ETFs (like the S&P 500) at the end of
each quarter creates temporary, predictable price pressure on the underlying stocks
that are being added to or removed from the index. This effect is independent
of the stocks’ fundamental value and is driven entirely by the mechanical need of
index-tracking funds to adjust their portfolios to match the new index composition,
which is announced by the index provider with a known lead time.”
2. How is it a problem? This question forces the articulation of the underlying mechanism
that causes the inefficiency. It is the causal story behind the observation. For the structural
ETF rebalancing problem, the mechanism is clear: “This large, non-discretionary flow
of capital from index-tracking funds, which collectively manage trillions of dollars, must
be executed within a very short time window, typically concentrated around the market
close on the rebalance date. This sudden, massive, and concentrated demand for additions
(or supply of deletions) is completely insensitive to the fundamental value of the stocks

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 3

Chapter 3. Models

involved. As a result, stocks being added to an index are temporarily pushed above their
short-term equilibrium price by the artificial demand, while those being removed are
pushed below it by the artificial supply.”

3. Why is it a problem? This final question addresses the consequence of the mechanism
for one group of market participants and, in doing so, reveals the resulting opportunity
for another. It identifies the source of the alpha. For the rebalancing example: “This
price pressure presents a significant implementation shortfall—a tangible, measurable
transaction cost—for the index-tracking funds themselves, who are forced to buy high
and sell low relative to the undisturbed price. However, it creates a clear statistical
arbitrage opportunity for an algorithmic trader who can accurately forecast the rebalance
flows and establish positions ahead of the event—shorting the additions and buying the
deletions—and then act as a liquidity provider to the index funds by unwinding these
positions at a profit during the concentrated rebalancing window.” The alpha is captured
by providing liquidity to forced, non-discretionary market participants.

With the trading opportunity now specified in precise, operational terms—having answered
what the problem is, how it arises, and why it matters—we are ready to move beyond formulation
into structuring the outcome.

Structuring the Outcome

Once a trading problem has been articulated with clarity and precision, the researcher must
apply the same level of rigor to defining the characteristics of a successful solution. Without
a pre-specified and multi-faceted definition of success, the entire research process becomes
vulnerable to the cognitive bias of ex-post rationalization and the statistical pitfall known as the
“Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy,” where a target is drawn around the tightest cluster of bullet holes
only after the shots have been fired. A well-structured outcome serves as a detailed blueprint or
a binding contract for the strategy’s success criteria, ensuring that the evaluation is objective
and the goalposts are fixed before the experiment begins. It moves the objective beyond a single,
ambiguous number and transforms it into a concrete, testable, and comprehensive specification
that guides the model’s development and provides an unambiguous benchmark for its final
judgment. This requires specifying four key elements that cover the objective itself, its role in
the wider system, the standard of proof required, and the environment in which it is expected to
operate.

1. The state of the outcome: This is the specific, measurable result of the intended action,
translating a generic goal like “profit” into a concrete, operational objective that can be
formally optimized by an algorithm. This objective effectively becomes the loss function
or reward function that a learning algorithm will be trained to solve. For the structural
rebalancing problem, a basic state could be: “To achieve a positive net profit, after all
transaction and financing costs, by holding the arbitrage portfolio over a 5-day window
centered on the ETF rebalancing date.” However, another state that is suitable for an
algorithm’s objective function might be: “To maximize the strategy’s Information Ratio,
while simultaneously satisfying a set of risk constraints, such as keeping the portfolio’s net
market beta within ±0.05 and ensuring no single position exceeds 2% of the portfolio’s
capital.” The choice of this objective function is a profound design decision; a strategy
optimized to maximize the Sortino ratio, which only penalizes downside volatility, will
necessarily have a different risk profile and may accept more upside volatility than a strategy
optimized to maximize the Sharpe ratio, which penalizes all volatility symmetrically. The
inclusion of explicit constraints defines the safe operating space within which the algorithm
is permitted to seek its objective.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 4

Chapter 3. Models

2. A level of outcome: An outcome rarely exists in isolation; it impacts other processes and
results, defining its role in the overall system. A trading strategy is not an island; it is a
component within a larger ecosystem, typically a firm’s master portfolio. The rebalancing
strategy, for instance, is designed to produce a specific “alpha stream.” Its level of outcome
is therefore not just its standalone return or Sharpe ratio, but its marginal contribution
to the risk-adjusted return of the entire firm. A key consideration at this level is the
strategy’s correlation with the firm’s other alpha streams (e.g., trend-following, value,
volatility arbitrage). For example, a new mean-reversion strategy might have a modest
standalone Sharpe ratio, but if it generates positive returns during the sharp market
reversals when the firm’s primary momentum strategies suffer losses, its value is immense.
Its negative correlation acts as an internal hedge, smoothing the master portfolio’s equity
curve, reducing its overall volatility, and shrinking its maximum drawdown. The successful
outcome, in this context, is a quantifiable improvement in the system-wide Sharpe ratio,
which in turn justifies the strategy’s allocation of the firm’s limited capital and risk budget.

3. Evidence: This specifies the non-negotiable metric and the statistical benchmark for
success, providing a clear, falsifiable hurdle that must be cleared to validate the hypothesis.
The evidence required can never be merely a handsome backtest, as a single historical
performance path is just one random draw from an infinite number of possibilities and
provides no measure of confidence. A professional standard of evidence would be a pre-
specified, documented statement like: “The strategy must exhibit a statistically significant,
positive mean return with a p-value less than 0.05, as determined by a stationary bootstrap
analysis on its out-of-sample, walk-forward trade returns.” This bootstrap analysis generates
thousands of alternative pseudo-histories by resampling the strategy’s actual trade returns
in a way that preserves their temporal dependencies (like volatility clustering), allowing for
the creation of a full probability distribution of potential outcomes. From this distribution,
we can rigorously assess the likelihood that the observed performance was due to skill
rather than pure luck. Furthermore, the evidence must account for the research process
itself: “The annualized Sharpe ratio, after being adjusted downwards to account for the
multiple hypotheses tested during the research phase (the ’deflated’ Sharpe ratio), must
remain above a minimum threshold of 0.8.” This deflation is a crucial step of intellectual
honesty, as it corrects for the selection bias inherent in choosing the "winning" strategy
from a field of many attempts, providing a more realistic "haircut" to the performance
estimate.

4. An approximate contextualization within the system: This defines the specific

conditions or “regimes” under which the outcome is expected to occur. Acknowledging that
no algorithm needs to operate profitably in all market conditions is a sign of robust design.
For our example: “This outcome is hypothesized to be most reliable for the rebalancing
of major, highly liquid ETFs (e.g., SPY, QQQ) and only during market regimes where
the VIX index is below 30. During periods of high systemic stress, the rebalancing effect
may be overwhelmed by indiscriminate panic-driven flows.” This contextualization, which
explicitly recognizes the market’s non-stationarity, is a crucial input for building adaptive
algorithms. These algorithms can employ a “regime filter”—which could be based on a
simple variable like the VIX that identifies distinct market states—to dynamically turn
themselves on or off, or to adjust their risk exposure. An algorithm that understands its
own limitations and has a pre-defined plan for when to participate and when to stand
aside is one that is designed for resilience and capital preservation, a hallmark of a mature
and professional trading system.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 5

Chapter 3. Models

3.2.2 Linking Problems to Solutions

With a clearly defined problem and a structured outcome, the researcher can methodically link
the two, transitioning from the strategic “what” and “why” to the tactical “how.” This involves a
second set of critical questions that form the bridge from diagnosis to implementation. This stage
is a crucial scoping exercise that ensures the resulting model and its surrounding infrastructure
are built for a specific purpose and that the engineering effort is correctly dimensioned. A
failure to properly link the problem to the solution can lead to immense waste: either an
insufficient system is built that cannot adequately capture the intended anomaly, or a massively
over-engineered system is created whose complexity far outweighs the value of the problem it
solves. This structured process ensures that the proposed solution is explicitly and logically
connected to the problem it is meant to address, preventing the common pitfall of building a
model that is technically sound and intellectually interesting, but strategically irrelevant to the
firm’s objectives.

