Alpha Mining and Enhancing via Warm Start Genetic Programming for Quantitative Investment

Weizhe Ren; Yang Li; Yichen Qin

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Alpha Mining and Enhancing via Warm Start Genetic Programming for Quantitative Investment

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that warm-starting genetic programming from a known effective alpha and confining evolution to that alpha's tree structure turns sparse alpha discovery into a denser local search, yielding alphas with 4.7% average…

desk verdict Plausible warm-start GP framework for alpha mining, but the 10 starting alphas need a prespecified selection rule; deserves review with major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00896 v1 pith:KI4RH47J submitted 2024-12-01 q-fin.ST cs.NEq-fin.CP

Weizhe Ren , Yichen Qin , Yang Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-fin.STcs.NEq-fin.CP

keywords geneticprogrammingalphafactorminingwarmstartrestrictedcrossoverinformationcoefficientChineseA-sharemarketquantitativeinvestment

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Genetic programming can build stock-selection alphas as formula trees, but the tree space is so large that useful alphas are extremely sparse. The paper claims that this sparsity is not uniform: fixing the tree structure of an alpha already known to work makes effective alphas denser, so evolution should warm-start from that alpha and stay confined to its structure. It proposes a Warm Start GP framework that initializes the population from a single effective alpha, allows only structure-preserving mutation and crossover, and reports that on Chinese A-share data the enhanced alphas reach an average out-of-sample IC of 4.7% versus 3.6% for traditional GP, with backtested long-only portfolios exceeding 50% annualized return and Sharpe ratios above 1.0. If right, the result turns alpha mining from an unbounded random search into a local enhancement problem over interpretable templates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the restricted crossover operator, which permits two individuals with the same tree structure to exchange subtrees only at the same positions, so the parent tree shape is preserved for every offspring. Point mutation changes leaves or operators without changing shape, and duplicate individuals are excluded to prevent gene domination. Together these turn the tree of the starting alpha into a finite search space, giving the framework its dual role as miner and enhancer and eliminating code bloat.

What would settle it

Take an $\alpha$ whose out-of-sample IC is near zero, use its tree structure as the warm-start constraint, and sample 10,000 random formulas inside that structure; if the density of formulas with $\mathrm{IC}>0.03$ does not rise substantially above the unconstrained 3% baseline, the claimed structural advantage does not generalize beyond known-effective starting alphas.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that an effective $\alpha$'s tree structure is itself a reusable asset. Two hypotheses carry the claim: an $\alpha$'s effectiveness depends not only on its variables and functions but also on its underlying structure, and a validated $\alpha$ usually has an effective structure. The paper tests these by sampling 10,000 random formulas inside the structure of Alpha33 and finding that the density of formulas with $\mathrm{IC}>0.03$ exceeds 13%, versus below 3% in unconstrained space. This motivates Warm Start GP, which starts from one of ten Alpha101 alphas, allows only point mutation and a restricted crossover that swaps subtrees at equivalent positions, and thereby searches a finite, structure-preserving space. The reported results are higher out-of-sample IC and RankIC than traditional GP, markedly lower correlation among discovered alphas, and backtested long-only portfolios with annualized returns above 50% and Sharpe ratios above 1.0 for 30-stock and 100-stock holdings.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a tree structure proven effective for one alpha is itself an effective search region for other alphas, yet the paper tests this on a single Alpha33 structure and assumes it holds for all ten starting points, so if structure effectiveness does not generalize, the warm-start advantage collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A known effective alpha becomes a reusable template: any new data can be mined within its structure, so an alpha that has decayed can be refreshed rather than discarded.
Since the search space inside a fixed structure is finite, the best achievable alpha for that structure is in principle reachable, making the framework a general enhancement layer on top of other alpha-mining methods.
The fixed structure keeps the discovered formulas interpretable and free of code bloat, which directly addresses the overfitting tendency of unconstrained GP.
On the tested Chinese A-share universe, the framework's alphas outperform unconstrained GP alphas out of sample on IC and ICIR and produce backtested long-only portfolios with annualized returns above 50% and Sharpe ratios above 1.0.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper, the same warm-start logic should be testable on other asset classes and markets: if structure effectiveness is a property of alpha design rather than of Chinese A-share microstructure, the density gain should reproduce on U.S. or European equities.
The paper validates Hypothesis 2 on one structure only; an editorial extension would be to rank starting alphas by their constrained-space density and verify that starting from a high-IC alpha is better than starting from a random one with the same depth.
Because traditional GP is the only benchmark, an editor would read the portfolio results as evidence of method performance conditional on this universe and this 2020-2024 period, not as a claim about absolute tradability after all transaction costs and trading frictions.
The framework suggests a practical workflow for practitioners: keep a library of effective alpha structures and run parallel warm starts from each, which should produce a more decorrelated alpha pool than repeated unconstrained GP runs.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The warm-start GP framework is a sensible new combination of existing ideas, and the density result is genuinely nice, but the paper's headline average IC gain rests on an unjustified choice of 10 starting alphas, so the empirical case is not yet solid.

