analiza aiqbench
This paper presents a rigorous forensic audit demonstrating that candle-based machine learning models fail to generate profitable trading policies for cryptocurrency spot markets after accounting for transaction costs and data integrity issues. The study highlights significant overfitting risks where model performance degrades sharply in live simulations, reinforcing the consensus that short-horizon crypto prediction remains an unsolved challenge despite high ROC AUC scores on paper.
Predictive Extrema, Unprofitable Policies: An AI-Assisted Audit of Candle-Based Binance Spot Timing Models
arXiv:2607.19453v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We audit whether candle-based machine-learning models can turn predictions of cryptocurrency extrema or short-horizon outcomes into positive Binance Spot paper policies after assumed costs. Numerical results come from scripted fixed-seed model runs and deterministic simulators; human-supervised AI agents supported the July 20 evidence-integrity revision through literature retrieval, separately tasked critique, artifact reconciliation, documentation, and source packaging, not trading decisions. The strongest later-period evidence, conditional on extensive predecessor search, is negative: an unchanged ten-pair mandatory-daily selector lost 6.72\% over 19 July cycles at an assumed 31-bps completed-cycle cost, with 3 wins and 16 losses. In short model-specific July evaluations, the validation-selected local-minimum policy returned -1.79\%, while the local-maximum sell-to-cash/re-entry policy underperformed continuous holding by 2.80\%; their gross mean advantages of 11.11 and 12.21 bps were below even the 21-bps stress. A Gurgul-inspired, OHLCV-only daily adaptation attained minimum/maximum ROC AUC of 0.874/0.896 but average precision of only 0.134/0.116 and lost 44.30\% over seven cycles, versus -41.20\% for buy-and-hold. A forensic audit also downgraded an earlier One4All "30-day holdout": its dates had influenced prior architecture work, its four-hour outcome horizon was not purged at split boundaries, it used same-close entry, and its raw result directories were absent. Across the tested, mostly exploratory protocols, event-ranking performance did not establish positive executable policy value. Every operational decision remains NO\_TRADE.
Abstract:We audit whether candle-based machine-learning models can turn predictions of cryptocurrency extrema or short-horizon outcomes into positive Binance Spot paper policies after assumed costs. Numerical results come from scripted fixed-seed model runs and deterministic simulators; human-supervised AI agents supported the July 20 evidence-integrity revision through literature retrieval, separately tasked critique, artifact reconciliation, documentation, and source packaging, not trading decisions. The strongest later-period evidence, conditional on extensive predecessor search, is negative: an unchanged ten-pair mandatory-daily selector lost 6.72\% over 19 July cycles at an assumed 31-bps completed-cycle cost, with 3 wins and 16 losses. In short model-specific July evaluations, the validation-selected local-minimum policy returned -1.79\%, while the local-maximum sell-to-cash/re-entry policy underperformed continuous holding by 2.80\%; their gross mean advantages of 11.11 and 12.21 bps were below even the 21-bps stress. A Gurgul-inspired, OHLCV-only daily adaptation attained minimum/maximum ROC AUC of 0.874/0.896 but average precision of only 0.134/0.116 and lost 44.30\% over seven cycles, versus -41.20\% for buy-and-hold. A forensic audit also downgraded an earlier One4All "30-day holdout": its dates had influenced prior architecture work, its four-hour outcome horizon was not purged at split boundaries, it used same-close entry, and its raw result directories were absent. Across the tested, mostly exploratory protocols, event-ranking performance did not establish positive executable policy value. Every operational decision remains NO\_TRADE.
23 pages, 5 figures, 8 tables. Simulation-only negative empirical study and human-supervised AI-assisted evidence audit. No live trading or investment advice. Code and available artifacts: this https URL
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Statistical Finance (q-fin.ST); Trading and Market Microstructure (q-fin.TR)
arXiv:2607.19453 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2607.19453v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.19453 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 271 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
A Red Line and Oversight Framework for Government AI Contracts
AI Alignment Forum · 18 iul. 2026

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · 17 sept. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 18 sept. 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026