1. Why solve it? This question moves beyond the initial identification of an anomaly to
confirm its strategic rationale and its place within the firm’s broader portfolio of strategies.
It forces the researcher to consider the economic significance, durability, and capacity of
the potential alpha source. For the post-earnings announcement drift problem, the answer
is multi-layered: “Solving this problem provides a potential source of alpha derived from
a well-documented and persistent behavioral bias (conservatism). Because this bias is
rooted in fundamental human cognitive limitations, the resulting inefficiency is likely to be
more durable and less susceptible to being arbitraged away quickly compared to a purely
structural or technological anomaly. Furthermore, because its driver is behavioral, the
resulting strategy should, in theory, have a low correlation to the firm’s existing strategies
that are based on macroeconomic factors or market microstructure. This offers valuable
diversification, smoothing the master portfolio’s returns and potentially improving the
entire firm’s risk-adjusted performance. While the capacity of any single earnings drift
trade is limited by the stock’s liquidity, the large number of earnings announcements across
the market provides a scalable source of many small, uncorrelated trades, making it an
attractive addition to a diversified quantitative fund.”
2. How will it be solved?
• This defines not just the specific mathematical model but, more critically, the entire
end-to-end engineering pipeline required to bring the strategy to life. A modern
trading strategy is rarely a single monolithic model; it is a complex, multi-stage,
automated system—a sequence of data processing and decision-making modules that
function in concert. For the earnings drift problem, a detailed description of this
pipeline is essential:
– Data ingestion: This initial module must establish and maintain robust con-
nections to multiple real-time data feeds, including a direct feed of SEC EDGAR
filings (to capture the exact moment of the announcement) and a low-latency news
API. This module is responsible for parsing different data formats (e.g., XBRL
for filings, JSON for APIs), ensuring precise timestamping to distinguish between
the official filing time and the system’s receipt time, and handling potential data
feed errors or outages.
– Natural Language Processing: This model (e.g., a model fine-tuned on a
large corpus of financial documents) will then parse these unstructured text filings
to identify and extract the key numerical values, such as the reported Earnings
Per Share, and the exact announcement timestamp.
– Knowledge base integration: A database query module will then access a
point-in-time historical database from a provider like I/B/E/S to retrieve the

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 6

Chapter 3. Models

consensus analyst estimate for the corresponding quarter, ensuring that the
estimate used was the one available just prior to the announcement to avoid
lookahead bias.
– Calculation and filtering engine: A calculation engine will compute a stan-
dardized “earnings surprise” Z-score to make the surprise comparable across
different stocks and industries. This engine then filters for high-conviction signals,
requiring not only that the surprise is statistically significant (e.g., |Z| > 2.0)
but also that it generates genuine market interest, validated by a filter for
post-announcement trading volume that spikes to at least 300% of the 30-day
average.
– Signal generation and sizing logic: The final module translates the filtered
event into a trade signal. It will size the position based on a function of the
Z-score’s magnitude—a form of conviction weighting—while also applying a
volatility-targeting overlay to scale the position inversely to the stock’s recent
volatility. The trade will be entered at the market close on the day following the
announcement, with a simple and robust time-based exit after 15 trading days to
avoid overfitting a complex exit rule.

3. What will it be solved? This final question clarifies the specific, tangible output that
the solution system will generate, defining its precise responsibility and its interface with
the rest of the firm’s infrastructure. It forces a clear delineation of the system’s boundaries.
“This system will solve the specific problem of identifying, qualifying, and sizing trade
signals related to post-earnings announcement drift in real-time. Its final, tangible output
will be a standardized, discrete list of ‘ticker, trade direction, entry price, entry date,
position size, exit date‘ tuples. This list will be generated continuously and passed via a
well-defined API to the firm’s central portfolio construction and execution engine.” This
definition is crucial for architectural integrity. It clarifies that this particular system is not
responsible for managing the firm’s overall risk, nor is it responsible for the micro-details
of how the trades are executed in the market. Its sole purpose is to produce a high-quality,
actionable list of trade intentions, allowing it to be developed, tested, and improved as a
self-contained, modular component of the firm’s larger trading apparatus.

This structured process ensures that the proposed solution is explicitly and logically connected
to the problem it is meant to address. It acts as an architectural blueprint, preventing the
common pitfall of building a model that is technically complex and performs well in isolation
but is strategically irrelevant, difficult to integrate, or aimed at the wrong underlying problem.

The Hierarchy of Models: From System to Sub-Strategy

A complete and robust algorithmic trading system is never a single, monolithic model that
attempts to solve all problems at once. Such an approach would be brittle, impossible to diagnose,
and difficult to improve. Instead, a mature system is architected as a “model of models,” an
integrated ecosystem where multiple, distinct, and specialized sub-models work in concert to
solve a clear hierarchy of problems. This modular design is a direct application of the “divide and
conquer” philosophy of engineering, breaking down the immensely complex challenge of trading
into a series of smaller, more manageable, and independently solvable tasks. These sub-models
may belong to different methodological categories—some may be purely statistical, others based
on machine learning, and yet others on simple, hard-coded rules—and they perform distinct
functions that create a resilient and adaptable architecture. A typical statistical arbitrage system,
for example, is not one model but a cascade of several, with clean, well-defined interfaces that
govern the flow of information between them, ensuring that each component can be developed,
tested, and optimized independently.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 7

Chapter 3. Models





Model 1 (Problem: Universe selection)

Model 2 (Problem: Signal generation)



System: StatArb → Model 3 (Problem: Position sizing)





 Model 4 (Problem: Risk management)

Model 5 (Problem: Execution)


To implement each of these five layers in practice, we deploy a corresponding step as detailed
below:

1. Universe definition (Problem: Which pairs of stocks are viable candidates to

trade?).
This Model tackles the first and most fundamental problem: reducing the vast search space
of thousands of potential instruments to a small, manageable set of promising candidates.
This is a massive dimensionality reduction task that is computationally intensive and
therefore typically run as a periodic batch process (e.g., monthly or quarterly), not in real-
time. Its core function is to perform a large-scale screening of historical data to identify
pairs of stocks whose price series exhibit a strong, stable, and statistically significant
co-movement.
This is often achieved by applying formal statistical tests for cointegration, like the
Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test, to the pair’s price ratio or spread. A low p-value
from this test provides evidence against the null hypothesis of a random walk, suggesting
the spread is stationary and mean-reverting. However, statistical significance is not enough.
The model must also apply a series of crucial heuristic filters. A liquidity filter (e.g.,
average daily dollar volume > $10M) is essential, as pairs of illiquid stocks may appear
to cointegrate perfectly but are untradable in practice due to wide bid-ask spreads and
high market impact costs. A correlation stability filter is also critical; a pairs trade is a
bet on the persistence of a historical relationship, so the model must discard pairs whose
correlation is highly volatile, as this indicates an unreliable relationship. The final output
of this model is not a trade signal, but a clean, updated list of ‘(StockA, StockB)‘ tuples
that are deemed worthy of closer, real-time analysis by the downstream models.