What's new: the restricted crossover that swaps subtrees at equivalent positions within a fixed tree structure, plus warm start from a known effective alpha, is a new package. The density experiment (Fig 4) is a good, simple demonstration that a known alpha's structural neighborhood has a higher hit rate than the full search space (13% vs 3%). That is the most convincing part of the paper.

The framework is interpretable, avoids code bloat, and the empirical comparison to traditional GP is reasonably constructed: same data, same fitness function, and out-of-sample IC measured after a separate mining period. The correlation analysis (Fig 6) shows WS GP produces more diverse alphas than standard GP, which matters for multi-factor models. The backtest includes realistic frictions like limit-up/down and transaction costs.

The biggest soft spot, and the one a referee should push on, is the selection of the 10 starting alphas. Table 1 lists them but never states a prespecified rule for choosing from Alpha101, and the table is sorted by out-of-sample WS IC. If the choice was outcome-informed, the 4.7% average is an upper-biased estimate. A replication over all 101 structures or a random sample, with the rule fixed in advance, would settle this. Second, there are no error bars or significance tests; with 10 runs, the 1% IC difference is not clearly outside noise. Third, the density experiment uses only Alpha33, so Hypothesis 2 is weakly supported. Fourth, the backtest returns are extreme enough (AR >50%, Sharpe >1) to require sensitivity analysis on transaction costs, holding size, and the simple linear aggregation model.

None of this is fatal. The central idea is plausible and not circular, and the out-of-sample IC benchmark is genuine. But the paper oversells what the evidence supports. It reads like a good working paper rather than a conclusive study.

This is for researchers and practitioners in quant factor mining who want a concrete alternative to traditional GP. I would bring it to a reading group to discuss selection bias and reproducibility in backtests. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should require a prespecified starting-alpha rule and a full-universe or random-sample replication.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, with the clear expectation of major revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Warm Start Genetic Programming (WS-GP) framework for mining stock alpha factors: starting from a known effective alpha, the search is restricted to the tree structure of that alpha via a restricted crossover operator and point mutation, and the best individual within that structure is returned. The authors motivate this with two hypotheses: that an alpha's effectiveness depends on its structure, and that an effective alpha often has an effective structure. They validate the hypotheses with a density experiment on Alpha33, then compare WS-GP versus traditional GP on 10 Alpha101 starting points using Chinese A-share data from 2020-2024. The reported results show higher out-of-sample IC (average 4.7% vs 3.6%) and higher backtest annualized returns (above 50%) for WS-GP.

Significance. If the results hold, the framework is a practical contribution: it is simple, interpretable, and directly addresses the sparsity and code-bloat problems of GP-based alpha mining. The restricted crossover operator is a clean mechanism for preserving structure, and the paper gives reproducible experimental details (data period, transaction costs, rebalancing) that are useful for replication. However, the strength of the evidence is not yet commensurate with the strength of the claims: the central comparisons lack statistical inference and a clear specification of how the 10 starting alphas were chosen, so the magnitude of the reported advantage is uncertain.

major comments (4)

