arXiv subjects

Maria Laura Santoni

Publications and source records attributed to Maria Laura Santoni.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Equity Strategy Backtesting: Luck or Edge? The MinervaScore as a Statistical Robustness Grade

Backtests of trading strategies are often selected after many parameter trials. A strong historical result can therefore reflect search luck rather than a persistent signal. Standard summaries such as return, Sharpe ratio, and drawdown do not record how many candidates were tried, whether the selected rule survives out-of-sample validation, or whether the available history is long enough to support the result. This paper describes the MinervaScore, a post-selection robustness grade for trading strategies. The score combines four established validation quantities: Deflated Sharpe Ratio, Probability of Backtest Overfitting, Superior Predictive Ability, and Minimum Track Record Length, with a regime-stability diagnostic. These components are converted into signed margins from their admissibility thresholds, aggregated into a raw score, and then mapped to a 0-100 display. The display is tied to a binary Robustness Seal: scores of 80 or higher are shown only when all five gates pass. The calibration uses 359,062 production backtest records. The score is intended to rank statistical support, not to estimate the probability of future profit. In synthetic markets with known ground truth, the MinervaScore separates true signal from lucky backtest outcomes, with an AUROC of 0.989 at the headline difficulty. Its improvement over the GT-Score proxy and the gates-passed baseline is modest, and it remains close to the corrected DSR-alone baseline. In a pre-registered test on unseen real-market data, the score showed no significant forward relationship in a population with limited surviving edge (Spearman rho_s = 0.013, one-sided permutation p = 0.40). We therefore present the MinervaScore as an auditable validation and reporting layer, rather than as evidence of demonstrated real-market predictability.

q-fin.ST↗

arXiv2025

MECHBench: A Set of Black-Box Optimization Benchmarks originated from Structural Mechanics

Benchmarking is essential for developing and evaluating black-box optimization algorithms, providing a structured means to analyze their search behavior. Its effectiveness relies on carefully selected problem sets used for evaluation. To date, most established benchmark suites for black-box optimization consist of abstract or synthetic problems that only partially capture the complexities of real-world engineering applications, thereby severely limiting the insights that can be gained for application-oriented optimization scenarios and reducing their practical impact. To close this gap, we propose a new benchmarking suite that addresses it by presenting a curated set of optimization benchmarks rooted in structural mechanics. The current implemented benchmarks are derived from vehicle crashworthiness scenarios, which inherently require the use of gradient-free algorithms due to the non-smooth, highly non-linear nature of the underlying models. Within this paper, the reader will find descriptions of the physical context of each case, the corresponding optimization problem formulations, and clear guidelines on how to employ the suite.

cs.NE↗

arXiv2025

Cascading CMA-ES Instances for Generating Input-diverse Solution Batches

Rather than obtaining a single good solution for a given optimization problem, users often seek alternative design choices, because the best-found solution may perform poorly with respect to additional objectives or constraints that are difficult to capture into the modeling process. Aiming for batches of diverse solutions of high quality is often desirable, as it provides flexibility to accommodate post-hoc user preferences. At the same time, it is crucial that the quality of the best solution found is not compromised. One particular problem setting balancing high quality and diversity is fixing the required minimum distance between solutions while simultaneously obtaining the best possible fitness. Recent work by Santoni et al. [arXiv 2024] revealed that this setting is not well addressed by state-of-the-art algorithms, performing in par or worse than pure random sampling. Driven by this important limitation, we propose a new approach, where parallel runs of the covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMA-ES) inherit tabu regions in a cascading fashion. We empirically demonstrate that our CMA-ES-Diversity Search (CMA-ES-DS) algorithm generates trajectories that allow to extract high-quality solution batches that respect a given minimum distance requirement, clearly outperforming those obtained from off-the-shelf random sampling, multi-modal optimization algorithms, and standard CMA-ES.

cs.NE↗

arXiv2025

Illuminating the Diversity-Fitness Trade-Off in Black-Box Optimization

In real-world applications, users often favor structurally diverse design choices over one high-quality solution. It is hence important to consider more solutions that decision makers can compare and further explore based on additional criteria. Alongside the existing approaches of evolutionary diversity optimization, quality diversity, and multimodal optimization, this paper presents a fresh perspective on this challenge by considering the problem of identifying a fixed number of solutions with a pairwise distance above a specified threshold while maximizing their average quality. We obtain first insight into these objectives by performing a subset selection on the search trajectories of different well-established search heuristics, whether they have been specifically designed with diversity in mind or not. We emphasize that the main goal of our work is not to present a new algorithm but to understand the capability of off-the-shelf algorithms to quantify the trade-off between the minimum pairwise distance within batches of solutions and their average quality. We also analyze how this trade-off depends on the properties of the underlying optimization problem. A possibly surprising outcome of our empirical study is the observation that naive uniform random sampling establishes a very strong baseline for our problem, hardly ever outperformed by the search trajectories of the considered heuristics. We interpret these results as a motivation to develop algorithms tailored to produce diverse solutions of high average quality.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Comparison of High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization Algorithms on BBOB

Bayesian Optimization (BO) is a class of black-box, surrogate-based heuristics that can efficiently optimize problems that are expensive to evaluate, and hence admit only small evaluation budgets. BO is particularly popular for solving numerical optimization problems in industry, where the evaluation of objective functions often relies on time-consuming simulations or physical experiments. However, many industrial problems depend on a large number of parameters. This poses a challenge for BO algorithms, whose performance is often reported to suffer when the dimension grows beyond 15 variables. Although many new algorithms have been proposed to address this problem, it is not well understood which one is the best for which optimization scenario. In this work, we compare five state-of-the-art high-dimensional BO algorithms, with vanilla BO and CMA-ES on the 24 BBOB functions of the COCO environment at increasing dimensionality, ranging from 10 to 60 variables. Our results confirm the superiority of BO over CMA-ES for limited evaluation budgets and suggest that the most promising approach to improve BO is the use of trust regions. However, we also observe significant performance differences for different function landscapes and budget exploitation phases, indicating improvement potential, e.g., through hybridization of algorithmic components.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

PI is back! Switching Acquisition Functions in Bayesian Optimization

Bayesian Optimization (BO) is a powerful, sample-efficient technique to optimize expensive-to-evaluate functions. Each of the BO components, such as the surrogate model, the acquisition function (AF), or the initial design, is subject to a wide range of design choices. Selecting the right components for a given optimization task is a challenging task, which can have significant impact on the quality of the obtained results. In this work, we initiate the analysis of which AF to favor for which optimization scenarios. To this end, we benchmark SMAC3 using Expected Improvement (EI) and Probability of Improvement (PI) as acquisition functions on the 24 BBOB functions of the COCO environment. We compare their results with those of schedules switching between AFs. One schedule aims to use EI's explorative behavior in the early optimization steps, and then switches to PI for a better exploitation in the final steps. We also compare this to a random schedule and round-robin selection of EI and PI. We observe that dynamic schedules oftentimes outperform any single static one. Our results suggest that a schedule that allocates the first 25 % of the optimization budget to EI and the last 75 % to PI is a reliable default. However, we also observe considerable performance differences for the 24 functions, suggesting that a per-instance allocation, possibly learned on the fly, could offer significant improvement over the state-of-the-art BO designs.

cs.LG↗