2. Signal generation (Problem: For a given viable pair, when is its spread mis-
priced?).
This is the core alpha-generating logic of the system, operating on the curated list of pairs
provided by Model 1. For each pair, a model continuously calculates the current spread
and assesses its value relative to its historical equilibrium. An approach might involve
fitting a formal stochastic process, like the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model, which describes
the dynamics of a mean-reverting variable. Fitting this model yields key parameters: the
speed of mean reversion, the long-term mean, and the spread’s volatility, which can be
used to derive optimal, time-varying entry and exit thresholds.
A more common and simpler approach is to calculate a rolling Z-score of the spread:
Zt = (spreadt − µt )/σt , where µt and σt are the rolling mean and standard deviation over a
specified lookback window. This Z-score represents, in units of standard deviation, how far
the current spread has diverged from its recent average. The model then generates entry
signals when this divergence becomes statistically significant (e.g., when |Zt | > 2.0) and
exit signals when the spread reverts back through its mean (e.g., Zt crosses back through
0). The choice of the Z-score threshold involves a critical trade-off between the frequency
and quality of signals: a lower threshold generates more trades but risks capturing noise,
while a higher threshold generates fewer, higher-conviction trades but may miss many
profitable opportunities.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 8

Chapter 3. Models

3. Position sizing (Problem: How much capital should be risked on a given

trade?).
This Model acts as the risk allocation engine, translating a raw trading signal into a precise
capital commitment. Its primary objective is to solve the problem of achieving uniform risk
contribution across different trades, preventing the portfolio’s overall performance from
being dominated by its most volatile positions. The spreads for different pairs of stocks will
naturally have different levels of volatility; a pair of volatile tech stocks will have a much
wider P&L distribution than a pair of stable utility stocks for the same dollar investment.
This model typically employs a volatility targeting approach, where the dollar size of each
trade is scaled such that the forecast volatility of every position is equalized. For example,
the position size for pair i would be proportional to the inverse of its forecast spread
volatility: 1/σspread,i . This ensures that every position, at the moment of entry, contributes
an equal amount of expected risk to the total portfolio. This disciplined approach to sizing
is crucial for maintaining a stable and predictable risk profile for the overall system.

4. Risk management (Problem: What if the statistical relationship breaks down?).

This Model functions as a real-time, supervisory safety overlay. Its purpose is not to
generate profit, but to protect the system from the failure of its core assumptions. The
signal generation model operates under the hypothesis that the pair’s spread is mean-
reverting; this risk management model’s job is to continuously and skeptically challenge
that hypothesis for every open position. It solves the critical problem of identifying
structural breaks in the cointegrating relationship.
This can be implemented through several distinct rules. First, a hard stop-loss based on an
extreme Z-score threshold (e.g., 4.0) acts as a heuristic of last resort. It assumes that such
an unprecedented divergence is a sign that the relationship has fundamentally broken, and
it forces a liquidation to prevent catastrophic losses. Second, a more statistically grounded
rule might involve continuously running an ADF test on the spread’s recent history. If the
test’s p-value rises above a critical threshold (e.g., 0.10), it provides objective, statistical
evidence that the spread is no longer behaving in a mean-reverting manner, triggering an
exit because the fundamental premise of the trade is now invalid.

5. Execution (Problem: How to enter/exit two legs simultaneously with minimal

slippage?).
This is the final translation Model, connecting statistical signals to the market itself. It
solves the practical implementation problem of getting trades done at or near the prices
that generated the signal. For a pairs trade, the primary challenge is avoiding “legging
risk”—the danger of executing one leg of the trade at a favorable price while the other
leg is executed at a poor price or not at all, resulting in a different spread than intended
or, worse, a naked, unhedged position. For a high-frequency system, this model might be
a complex smart order router (SOR) that slices the orders, probes different venues for
liquidity, and uses its own logic to ensure near-simultaneous fills.
For a lower-frequency (and low-latency) system, it could be a simpler algorithm that places
passive limit orders for both legs inside the current bid-ask spread, aiming to earn the
spread rather than pay it. This passive approach, however, carries its own execution risk
(the orders may not be filled), so the model must include logic to manage these orders
and cancel them if they are not filled within a specified time limit. The performance of
this model is measured not in returns, but in basis points of slippage and implementation
shortfall avoided.

Ultimately, the performance of the overall system is an emergent property that arises from
the complex interactions between these specialized sub-models. A brilliant signal generation

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 9

Chapter 3. Models

model can be rendered useless by a naive execution model that leaks all the alpha in transaction
costs, just as a risk management overlay can transform a mediocre signal into a robust, long-term
profitable system by effectively cutting off the catastrophic left tail of the return distribution.
This modularity is a core principle of good software engineering and robust system design, as it
allows for the independent testing, improvement, and diagnostics of each component, facilitating
the continuous, iterative cycle of refinement that is the hallmark of a professional quantitative
trading operation.

Protocol for Discovering the Core Problem

In quantitative research practice, the go-to move is to find what looks like a profitable anomaly
and rush into modeling it. This approach, however, often leads to strategies that are fragile and
short-lived, as they are based on treating a mere symptom of market dynamics rather than its
root cause. A more robust methodology requires a disciplined, recursive protocol designed to
trace an observed market phenomenon back to its true origin.
A researcher must constantly ask: Could there be a better, more durable, and more scalable
solution? Answering this requires a form of root cause analysis, a structured inquiry that peels
back layers of causality to reveal the fundamental economic or structural problem driving the
observable patterns. By understanding this core problem, a researcher can move beyond a single,
tactical strategy and begin to see a much wider and more promising set of potential solutions.
The protocol is a form of root cause analysis that proceeds as follows:

1. Identify an initial outcome (A): The process begins with a concrete, observable, and
profitable trading result. This is often a simple, tactical strategy discovered through initial
data exploration. For example: “We have a profitable strategy that systematically sells
one-month, at-the-money index straddles and holds them to expiration, collecting the
initial premium.” This is a well-defined strategy of selling volatility, which is profitable
on average because the implied volatility priced into options is typically higher than the
volatility that is subsequently realized. It is a solution, but to what problem?

2. Ask, what is this a solution to? (B → A): The next step is to abstract away from
the strategy itself and define the immediate market inefficiency it is exploiting. The
short-straddle strategy (A) is a solution to the problem (B) of capitalizing on the persistent
and well-documented spread between implied volatility and realized volatility, often called
the Volatility Risk Premium (VRP). The market consistently demands a premium for
options that, from a purely statistical perspective, is in excess of the expected payout. The
strategy profits from this systematic "overpricing" of insurance.

3. Ask, what is this (B) a solution to? (C → B → A): This is the crucial leap
from observing a market premium to understanding the economic forces creating it. The
existence of the VRP (B) is not a market error; it is itself a solution (C) to a critical
problem faced by the largest market participants. Institutional investors, such as pension
funds, endowments, and mutual funds, are structurally long the market. Their primary
risk is a sudden, sharp market decline. To mitigate this catastrophic risk, they must
systematically purchase portfolio insurance, most commonly in the form of index put
options. This creates a massive, persistent, and relatively price-insensitive demand for
downside protection. This structural demand from natural buyers of insurance pushes the
price of all options (and therefore implied volatility) up, creating the premium. The VRP
(B) is the market’s price for accommodating this immense and one-sided hedging need (C).

