GP age-layer and crossover effects in bid-offer spread prediction

The bid-offer spread on equity options is a key source of profits for market makers, and a key cost for those trading in the options. Spreads are influenced by dynamic market factors, but is there also a predictable element and can Genetic Programming be used for such prediction? We investigate a standard GP approach and two optimisations . age-layering and a novel crossover operator. If both are beneficial as independent optimisations, will they be mutually beneficial when applied simultaneously? Our experiments show a degree of success in predicting spreads, we demonstrate significant benefits for each optimisation technique used individually, and we show that when both are used together significant detrimental over-fitting can occur.

[1]  Erik D. Goodman,et al.  The hierarchical fair competition (HFC) model for parallel evolutionary algorithms , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[2]  William B. Langdon,et al.  Size Fair and Homologous Tree Crossovers for Tree Genetic Programming , 2000, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[3]  N. K. Chidambaran.  New simulation methodology for risk analysis: genetic programming with monte carlo simulation for option pricing , 2003, WSC '03.

[4]  Wei Yan,et al.  Learning to optimize profits beats predicting returns -: comparing techniques for financial portfolio optimisation , 2008, GECCO '08.

[5]  陳樹衡,et al.  Option Pricing with Genetic Programming , 1998 .

[6]  W. Andrew,et al.  LO, and A. , 1988 .

[7]  Miao Li,et al.  Multipopulation genetic programming for forecasting crop pests , 2004, International Conference on Neural Networks and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceedings of the 2003.

[8]  F. Black,et al.  The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities , 1973, Journal of Political Economy.

[9]  Conor Ryan,et al.  Using context-aware crossover to improve the performance of GP , 2006, GECCO '06.

[10]  Larry J. Merville,et al.  An Empirical Examination of the Black‐Scholes Call Option Pricing Model , 1979 .

[11]  M. Rubinstein..  Implied Binomial Trees , 1994 .

[12]  L. J. Merville,et al.  Tests of the Black-Scholes and Cox Call Option Valuation Models , 1980 .

[13]  Anikó Ekárt,et al.  Maintaining the Diversity of Genetic Programs , 2002, EuroGP.

[14]  Peter J. Angeline,et al.  Two self-adaptive crossover operators for genetic programming , 1996 .

[15]  Gregory Hornby,et al.  ALPS: the age-layered population structure for reducing the problem of premature convergence , 2006, GECCO.

[16]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  On the Search Properties of Different Crossover Operators in Genetic Programming , 2001 .

[17]  D. J. Morrice,et al.  GENETIC PROGRAMMING WITH MONTE CARLO SIMULATION FOR OPTION PRICING , 2003 .

[18]  Patrik D'haeseleer,et al.  Context preserving crossover in genetic programming , 1994, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence.

[19]  Christopher D. Clack,et al.  Genetic Programming with Gene Dominance , 1997 .

[20]  William B. Langdon,et al.  Directed Crossover within Genetic Programming , 1995 .

[21]  Malcolm I. Heywood,et al.  Directing crossover for reduction of bloat in GP , 2002, IEEE CCECE2002. Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.02CH37373).

[22]  Malcolm I. Heywood,et al.  On Naïve Crossover Biases with Reproduction for Simple Solutions to Classification Problems , 2004, GECCO.

[23]  Joaguin R. Trigueros,et al.  An Adaptive Evolutionary Approach to Option Pricing Via Genetic Programming , 1998 .

[24]  William B. Langdon,et al.  Size fair and homologous tree genetic programming crossovers , 1999 .