[§4.1, Table 1] The manuscript states that the framework starts with '10 effective alphas from Alpha101' but it never specifies how these 10 were chosen from the 101 formulas, nor whether the choice was fixed before any out-of-sample results were observed. Table 1 is sorted by out-of-sample WS IC and all 10 chosen alphas show large out-of-sample improvements, which raises the possibility that the starting set was selected after inspecting results. Because the headline comparison (average out-of-sample IC 4.7% vs 3.6%) depends entirely on this selection, the paper should either specify a prespecified selection rule, report results for all 101 Alpha101 structures, or provide a full-universe replication; otherwise the main empirical claim is not established.
[§3.2, Fig. 4] Hypothesis 2 ('an effective alpha is often characterized by an effective structure') is validated with a single alpha, Alpha33, and a single density experiment. The framework then applies the same assumption to 10 different Alpha101 starting structures in Section 4.1. Since the density improvement (13% vs 3% effective) may be specific to Alpha33's structure, the manuscript needs to show that the density result replicates across multiple structures and report the variability; otherwise the generalization to the chosen 10 is unsupported.
[§4.4, Table 3] The backtest results report annualized returns above 50% and Sharpe ratios above 1.0 for the WS-GP portfolios, yet the paper provides no confidence intervals, standard errors over independent GP runs, or transaction-cost sensitivity analysis. Given the high number of implicit choices in the pipeline (starting alphas, GP hyperparameters, IC threshold, linear aggregation model), these point estimates could easily be the product of overfitting; at a minimum the authors should report the distribution of backtest metrics across multiple seeds/runs and under different cost assumptions.
[§4.3 and §4.4] There is an apparent inconsistency between the IC analysis and the backtest for the starting Alpha101 alphas: Table 1 shows positive average out-of-sample IC (1.5%) and RankIC (1.9%) for the selected A101 alphas, while Table 3 reports negative annualized returns for the A101 LR portfolio (-8.3% to -11.8%). The authors should explain why a linear model over positively predictive alphas produces negative portfolio returns; if the linear aggregation is at fault, this caveat should be stated before the WS-GP backtest is interpreted as an improvement in alpha quality.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and §4.3] Phrases such as 'superior out-of-sample prediction results' would benefit from explicit statistical tests (e.g., Newey-West t-statistics for ICIR) rather than point estimates alone.
[§3.4] There is a typo: 'the sapce can be found' should read 'the space can be found'.
[Algorithm 1] Line 5 uses 'argmax f(Pop(t))' without specifying tie-breaking behavior when multiple individuals share the maximal fitness; the duplicate-avoidance rule in line 25 is defined only for offspring.
[§2] The 3% effective-alpha threshold IC > 0.03 is used without sensitivity analysis; a robustness check with different thresholds would strengthen the sparsity claim.
[Throughout] The term 'VW AP' appears with a space in several places; it should be typeset consistently as VWAP.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the warm-start advantage is an empirical out-of-sample claim benchmarked against external return/IC data, not an input equivalent to its own construction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the paper's central claims are empirical comparisons rather than derived identities. The framework starts from 10 Alpha101 alphas and restricts GP to each starting alpha's tree structure via restricted crossover and point mutation; the claimed advantage (average out-of-sample IC 4.7% vs. 3.6%, and backtested AR/SR) is evaluated on 2022-2024 data that was not used to select the output alphas. No equation in the paper defines the output metric in terms of the input alpha's IC; Table 1's in-sample gains are found by search, and although the elitist carry-over guarantees non-degradation in-sample, the out-of-sample improvement is not forced by construction. The Section 3.2 density experiment supports or at least motivates the structure hypothesis, but even if one regards the single-Alpha33 validation as a weak generalization, that is an inference-strength issue, not a circular definition. The only overlapping-author citation (Zhang et al. 2020, Autoalpha, likely including author Y. Li) appears in the related-work/challenge framing and is not the load-bearing justification for the warm-start result; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from it. The undisclosed rule for choosing 10 of 101 starting alphas is a potential selection-bias/validity concern for the empirical estimate, but nothing in the text shows that the choice was made from the same out-of-sample outcomes being predicted, so it does not constitute circularity under the stated standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger captures the paper's main modeling choices and domain assumptions. There are no invented physical or abstract entities beyond the framework's structural constraints, which are a search-space restriction rather than a new entity.

free parameters (4)

IC threshold (0.03) = 0.03
Chosen by the authors to classify alphas as effective in the density experiment (§3.2).
Initial alpha set = 10 alphas from Alpha101 (a025, a067, a047, a005, a090, a008, a040, a011, a018, a101)
Selected as known effective alphas; selection criteria are not specified, which can bias results (§4.1).
GP hyperparameters = not reported
Population size, mutation rates, tournament size, and maximum iterations are not disclosed, yet they affect outcomes.
Tree structure choice = structures extracted from Alpha101
The specific structures are modeling choices derived from Alpha101 alphas; no objective selection method is given.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Hypothesis 1: An alpha's effectiveness comes from its underlying structure as well as its variables and functions.
This is central to the method and is tested with one density experiment using Alpha33 (§3.2).
domain assumption Hypothesis 2: A validated effective alpha implies its structure is an effective search region.
This justifies choosing Alpha101 alphas as warm starts, but it is not systematically tested across structures (§3.2).
domain assumption Information Coefficient (Pearson/Spearman) is a valid fitness and evaluation metric for stock-selection factors.
This is standard in the literature but is not justified for this setting, and it is used for both selection and reporting.
domain assumption The Chinese A-share dataset is free of survivorship and look-ahead biases.
This is assumed; no data cleaning details or source caveats are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alpha Mining and Enhancing via Warm Start Genetic Programming for Quantitative Investment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KI4RH47J