4. Identify the “Core Problem”: By tracing the causal chain backward, we arrive at the
true, underlying issue. The problem is not simply that fund managers are scared of crashes.
The core problem is the fundamental structural imbalance in the market for risk transfer.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 10

Chapter 3. Models

There is a vast and permanent demand from natural hedgers (long-only institutions)
to offload their downside risk, but there is no equivalent, naturally occurring pool of
participants who are structurally short volatility and need to buy it. This asymmetry
between the natural buyers and the more speculative sellers of financial insurance is a
permanent feature of the market architecture. This imbalance is the engine that generates
the volatility risk premium.
Once this core problem is identified, the researcher can escape the intellectual cul-de-sac
and local optimum of their initial, reactive strategy. They can now brainstorm entirely
new, alternative, and potentially far more profitable solutions that also address this more
fundamental market imbalance.

5. Alternative (D) - Prediction: Instead of naively selling volatility at all times, could
we develop a model to predict the VRP itself and the risk of volatility spikes? This leads
to a dynamic, tactical volatility strategy. This research path would involve building a
regime-switching model or a machine learning model to forecast future realized volatility.
The features for such a model would extend far beyond historical volatility, incorporating
the VIX term structure, credit spreads, dealer positioning data from regulatory filings,
macroeconomic indicators of financial stress, and even cross-asset volatility correlations.
The goal is to dynamically scale the strategy’s exposure: aggressively selling premium
when the model shows the VRP is exceptionally wide and the risk of a market shock is
low, while systematically reducing exposure or even buying protection when the model
flags a high-risk environment. This transforms a simple carry strategy into an active,
risk-managed alpha strategy.

6. Alternative (E) - Provision: Instead of simply trading standardized, exchange-listed

options, could we move up the value chain to directly service the underlying demand
for hedging by structuring customized solutions? This insight leads away from public
market trading and towards the business of being an over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives
dealer. The problem shifts from “is the VRP positive?” to “what is the precise hedging
problem of this pension fund, and how can I structure a product to solve it?” This involves
creating and pricing bespoke derivative products like variance swaps with custom caps
and floors, exotic options tailored to a specific set of underlying assets, or long-dated
volatility protection that is unavailable on public exchanges. The profit is generated not
just from the volatility premium, but also from the structuring fee and the much wider
bid-ask spread on these non-standardized products. This approach directly engages with
and solves the core problem for specific clients, capturing a far greater economic rent in
the process.

C → B → A (Original ’Reaction’ Strategy)


“Core Problem” → D (New ’Prediction’ Alternative)


E (New ’Provision’ Alternative)

This structured inquiry is a repeatable methodology for innovation. It moves the researcher
from being a passive pattern-finder, who is always at risk of exploiting a transient or spurious
correlation, to an active “systems thinker.” This deeper approach involves modeling the underlying
economic engine of the market—the motivations of its diverse participants, the structural
constraints they face, and the predictable frictions that arise from their interactions—thereby
unlocking a much richer, more scalable, and more durable set of trading opportunities.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 11

Chapter 3. Models

3.2.3 The Research-to-Action Pipeline

The problem-oriented framework shows that professional quantitative research isn’t a straight
line from idea to live strategy but a structured, ongoing feedback process. This pipeline is a
disciplined method for manufacturing alpha—converting raw data and intellectual capital into
robust, automated trading systems. It can be captured as a four-stage loop:

Research → Know → Do → Get

Where the output of “Get” feeds directly back into “Research,” generating a self-reinforcing
cycle of hypothesis generation, validation, implementation, and evaluation. By continuously
recalibrating at each stage, this process insulates you against shifting regimes and competitive
exploitation, ensuring your edge persists even as the market and its participants evolve.

1. Research: This is the initial, creative, and most intellectually demanding phase of the
pipeline. It begins not with a dataset, but with a deep exploration of the market ecosystem
to identify a core, underlying problem—a structural friction, a behavioral anomaly, or a
persistent inefficiency. This is the foundation of the entire enterprise, and it demands a
synthesis of market intuition, economic theory, and intellectual rigor. The goal is to move
beyond vague notions and formulate a precise, specific, and, most importantly, falsifiable
hypothesis about a potential solution. This involves defining the exact nature of the
inefficiency, its hypothesized causal mechanism, and the specific conditions under which
it is expected to exist. The output of this stage is not a model, but a well-articulated
research question and a detailed, pre-specified plan for how it will be tested, including
the data required, the analytical methodology to be used, and the objective criteria for
success or failure. This disciplined pre-specification acts as a binding contract, protecting
the researcher from the temptation to shift the goalposts or engage in unprincipled data
mining later in the process.

2. Know: This is the phase of deep analysis where raw data is transformed into actionable
knowledge. It is here that the abstract hypothesis from the Research phase is confronted
with the harsh reality of empirical evidence. Through skillful modeling and robust, skeptical
backtesting, the researcher develops a deep, quantitative understanding of the problem’s
dynamics and the statistical properties of the proposed solution. Skillful modeling involves
selecting an appropriate model architecture—whether a simple, interpretable parametric
model or a more flexible machine learning approach—that is well-suited to the hypothesis
and the data structure. It requires a disciplined approach to variable selection, based
on a causal framework, to isolate the signal of interest from confounding factors. The
backtesting process must be viewed not as a tool for generating beautiful equity curves,
but as a "falsification engine," designed to rigorously stress-test the hypothesis. This
demands the use of robust validation techniques like walk-forward analysis or purged
cross-validation, as well as the incorporation of realistic models for transaction costs and
market impact. The ultimate goal of the Know phase is to quantify the potential edge and,
just as importantly, to provide a realistic assessment of its uncertainty and risks, typically
by using resampling methods like the stationary bootstrap to generate confidence intervals
for key performance metrics.

3. Do: This is the implementation and production engineering phase, where the validated
knowledge from the Know phase is translated into concrete action. This is where the
statistical model artifact is embedded within a robust, automated, and fault-tolerant trading
system ready for deployment. This process involves far more than simply coding the alpha
signal logic. It requires building and integrating the entire hierarchy of sub-models that
constitute a complete trading system: the data ingestion and cleaning modules that feed

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 12

Chapter 3. Models

the system, the signal generation model itself, the position sizing and portfolio construction
models that translate raw signals into risk-managed bets, the supervisory risk management
models that act as safety overlays, and the execution models that interact with the market.
This stage is governed by the principles of professional software engineering. The code
must be modular, efficient, and thoroughly tested with a suite of unit and integration
tests to ensure its correctness and reliability. The result of the Do phase is a complete,
production-ready system, which is typically first deployed in a high-fidelity simulation or
paper-trading environment to ensure its technical behavior—its latency, order handling,
and data processing—matches expectations before it is allowed to risk real capital.

4. Get: This is the outcome stage, where the live trading system generates a stream of tangible
results: profits, losses, filled orders, and detailed execution data. Critically, this outcome
is not the end of the process but the beginning of the next, more informed, cycle. The live
performance data is the ultimate, definitive out-of-sample test of the original hypothesis.
This stream of new information is fed back into the Research phase, closing the iterative
loop. The analysis of this live data—a process often called performance attribution—is the
primary source of new knowledge. Understanding precisely why a strategy won or lost on
a given day, whether its execution slippage was higher than the backtest predicted, or if its
correlation with other strategies has changed, provides invaluable insight. This feedback
mechanism enables the researcher to harden the system against the market’s constant
evolution and the inevitable decay of alpha signals—a phenomenon known as concept drift.
A sudden performance degradation may then prompt a new research question regarding
shifts in market structure, resulting in a refinement or even a complete overhaul of the
underlying models. This feedback loop is the defining characteristic that separates a static,
one-shot strategy from a dynamic, quantitative trading system that endures over the long
term.

