arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.21846

Where Backtests and Live Trading Part Ways: Six Defects from One Intraday System

Alex Vidovich·Zivana Zerjal
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Backtests of intraday strategies can drift away from what the live system actually does; in our case, the drift never showed in summary statistics. We report six defects found while running one intraday US equity system live and comparing its live days with their backtest replay. Three came from data: a default feed that carried a small fraction of real opening volume, historical prices adjusted for dividends that live orders never see, and data the live system downloaded but the backtest never did. Two came from code: a sizing step that exceeded a limit the live account enforces, and UTC timestamps read as New York time. One came from configuration: settings that were switched on but never reached the code that places orders. For each we give the symptom, the size of the error, the cause and the test or control that now guards against it. All six sat where two paths that should agree had drifted apart. We close with a ten-point checklist. We make no claim about whether the system is profitable.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.STq-fin.TR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alex Vidovich, Zivana Zerjal. 2026-10-15. Where Backtests and Live Trading Part Ways: Six Defects from One Intraday System. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21846

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The End-of-Day Reversal After 2019: A Pre-Registered Test on S&P 500 Stocks Excluding Heavily Traded Names

Baltussen, Da and Soebhag (2025) document an end-of-day reversal in U.S. stocks through December 2019: intraday losers outperform intraday winners over the last half hour of trading. We test it on later data, on point-in-time S&P 500 members excluding about 80 heavily traded stocks we had examined in earlier, unpublished work. Under a private pre-registration, the 2016-2019 data had to reproduce the published sign before any statistic linking the sort to the outcome was computed on later primary-sample data. Measured to the last trade before the closing auction, the dollar-volume-weighted reversal is 3.13 bps per day (t = 7.5) in 2016-2019 and 3.05 bps (t = 3.0) in 2023-2026, with a one-sided 95% bound on the decline of 61%. The result depends on the window: the reversal is indistinguishable from zero in 2020-2022, 2023 carries much of the later estimate, and from 2020 onward it is 1.69 bps (t = 2.3), with a bound of 91%. A proxy sample, added after the run, gives 2.81 and 3.86 bps. On the full index the reversal falls from 3.40 to 0.74 bps (t of the change -1.83, short of the registered bar of -3); descriptive comparisons concentrate this weakness in the very largest stocks. No pre-registered mechanism test passes.

q-fin.ST↗
arXiv2026

Who Are a Firm's Economic Peers? Mapping a Latent Information Field with Language Models

Identifying a firm's economic peers matters for benchmarking, risk measurement, and understanding return dependence, yet a diversified firm may have no single natural peer. We use language-model representations of corporate news to identify the combination of firms that jointly represents each firm's information environment. Each firm is represented by a distribution of article embeddings, and target-anchored Wasserstein barycentric reconstruction produces a directed map of economic-peer weights. We use this map as the interaction structure in a spatial factor model and ask whether return dependence follows peer relations measured from news without using returns. We construct peer weights from 2018-2022 news for 100 large-cap US traded firms and evaluate their financial relevance in subsequent returns. Relative to a matched model with the Fama-French five factors and momentum, the information field firms' unexpected returns move together after common factor exposures are accounted for. Joint reconstruction contributes substantially more than pairwise Wasserstein proximity or equal weighting of the selected peers, while centroid reconstruction retains most of the gain. Explicit news co-mentions provide complementary information. Language models thus make the interaction structure in spatial asset pricing an object of measurement: economically interpretable peer relations can be constructed from text before their financial relevance is assessed in returns.

q-fin.ST↗
arXiv2026

Portfolio Risk Bounds without Cross-Asset Return Covariances: Distributional Fields from Language-Model Representations

Portfolio risk assessment ordinarily relies on reliable estimates of cross-asset return covariances, which are difficult to obtain in short, high-dimensional panels. We show that firm-level distribution-valued characteristics can instead provide one-sided certificates of portfolio risk. Under maintained links from characteristics to systematic exposures and from exposures to returns, multi-firm Wasserstein-2 dispersion yields a sharp upper bound on systematic portfolio variance and a corresponding bound for standardized returns. A weighted pairwise relaxation produces an objective that is convex under a checkable condition and requires marginal volatility scales but no cross-asset return covariances. With zero firm-specific slack, the common-map scale changes the certified variance reduction but not the normalized allocation, which depends only on observed information geometry. In a 100-firm panel from 2018-2022, only 0.09%-0.46% of portfolios across four prespecified capped reference populations have in-sample variance no greater than an allocation constructed from Qwen3-Embedding-8B news representations; the corresponding share for equal risk weighting is 28.3%-34.7%. The lower in-sample variance ranking relative to equal risk also appears across the reported frozen language-model representations. The framework therefore converts distribution-valued firm information into a coherent risk bound and an implementable allocation rule constructed without cross-asset return covariances.

q-fin.ST↗