Yo-Yo.ai Docs
  • Yo-Yo.ai Gitbook Repository
  • Prediction: Accuracy
    • Overview
    • Technical
  • Model Output
  • Case Study
  • Conclusion
  • Prediction: Alpha
    • Overview
  • Methodology
  • Feature Engineering
  • Model Ensemble Implementation
  • Risk Management
  • Model Testing and Backtesting
    • Testing Methodology
    • Backtesting Framework
    • Hybrid Strategy Implementation
    • Results
    • Key Findings
    • APPENDIX A:
  • Vaults
    • How To
  • Product Road Map
  • FAQ
  • YOYO Token
    • Tokenomics
      • The YOYO Token
      • Token Utility
      • Token Metrics
  • Branding
    • Logos
  • Media
  • Legal Documents
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Disclaimer
  • Official Links
    • Official Links
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  1. Model Testing and Backtesting

Key Findings

  1. Execution Cost Impact:

  • The implementation of the transaction cost model to account for market impact produces statistically robust alpha generation despite aggressive market friction assumptions.

  • The total return differential of 1529% confirms persistence of alpha generation after incorporation of realistic execution costs.

  • Post-cost Sharpe ratio SR AI Strategy=1.86 versus SR Buy-and-Hold=0.69 demonstrates that transaction cost drag does not eliminate statistical significance of performance differentials.

  1. Delay Sensitivity:

  • The AI Strategy performance exhibits monotonic decay with respect to the execution latency parameter, resulting in Sharpe Ratio decay of 18% as the delay increases from 1 to 15 minutes.

  • Despite the maximum tested latency, the strategy maintains +135.3% CAGR outperformance (CAGR AI Strategy = 40% vs CAGR Buy-and-Hold=17%)

  • All the risk return metrics maintain statistical resilience to execution delay, representing an improvement over passive implementation.

  1. Hybrid Strategy Performance:

  • Optimal risk-adjusted metrics achieved by Hybrid approach with Sharpe ratio enhancement of ΔSR=+0.14 versus AI Strategy implementation and ΔSR=+1.31 versus passive allocation.

  • Cumulative return amplification of 62.2% achieved through optimized market exposure.

  • Time-series decomposition reveals superior convexity characteristics with 9/12 quarters generating positive excess returns, including peak quarterly alpha generation exceeding +100% in multiple observation periods.

  1. Risk Management Effectiveness:

  • Leverage distribution f(L) exhibits pronounced positive skewness with P(L≤2.0)=0.862, indicating 86.2% of position entries maintain conservative leverage parameters.

  • Capital utilization probability mass function concentrated in the first decile bin with P(C≤0.10)=0.603, implementing systematic variance-minimization methodology.

  • Bivariate distribution analysis confirms strategic conditional dependency with joint probability P(L=1.0,C∈[0,10%])=0.362, while maximum risk exposure configuration (L=5.0,C≈70%) constitutes only 1.7% of trading intervals.

  • Expected leverage-capital product E[L⋅C]≈0.286 maintains sufficient margin buffer capacity to prevent performance degradation through forced liquidations during adverse market conditions.

  1. Return Distribution Analysis:

  • Conditional probability analysis confirms significant drawdown protection during sharp market corrections.

  • Strategy demonstrates statistically insignificant capture of extreme positive momentum regimes, consistent with mean-reversion rather than trend-following signal extraction.

  • Inverse conditional distribution reveals alpha generation during neutral or negative price environments

  • Empirical probability structure provides mathematical validation for Hybrid implementation superiority through orthogonal return stream generation relative to passive exposure.

PreviousResultsNextAPPENDIX A:

Last updated 2 months ago