This perspective transforms the entire quantitative endeavor. It is no longer about a myopic
search for a single predictive variable to plug into a linear regression. It is a systematic, scientific,
and adaptive approach to the market, allowing the researcher to choose specific data to solve a
pre-defined problem, to create new models and tools as solutions, and to combine these tools into
robust, integrated systems designed to address a wide and evolving range of market challenges
and opportunities.

3.3 Crafting Models and Trading System

A core philosophy that underpins a robust and adaptive quantitative operation is that a trading
system is only as good as its next trade. This principle fosters a mindset of perpetual skepticism
and continuous improvement, which is the only viable defense against the market’s inherently
non-stationary and adversarial nature. It serves as a constant reminder that any model, no
matter how well-fitted to historical data, is merely a provisional hypothesis. The market will
test this hypothesis relentlessly and without mercy with every tick of new data. This perspective
forces a clear distinction between a static, one-time backtest and the reality of running a dynamic,
live trading system, directly combating complacency.
This constant need for validation and improvement gives rise to an ecosystem of models
within the trading system. It is a common misconception that “modeling” in finance is limited
to the single task of forecasting price movements. In reality, not only are there models for
extracting alpha from the market, but there are also second-order models—meta-models—that
help in the very process of modeling the market itself. These meta-models govern how we select
features, choose architectures, allocate capital, and even how we interpret the performance of
our primary alpha models. For example, a cross-validation procedure used to tune a model’s
hyperparameters is itself a meta-model for finding the optimal model configuration.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 13

Chapter 3. Models

In fact, the complete trading system is a model composed of multiple, interacting sub-models,
each with a different function and purpose. Recognizing this taxonomy is essential for diagnosing
failures and systematically improving performance.

3.3.1 Taxonomy of Models in an Algorithmic Trading System

Rather than a single, indivisible application, a durable trading system is composed of an
interconnected hierarchy of specialized models, each addressing a distinct task. Recognizing
the purpose and scope of each component is essential for modular architecture and targeted
troubleshooting. Ignoring this taxonomy invites critical missteps—for example, assessing a
descriptive risk model by its return-prediction performance is a category error, just as treating
an exploratory model’s initial signals as definitive without rigorous out-of-sample validation
encourages overfitting. By organizing models according to their function, quantitative researchers
gain a clear framework for selecting the right tool at each phase of the research-to-execution
pipeline. The functions of these models can be categorized as follows:

1. Descriptive models: These models provide a simplified but effective representation of a

complex reality, acting as the cartographers of the market. Their primary goal is not to
predict the future but to describe the present state of the market or a portfolio in a more
intelligible and structured form. They achieve this by reducing the dimensionality of a
complex dataset to reveal its most important underlying structures. A classic example is
a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) model applied to the covariance matrix of
a universe of stock returns. The output of a PCA is a new set of uncorrelated variables
called principal components, or “eigen-portfolios,” which describe the primary, independent
dimensions of risk that are driving the market’s behavior. The first component almost
invariably represents the overall “market” factor, capturing the tendency of all stocks to
move together. Subsequent components might represent more nuanced, orthogonal sources
of risk, such as an “industry rotation” factor (e.g., technology vs. healthcare), a “style”
factor (e.g., value vs. growth), or a bond market factor (e.g., sensitivity to interest rate
changes). A risk manager uses this descriptive model to project a given portfolio onto
these components to understand its hidden factor bets. They might believe they hold
a well-diversified portfolio of 200 individual stocks, but the PCA model can reveal that
90% of the portfolio’s daily volatility is actually being driven by its exposure to just the
first three principal components, meaning it is far less diversified than it appears and is
carrying significant, perhaps unintended, systematic risk. This descriptive insight is not a
prediction, but it is critical for effective hedging, risk decomposition, and capital allocation.

2. Explanatory models: These models go a significant step further than mere description,
attempting to explain the underlying causal mechanisms and first principles that are
hypothesized to drive market phenomena. They are derived directly from a subject-matter
theory, often grounded in economics, behavioral finance, or the mechanics of market
microstructure. Building and testing these models is an attempt to understand and
capitalize on the fundamental "why" behind market behavior. A strategy built upon the
principles of a substantive model like the Kyle Model of market microstructure
is using an explanatory framework. The Kyle Model provides a formal mathematical
theory of price formation in a market with asymmetric information, populated by three
types of agents: a single informed trader, random noise traders, and a risk-neutral market
maker. The model explains how the market maker should rationally interpret the total
order flow (a combination of informed and noise trading) to update prices and how the
informed trader should strategically break up their orders over time to conceal their
private information. A high-frequency strategy might use a simplified, calibrated version
of this model to interpret short-term order imbalances, hypothesizing that a persistent

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 14

Chapter 3. Models

imbalance is evidence of the footprint of an informed trader. The strategy’s actions are
therefore a direct implementation of the model’s explanatory logic about how information
is impounded into prices.
3. Exploratory models: These models are the flexible and often visual tools used at the
very beginning of the research process for discovery and hypothesis generation. They
are not designed for rigorous testing but for experimenting with different variables and
conditions, typically in a non-parametric way that makes few assumptions about the data.
Their purpose is to facilitate a dialogue between the researcher and the data, helping
to uncover patterns that might not be visible through standard statistical summaries.
For instance, when investigating a new potential predictive factor, a researcher might
use a non-parametric smoother (like LOESS) to plot the relationship between the
factor’s value and subsequent forward returns. Unlike a simple linear regression that would
force a straight line through the data, a LOESS smoother flexibly traces the shape of the
relationship by fitting a series of local, weighted regressions. This exploratory plot might
reveal complex, non-linear patterns, such as a U-shaped or S-shaped relationship, that
would be completely missed by a simple linear correlation coefficient. For example, the
plot might show that a "low volatility" factor is only predictive for stocks in the lowest
decile of volatility, has no effect for the stocks in the middle, and then the effect reverses
for stocks with extremely high volatility. The discovery of this specific non-linearity, made
possible by the exploratory model, then provides the necessary justification to build a
more complex predictive model (such as a piecewise regression or a tree-based model) that
is specifically designed to capture this more nuanced reality.
4. Predictive models: These are the most well-known type of model in algorithmic trading,
designed with the express purpose of inferring future events or behaviors based on current
and past information. Their success is judged almost exclusively on their out-of-sample
predictive power and the resulting profitability of their forecasts. This is the domain of
alpha generation models, where a trade-off is often made in favor of predictive accuracy,
sometimes at the expense of interpretability. A quintessential example is a Gradient
Boosting Machine (GBM), an ensemble machine learning technique. A GBM can be
trained on a high-dimensional feature set comprising hundreds of technical, fundamental,
and alternative data inputs to predict an outcome, such as the probability of a stock
outperforming the market over the next five trading days. The algorithm works by
iteratively building a sequence of simple decision trees, where each new tree is trained
specifically to correct the prediction errors made by the ensemble of preceding trees. This
process allows the GBM to automatically discover and model highly complex, non-linear,
and interactive relationships within the data without them being specified in advance. Its
sole purpose is to produce a high-quality forecast that can be translated by downstream
models into a trading position. The great power of such models is their flexibility, but their
great danger is their opacity (the "black box" problem) and their pronounced susceptibility
to overfitting, which necessitates the most rigorous validation methodologies.
5. Heuristic models: These models serve as tools for discovery, learning, and intelligent
filtering, helping to generate new hypotheses and guide further research, especially in
high-dimensional environments. They are not intended to be the final trading model
themselves, but rather a compass that points the researcher in a promising direction,
allowing them to navigate a vast search space efficiently. A prime example is a LASSO
regression applied to a universe of thousands of potential predictive features. In a
modern quantitative environment where the number of potential predictors (p) can vastly
exceed the number of observations (n), standard regression techniques fail. LASSO (Least
Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator) regression solves this by adding a penalty term
to the optimization that is proportional to the sum of the absolute values of the coefficients.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 15

Chapter 3. Models

This penalty forces the model to be parsimonious, shrinking the coefficients of redundant
or noisy predictors towards zero, and, critically, is capable of setting the coefficients of
the most useless predictors to be exactly zero. The LASSO therefore performs automated
feature selection. The small subset of features that survive the LASSO penalty—those
with non-zero coefficients—are not automatically accepted as the final model. Instead,
they form a high-quality, manageable candidate list for more rigorous, hypothesis-driven
testing and economic validation. The LASSO acts as an intelligent filter, an heuristic for
identifying the most promising variables within a sea of noise.