@misc{pith2026241200896,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alpha Mining and Enhancing via Warm Start Genetic Programming for Quantitative Investment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KI4RH47J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00896}
}

read the original abstract

Traditional genetic programming (GP) often struggles in stock alpha factor discovery due to its vast search space, overwhelming computational burden, and sporadic effective alphas. We find that GP performs better when focusing on promising regions rather than random searching. This paper proposes a new GP framework with carefully chosen initialization and structural constraints to enhance search performance and improve the interpretability of the alpha factors. This approach is motivated by and mimics the alpha searching practice and aims to boost the efficiency of such a process. Analysis of 2020-2024 Chinese stock market data shows that our method yields superior out-of-sample prediction results and higher portfolio returns than the benchmark.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00896 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** An example of a GP tree. The green parts are root nodes and the pink parts are leaf nodes. solutions using the concept of biological evolution. In the context of alpha discovery, traditional GP begins by randomly generating an initial population of factors. Starting from this initial population, GP uses specific rules to select individuals. The selected individuals undergo crossover or mutation to produce offsprin… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The results indicate that effective alphas are sparse within the search space of traditional GP. • Inefficient Search Process: The infinite search space, sparse effective alphas, and financial data complexity make traditional GP inefficient in finding stock selection factors. The ”code bloat” problem also further hampers search efficiency (Soule & Heckendorn, 2002). • Premature Convergence: Due to the scarcity of … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** illustrates the concept of identical structures in treebased formulas. All four alphas share a uniform structure consisting of one root node and two leaf nodes with a depth of 1. Under the Hypothesis 1, if the structure of Alpha1 is effective, Alphas2, 3, and 4 are more likely to be effective as well, as they share the same structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The blue segment represents fully random results, previously shown in Figure2, while the purple segment reflects the results obtained under the given structural constraints. To validate Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, we conduct an additional experiment. Specifically, …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The restricted crossover: only allows alphas with the same structure to exchange subtrees at the same positions, ensuring that the alpha structure remains unchanged. The Algorithm 1 provides a detailed explanation of how to search for superior alphas within the structu…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Correlation coefficients of GP alphas (a.) and WS alphas (b.). 4.2. Correlation Analysis We aim for each GP program to generate distinct, highquality alphas, as highly correlated or identical factors can harm downstream tasks (e.g., multicollinearity). Traditional GP …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Portfolio performance under different methods and different holding sizes According to the results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...
[2]

and Karjalainen, R

Allen, F. and Karjalainen, R. Using genetic algorithms to find technical trading rules. Journal of Financial Economics, 51 0 (2): 0 245--271, February 1999

work page 1999
[3]

Becker, Y. L. and O'Reilly, U. M. Genetic programming for quantitative stock selection. In Proceedings of the First ACM/SIGEVO Summit on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp.\ 9--16, 2009

work page 2009
[4]

Applications of genetic programming to finance and economics: Past, present, future

Brabazon, A., Kampouridis, M., and O'Neill, M. Applications of genetic programming to finance and economics: Past, present, future. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 21: 0 33--53, 2020

work page 2020
[5]

Finding unique alphas: Genetic algorithms and genetic programming

Chen, J. Finding unique alphas: Genetic algorithms and genetic programming. Technical report, Shenwan Hongyuan, September 2016

work page 2016
[6]

Cui, C., Wang, W., Zhang, M., Chen, G., Luo, Z., and Ooi, B. C. Alphaevolve: A learning framework to discover novel alphas in quantitative investment. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data, pp.\ 2208--2216, June 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Fama, E. F. and French, K. R. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33 0 (1): 0 3--56, 1993

work page 1993
[8]

Fama, E. F. and French, K. R. A five-factor asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics, 116 0 (1): 0 1--22, 2015

work page 2015

Show all 26 references

[9]

Feng, F., He, X., Wang, X., Luo, C., Liu, Y., and Chua, T. S. Temporal relational ranking for stock prediction. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 37 0 (2): 0 1--30, 2019

2019
[10]

and Ghafir, S

Gupta, D. and Ghafir, S. An overview of methods maintaining diversity in genetic algorithms. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 2 0 (5): 0 56--60, 2012

