Evaluating AI in quant research: roles, risks, and validation methods
Introduces AI roles in prediction, research, and automation and how to evaluate them, with a path to a separate executed baseline experiment.
Twelve parts on AI roles, data timing, validation, costs, and model-comparison methods. Part 6 provides code and an executed 2007–2025 historical-price comparison of two SPY/IEF/GLD baselines. Other design and synthetic examples do not establish AI performance.
Introduces AI roles in prediction, research, and automation and how to evaluate them, with a path to a separate executed baseline experiment.
Compare the inputs and outputs of rules, machine learning, deep learning, and LLMs. Define the task, data, and evaluation criteria before selecting a tool.
Audit historical data availability through adjusted prices, delistings, filing dates, revisions, and time zones, with an example of delayed closing-price signals.
Plan hypotheses, baselines, chronological splits, walk-forward validation, and protected test periods. Examine selection bias and the role of research records.
Use hypothetical examples to examine loss paths and trading costs alongside returns, and interpret volatility, drawdown, Sharpe ratios, and turnover together.
An executed 2007–2025 adjusted-price comparison of buy and hold and 12-month momentum, with four cost scenarios, complete code, equity paths, and trade ledgers.
Designs features, labels, chronological splits, and retraining rules before evaluation; an educational design, not a report of measured model performance.
Sets out fixed data, time splits, cost assumptions, and evaluation conditions; does not establish empirical model superiority.
Examine noise, changing markets, repeated searches, leakage, costs, and selection bias, and define ways to challenge promising financial ML results.
Distinguish document transformation, validation support, and decision boundaries in LLM-assisted quant research. Check drafts against primary sources and raw data.
Organize LLM-assisted quant research around questions, evidence, code checks, timing, and experiment records, with human review and documented failures.
Reviews the literature and methods across 12 parts, distinguishing the executed ETF baseline from AI and ML comparisons still outstanding.