This functional diversity can sometimes lead to confusion, particularly when using complex
techniques. To maintain clarity in the design and diagnosis of a trading system, it is essential to
differentiate between the generic algorithm and the specific model it produces.

3.3.2 Algorithm vs. Model

In the lexicon of quantitative finance, the terms “algorithm” and “model” are frequently used
interchangeably, a linguistic convenience that unfortunately obscures a conceptual distinction
of profound importance. A failure to appreciate this distinction can lead to fundamental
misunderstandings about how a trading system learns, operates, and fails. Clarifying these terms
is not an exercise in pedantry; it is essential for accurately diagnosing strategy decay, designing
robust systems, and managing the lifecycle of a trading strategy. The relationship can be best
understood through an analogy: an algorithm is the factory—a general-purpose process with
machinery designed for a specific task—while a model is the product that the factory creates
from a specific batch of raw materials (market data).

A) Algorithm
An algorithm is the process; it is a finite, abstract, and unambiguous sequence of well-defined,
computer-implementable instructions designed to perform a specific task. In quantitative trading,
a learning algorithm is the optimization engine used to search through a vast space of possible
market representations (models) to find the one that best explains historical data according to a
specific objective, such as maximizing a risk-adjusted return metric or minimizing prediction
error.

1. Definition: An algorithm is a formal and finite sequence of well-defined, computer-

implementable instructions. The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) algorithm, for example, is
a specific mathematical recipe for finding a line of best fit, an abstract concept that can
be implemented in any programming language.

2. Function: An algorithm’s function is to perform a task. A learning algorithm’s task is

to learn from data by fitting a model to that data. An execution algorithm’s task is to
execute a set of trades in the market. In the context of learning, the algorithm is the
computationally intensive optimization procedure—the engine that turns raw market data
into actionable intelligence.

3. Examples:

• Learning algorithms: These are the procedures used to build predictive models.
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) is an algorithm used in factor modeling to analytically
solve for coefficients that minimize the sum of squared errors between factor exposures
and asset returns. Gradient Descent is an iterative optimization algorithm used to
train complex models like neural networks by adjusting model parameters to reduce
forecasting error. k-Means Clustering is an unsupervised algorithm used to identify
distinct market regimes by partitioning data into ’k’ groups.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 16

Chapter 3. Models

• Execution algorithms: These orchestrate the submission of child orders to optimize

execution cost and manage market impact. For example, an Implementation Shortfall
algorithm dynamically paces order submissions—adjusting the size and timing of child
orders based on real-time market conditions—to minimize the difference between the
decision price and the actual execution price, balancing market impact against timing
risk.

4. Formal representation: A learning algorithm can be viewed as a procedure A that takes

a set of market data Dtrain (the evidence) and produces a specific trading model M (the
knowledge extracted from that evidence):

M = A(Dtrain )

B) Model
A model is the artifact; it is the specific, tangible output generated when a learning algorithm
is applied to a particular dataset. While the algorithm is the process, the model is the result of
that process. It is a data structure containing the specific parameters and rules that represent
the crystallized knowledge extracted from data. The model is a simplified map of the complex
market dynamics observed in the data it was trained on. Crucially, it embodies a specific, and
often falsifiable, theory about how some part of the market works.

1. Definition: The model is the result of the learning process. It is a data structure
containing specific parameters (e.g., regression coefficients, decision boundaries, neural
network weights) that capture the knowledge gained. It is a static snapshot of assumed
market behavior based on patterns found in a specific dataset.

2. Function: Once created, the model is used to generate trading signals, forecasts, or risk
assessments on new, live market data. It is the component of the trading strategy that is
used for decision-making.

3. Examples:

• A vector of coefficients (β) from a linear regression is a model. This vector quantifies
the learned linear relationship between a set of predictive factors (e.g., momentum,
value) and an asset’s future return.
• The final tree of if-then-else statements created by a decision tree algorithm is a
model. It represents a hierarchical set of rules for classifying the market into, for
example, a "risk-on" or "risk-off" regime.
• The complete architecture and the final matrix of weights of a trained neural network
is a model. These weights collectively represent a complex, non-linear function for
generating an alpha signal from raw price data.

4. Formal representation: The model is a function f that maps new market data Xnew to
a prediction or signal Ypred . This function is parameterized by the learned knowledge, θ,
which was produced by the learning algorithm:

Ypred = f (Xnew ; θ)

An Example with Linear Regression

The distinction between these concepts becomes crystal clear with a common financial example:
building a multi-factor model using linear regression. This example highlights the separation
of concerns between the heavy, offline training process and the lightweight, online prediction
process—a fundamental architectural pattern in production trading systems.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 17

Chapter 3. Models

1. The goal: We want to build a model that can predict a stock’s future return based
on two of its current characteristics: its Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratio and its 12-month
momentum.

2. The learning algorithm (A): The procedure we select is OLS regression. The OLS
algorithm is a specific set of mathematical steps designed to find the one and only set of
coefficients (θ) that minimizes the sum of the squared errors between the model’s predictions
and the actual historical returns in our training dataset. This is the computationally heavy
part of the process. We run this algorithm, perhaps once a month on our research server,
to "train" or "fit" the model on the latest available data.

3. The model (O, or θ): After running the OLS algorithm on our historical data, the
specific output it generates is the model itself. In this case, it is a simple data structure—a
vector of three coefficients, for example: θ = [β0 : 0.001, βP/E : −0.05, βMomentum : 0.12].
This vector is the learned knowledge; it is a static artifact that can be saved to a file.
It represents a specific, simplified theory of the market: for every one-unit increase in a
stock’s momentum score, the model expects a 0.12% increase in its future return, holding
its P/E ratio constant. Similarly, it posits that for every one-unit increase in P/E, returns
are expected to decrease by 0.05%.

4. The prediction algorithm (f (X; θ)): This is a separate, distinct, and computationally
trivial algorithm that is used by the live trading system for generating real-time forecasts.
Its function is to take the model (the static coefficient vector θ) and a new input row
of data for a single stock (e.g., its current P/E and momentum values) and produce a
prediction. For linear regression, this algorithm is simply a dot product, a handful of
multiplications and additions:

Predicted return = β0 × 1 + βP/E × P/Enew + βMomentum × Momentumnew

This distinction is vital for designing a trading system. Model calibration (e.g. via OLS) is
performed periodically—say, monthly or weekly—on accumulated market data to refresh the
parameter vector θ. Once calibrated, θ powers a lightweight scoring routine that continuously
computes a simple dot product against incoming feature vectors to generate real-time signals.
In this architecture, the trading model acts as a dynamic map of market conditions: the map (θ)
evolves over time, while the map-making procedure (A) remains unchanged. Crucially, models do
more than react to prices; they interpret a specific, hypothesized edge through the lens of their
own features and structure. The ultimate objective of this system—from exploratory analysis
through predictive scoring—is to establish a repeatable process that maximizes expected return
per unit of risk.