2012
[11]

101 formulaic alphas

Kakushadze, Z. 101 formulaic alphas. Wilmott, 2016 0 (84): 0 72--81, July 2016

2016
[12]

L., Fei, P., and O'Reilly, U

Kim, M., Becker, Y. L., Fei, P., and O'Reilly, U. M. Constrained genetic programming to minimize overfitting in stock selection. In Genetic Programming Theory and Practice VI, Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp.\ 179--195, 2008

2008
[13]

Koza, J. R. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, 1992

1992
[14]

and Liu, F

Li, C. and Liu, F. A multi-factor stock selection system based on short-term price and volume characteristics. Technical report, Guotai Junan, June 2017

2017
[15]

and Chen, Y

Lin, X. and Chen, Y. Stock selection factor mining based on genetic programming. Technical report, Huatai Securities, June 2019 a

2019
[16]

and Chen, Y

Lin, X. and Chen, Y. Re-examining stock selection factor mining based on genetic programming. Technical report, Huatai Securities, August 2019 b

2019
[17]

and He, K

Lin, X. and He, K. Gpu acceleration for genetic programming factor mining. Technical report, Huatai Securities, February 2024

2024
[18]

An in-depth investigation of genetic programming and nine other machine learning algorithms in a financial forecasting problem

Long, X., Kampouridis, M., and Jarchi, D. An in-depth investigation of genetic programming and nine other machine learning algorithms in a financial forecasting problem. In 2022 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pp.\ 01--08. IEEE, July 2022

2022
[19]

Narang, R. K. Inside the Black Box: A Simple Guide to Quantitative and High-Frequency Trading, volume 846. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

2013
[20]

Open issues in genetic programming

O'Neill, M., Vanneschi, L., Gustafson, S., and Banzhaf, W. Open issues in genetic programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 11: 0 339--363, 2010

2010
[21]

Sharpe, W. F. Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. The Journal of Finance, 19 0 (3): 0 425--442, 1964

1964
[22]

and Heckendorn, R

Soule, T. and Heckendorn, R. B. An analysis of the causes of code growth in genetic programming. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 3: 0 283--309, 2002

2002
[23]

P., Wei, H

Xia, Y., Tian, S. P., Wei, H. Y., and Wang, Z. W. Research on symbolic regression based on genetic programming. Journal of China Jiliang University, 17 0 (2): 0 128--131, 2006

2006
[24]

Genetic programming deconstruction and investment insights

Zhang, H. Genetic programming deconstruction and investment insights. Technical report, Guotai Junan, August 2023

2023
[25]

Autoalpha: An efficient hierarchical evolutionary algorithm for mining alpha factors in quantitative investment

Zhang, T., Li, Y., Jin, Y., and Li, J. Autoalpha: An efficient hierarchical evolutionary algorithm for mining alpha factors in quantitative investment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08245, 2020

2002 arXiv
[26]

Genetic algorithm based quantitative factors construction

Zhaofan, S., Jianwu, L., and Chengshan, Z. Genetic algorithm based quantitative factors construction. In 2022 IEEE 20th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), pp.\ 650--655. IEEE, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

[2] [2]

and Karjalainen, R

Allen, F. and Karjalainen, R. Using genetic algorithms to find technical trading rules. Journal of Financial Economics, 51 0 (2): 0 245--271, February 1999

work page 1999

[3] [3]

Becker, Y. L. and O'Reilly, U. M. Genetic programming for quantitative stock selection. In Proceedings of the First ACM/SIGEVO Summit on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp.\ 9--16, 2009

work page 2009

[4] [4]

Applications of genetic programming to finance and economics: Past, present, future

Brabazon, A., Kampouridis, M., and O'Neill, M. Applications of genetic programming to finance and economics: Past, present, future. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 21: 0 33--53, 2020

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Finding unique alphas: Genetic algorithms and genetic programming

Chen, J. Finding unique alphas: Genetic algorithms and genetic programming. Technical report, Shenwan Hongyuan, September 2016

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Cui, C., Wang, W., Zhang, M., Chen, G., Luo, Z., and Ooi, B. C. Alphaevolve: A learning framework to discover novel alphas in quantitative investment. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data, pp.\ 2208--2216, June 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Fama, E. F. and French, K. R. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33 0 (1): 0 3--56, 1993

work page 1993

[8] [8]

Fama, E. F. and French, K. R. A five-factor asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics, 116 0 (1): 0 1--22, 2015

work page 2015