3.3.3 The Learning Process and Its Inherent Pitfalls

All models applied to trading build their understanding of the market based on some form
of ‘learning.’ In this context, learning is a formal process of statistical inference through
which a model improves its performance on a task by generalizing from experience, which is
typically derived from a finite sample of historical data. This process allows the model to
identify persistent patterns, make probabilistic predictions, or take optimal actions without
being explicitly programmed for every possible contingency. However, this process is fraught
with peril. The financial market is not a benevolent or static teacher; it is a complex, adaptive,
and adversarial system that generates data that is noisy, non-stationary, and riddled with traps
for the unwary researcher. A quantitative researcher must therefore act as a professional skeptic,
adopting a mindset of extreme prejudice and constantly guarding against a hierarchy of pitfalls
that can arise at four distinct levels of the modeling pipeline. A failure at any single link in

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 18

Chapter 3. Models

this chain—from the raw data input to the final interpretation of the results—can corrupt and
invalidate the entire trading system.

Pitfalls 1 → Input Fictions

The most fundamental pitfalls arise from the data itself. The historical data used to train a
model is not a perfect reflection of reality; it is a flawed, incomplete, and often misleading
representation of the tradable world. If the model learns from a fictional account of the past, it
will be dangerously unprepared for the future.
• Survivorship bias: This is one of the most insidious fictions, as it creates a systematically
optimistic and unachievable view of historical performance. It occurs when the training
dataset excludes failed entities. For example, a backtest of a stock-picking strategy
run on the current constituents of the S&P 500 over the past 30 years is based on a
profound lie. It ignores all the companies that went bankrupt, were acquired due to poor
performance, or were delisted during that period. The analysis is performed on a curated
set of winners, implicitly assuming the researcher had the prescient ability to know in 1990
which companies would survive until 2020. A model trained on this biased data will learn
overly optimistic rules and will be completely unprepared for the reality that a significant
portion of companies fail.

• Lookahead bias: This is a subtle but catastrophic error where the model is inadvertently
allowed to use information that was not actually available at the time of a trading decision,
effectively allowing it to "time travel." A common source is the use of restated financial
data. A company might report earnings of $1.00/share on a given date. Months later,
they might restate that figure to $1.10/share. If the data vendor overwrites the original
value but keeps the original timestamp, a backtest using this data will incorrectly assume
the market knew the earnings were $1.10 on the announcement date. The model is being
trained on future information, which will inevitably lead to a spectacularly profitable but
completely fictitious backtest. Another simple example is using the day’s closing price to
make a trading decision that is supposed to be executed at noon on the same day.

• Phantom liquidity: This fiction arises from ignoring the market impact of one’s own
trades. A backtest might observe the last traded price or the best bid price and assume
that a large order can be executed at that price. In reality, the limit order book has finite
depth. Attempting to execute a large sell order would consume all the available bids at
the best price, then the next best price, and so on, pushing the price down adversely.
The strategy’s own trading activity changes the very prices it is trying to capture. A
backtest that ignores this is trading in a fictional world of infinite liquidity and will grossly
overestimate profitability; in the real world, all the theoretical profit would be lost to
slippage and market impact.

Pitfalls 2 → Relation False Facts

Even with perfectly clean and accurate data, the model can learn the wrong lessons by misinter-
preting statistical relationships. The model may identify a pattern that is statistically significant
in the historical sample but is not a true, causal, or durable feature of the underlying market
process.
• Confusing correlation with causation: This is a foundational fallacy of statistical
analysis. A model might discover a strong positive correlation between a company’s
advertising expenditure and its subsequent stock returns and conclude that spending on
ads causes the stock to go up. However, it is far more likely that both are caused by a
third, unobserved "lurking" variable, such as a high-quality management team that both

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 19

Chapter 3. Models

invests wisely in growth initiatives like advertising and runs the business effectively in a
way that generates superior returns. A model based on this false causal link would fail to
predict that a poorly-managed company embarking on a massive, wasteful ad campaign
will likely not see its stock price rise.

• Omitted variable bias: This is a more subtle but extremely common form of the previous
fallacy. A researcher might discover a "new" and highly profitable sentiment signal derived
from social media data. However, if this signal is significantly correlated with a well-known
risk factor like Momentum, and the researcher fails to include the Momentum factor as a
control variable in their model, the new signal will be wrongly credited with the predictive
power that actually belongs to Momentum. The relationship is real (high sentiment is
associated with high returns), but the attribution of the edge is wrong. The model has not
discovered a new source of alpha; it has simply discovered a noisy proxy for an existing,
well-documented source of beta.

• Spurious correlation: In a high-dimensional world with thousands of potential features,

the laws of probability guarantee that some variables will be correlated with historical
returns purely by random chance. This is the essence of data mining or data dredging. If
a researcher tests 1,000 different, theory-free signals, it is statistically likely that dozens
will appear to be significant predictors at the 95% confidence level, just by luck. A model
that is built upon such a spurious correlation has learned nothing about the market; it has
merely fit itself to the random noise in a finite historical sample and is guaranteed to fail
on any new data.

Pitfalls 3 → Computation Fallacies

This category of pitfalls concerns flaws in the research process or the learning algorithm itself.
Even with perfect data and a genuinely causal underlying relationship, the methods used to
discover and model that relationship can be flawed, leading to invalid conclusions.

• P-Hacking: This fallacy arises from the selective reporting of results. If a researcher tries
many different model specifications, parameter settings, or hypotheses and only reports
the single combination that produced a statistically significant result (e.g., a p-value <
0.05), they have invalidated the statistical test. The reported p-value is meaningful only
if it results from a single, pre-specified test. The act of searching for a significant result
dramatically inflates the probability of finding one by chance. This is a form of selection
bias introduced by the researcher’s own process.

• Overfitting: This occurs when a model is too complex for the amount and complexity
of the data it is being trained on. A model with high complexity (e.g., a deep neural
network with millions of parameters) has the flexibility to fit not only the true, underlying
signal but also the specific, non-repeatable random noise in the training data. The model
effectively "memorizes the past" instead of learning a generalizable rule for the future.
This results in a model with a near-perfect in-sample performance (a spectacular backtest)
that fails catastrophically when exposed to new, out-of-sample data, as the noise it has
memorized will not be present in the future.

• Getting stuck in a local minimum: Many complex models, such as neural networks,
are trained using iterative optimization algorithms like Gradient Descent. Their "error
surface" can be non-convex, meaning it has many valleys or minima. The optimization
algorithm can get trapped in a "local minimum"—a point that is better than its immediate
neighbors but is not the best possible solution (the "global minimum"). The resulting
model parameters are therefore suboptimal and potentially unstable; training the same

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 20

Chapter 3. Models

model again with a different random starting point could lead to a completely different set
of parameters and divergent live performance.

Pitfalls 4 → Output Errors

The final layer of pitfalls occurs after the model has produced its results. The numbers, statistics,
and charts generated by a backtest are not self-evident truths; they are evidence that requires
careful, skeptical, and context-aware interpretation.

• Misinterpreting Beta as Alpha: This is a fundamental error of performance attribution.

A strategy might exhibit a high absolute return, but this return may be entirely explained
by its exposure to well-known sources of systematic risk (betas). For example, a strategy
that simply buys high-momentum stocks might look great, but a factor regression could
reveal that its returns are entirely captured by the standard Fama-French Momentum
factor. Its intercept, or "alpha," which measures the portion of returns not explained by
these known factors, would be zero. In this case, the strategy has not generated a unique
edge; it has simply provided a return that is fair compensation for the systematic risk it
took on. It is not a source of skill, but a repackaging of known risk premia.

• Ignoring model instability: This error stems from the implicit and dangerous assumption
that the statistical properties of the market are constant over time (stationarity). A model
that performed exceptionally well on data from 2010-2020 (a period of generally low
inflation and accommodative monetary policy) might have learned relationships that
become completely invalid or even reverse in a new macroeconomic regime of high inflation
and rising interest rates. Deploying such a model without understanding its performance
in different historical regimes is a recipe for disaster. A robust interpretation requires a
deep analysis of the model’s stability and performance conditional on the prevailing market
environment.

• The narrative fallacy: This is a cognitive bias where we create simple, compelling, but
often unfalsifiable stories to explain past events. After a backtest produces a profitable
result, it is trivially easy for a researcher to invent a plausible narrative for why the strategy
worked. This post-hoc storytelling creates a dangerous illusion of understanding and can
lead to overconfidence in the model’s robustness. The true test of an idea is whether the
narrative was articulated as a precise, falsifiable hypothesis before the experiment was run,
not invented after the fact to rationalize a desirable outcome.

The Iterative Modeling Loop

Quantitative modeling is not a straight-line dash from raw data input to bottom-line profit;
rather, it unfolds as a perpetual, cybernetic feedback loop in which every stage informs and
refines the next. First, we formulate a provisional hypothesis—our model—based on historical
and real-time data. Next, we deploy this model to generate predictions and translate those
insights into trading decisions. Rather than treating each trading outcome as a final verdict, we
integrate results directly into our pipeline—tracking performance trends, diagnosing anomalies,
and updating our assumptions. This continuous feedback keeps our models and strategies aligned
with shifting market dynamics, ensuring that every insight fuels the next iteration.
Because financial markets are susceptible to structural regime shifts, evolving participant
behavior, and exogenous shocks, this ongoing cycle of hypothesis, testing, execution, and feedback
ensures that our analytical framework remains robust rather than brittle. We continuously
monitor model drift, validate predictive accuracy on hold-out data, and stress-test against
extreme scenarios. By embedding adaptive learning mechanisms we maintain the agility to pivot
in response to new information.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 21

Chapter 3. Models

In this way, research and trading transform from a one-time design task into a living,
breathing ecosystem: an iterative engine of learning where feedback is not an afterthought but
the very heart of long-term survival and sustained alpha generation.

Data → Patterning → Prediction → Behavior → Feedback → Data → . . .

1. Data: The process begins not with an idea, but with its foundational raw material: data.
The sourcing, cleaning, and validating of high-quality, point-in-time historical data is a
painstaking and non-negotiable prerequisite. Point-in-time correctness is key; the data
must be a faithful representation of the information set that was actually available at each
moment of a potential historical decision, free from any form of lookahead bias. This
requires using historical index constituent lists to avoid survivorship bias, and using "as-
reported" financial numbers rather than later restatements. The data must then undergo
a rigorous auditing and cleaning process to identify and remediate fictions like erroneous
price ticks, data gaps from feed outages, or incorrect adjustments for corporate actions like
stock splits and dividends. This stage is the foundation upon which the entire intellectual
edifice is built; undetected errors or biases introduced here will inexorably propagate
through the entire loop, leading to the creation of flawed models that are expertly fitted
to a fictional version of the past.

2. Patterning (model creation): This is the core "knowing" stage, where a learning
algorithm is applied to the clean historical data to create a model artifact. This is the
moment of knowledge crystallization, where a qualitative research hypothesis about a
market inefficiency is encoded into a specific and precise mathematical form. The learning
algorithm acts as the engine of discovery, searching through a vast space of potential
patterns to find the one that best fits the historical data according to a pre-defined
objective. The output is the model artifact itself—a set of regression coefficients, a specific
tree structure, or a matrix of network weights. This artifact is a static, compact, and
storable representation of the patterns and relationships that were learned from the data.
It is, in essence, a simplified map of a small part of the market’s territory.

3. Prediction (feedforward): The static model artifact created in the previous stage is
now deployed into a live environment where it is used on new, incoming market data
to generate forecasts or signals. This is the inference or "scoring" phase of the loop. It
is crucial to distinguish this from the patterning stage: while the initial model training
is computationally heavy, the prediction process must be extremely fast, efficient, and
computationally light, especially for strategies that must make decisions in microseconds.
This architectural separation is a key principle of production. In this stage, the model
performs its core function: it maps a vector of current market conditions (the live feature
values for an instrument) to a trading decision or forecast based on the patterns it has
learned. This raw prediction is the initial output that is then passed downstream for
further processing.

4. Behavior (trading): This is the "doing" stage, where the abstract model interacts with
the market, and its predictions are translated into actual, risk-managed buy and sell orders.
This translation is itself a multi-stage modeling problem. The raw predictions or scores for
thousands of instruments are first fed into a portfolio construction model, which is typically
a numerical optimizer. This model’s task is to take the raw signals and, in conjunction
with a separate risk model’s forecast of the covariance between assets, construct an optimal
portfolio that maximizes the expected alpha while satisfying a multitude of real-world
constraints, such as limits on total risk (VaR), factor exposures (e.g., market neutrality),
position sizes, and portfolio turnover. The output of this optimizer is a target portfolio. A
separate execution model is then responsible for transitioning the current live portfolio to

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 22

Chapter 3. Models

this new target portfolio in the most efficient way possible, breaking up large orders and
using execution algorithms to minimize transaction costs and market impact.

5. Feedback (comparing and contrasting): This is the most crucial stage for adaptation,
operating on two distinct but connected feedback loops: a strategic research loop and a
tactical, automated system loop. In the research loop, the long-term stream of profits,
losses, and realized volatility is meticulously compared against tested predictions to
ask core strategic questions: Did the live Sharpe ratio match the backtest, or was the
model flawed by overfitting or optimistic cost assumptions? Is a declining Sharpe ratio
signaling long-term concept drift as the market learns and arbitrages the inefficiency away?
Concurrently, the automated system loop operates in real-time, using immediate data
like execution slippage and order fill rates not to question the strategy’s validity, but to
dynamically control its execution. For instance, high slippage can trigger a more passive
execution algorithm, while poor fill rates may cause momentary adjustments to pricing
logic, allowing the system to manage intraday risk and navigate market dynamics without
human intervention. The former loop evolves the strategy’s intelligence; the latter ensures
its survival.

6. Data (new) and Iteration: The feedback from the previous step becomes a new, highly
valuable dataset—an unimpeachable record of the model’s true out-of-sample performance.
This new knowledge is used to start the cycle all over again, providing the engine for
adaptation. This feedback can lead to several outcomes. In the simplest case, it might
trigger a scheduled, automated re-training of the model on a rolling window of more recent
data to keep its parameters fresh. If the feedback reveals a deeper issue, it might necessitate
a more profound refinement of the original hypothesis, forcing the researcher back to the
drawing board to develop a more nuanced understanding of the market mechanism. In the
most severe case, the live data may provide conclusive evidence that the market regime has
shifted permanently and the model’s edge has completely vanished. In this scenario, the
feedback loop leads to the disciplined and necessary decision to decommission the strategy,
preserving capital and allowing research resources to be reallocated to more promising
opportunities. This complete, iterative loop is what distinguishes a robust, professional
quantitative trading system that learns and endures from a simple, static strategy that is
destined to fail.

Quant Beckman — www.quantbeckman.com 23