Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2212.01807

Axial-LOB: High-Frequency Trading with Axial Attention

Abstract

Previous attempts to predict stock price from limit order book (LOB) data are mostly based on deep convolutional neural networks. Although convolutions offer efficiency by restricting their operations to local interactions, it is at the cost of potentially missing out on the detection of long-range dependencies. Recent studies address this problem by employing additional recurrent or attention layers that increase computational complexity. In this work, we propose Axial-LOB, a novel fully-attentional deep learning architecture for predicting price movements of stocks from LOB data. By utilizing gated position-sensitive axial attention layers our architecture is able to construct feature maps that incorporate global interactions, while significantly reducing the size of the parameter space. Unlike previous works, Axial-LOB does not rely on hand-crafted convolutional kernels and hence has stable performance under input permutations and the capacity to incorporate additional LOB features. The effectiveness of Axial-LOB is demonstrated on a large benchmark dataset, containing time series representations of millions of high-frequency trading events, where our model establishes a new state of the art, achieving an excellent directional classification performance at all tested prediction horizons.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Damian Kisiel, Denise Gorse. 2022-12-04. Axial-LOB: High-Frequency Trading with Axial Attention. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.01807

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Do Two On-Chain Observation Pipelines See the Same Tokens? Cross-Pipeline Coverage on the Solana pump.fun Launchpad

On-chain studies of memecoin launchpads usually rely on one data-collection pipeline, yet whether differently configured pipelines observe the same tokens is rarely measured. This paper compares the output mint sets of two separately configured pipelines from one research programme on the Solana pump.fun launchpad: a cohort-detection pipeline that flags coordinated early-buyer wallets, and a rejection-filtering pipeline that logs a trader-side observer's pre-trade filter decisions. Two consecutive, non-overlapping windows are analysed (v1: June 2026; v2: June-July 2026); in each, the rejection data are restricted to the interval spanned by the cohort detections under four timestamp rules. Only raw counts, observed proportions and Jaccard/Dice indices are reported. In v2, where the rejection stream covers the whole 17.5-day window, the cohort set contains 623 mints and the rejection set 1,742, with 5 overlapping mints (0.803% of cohort; 0.287% of rejection). In v1 a collection gap means the rejection stream covers only the final 14.25 hours (4.4%) of the 13.4-day cohort window; the 20,162 cohort and 53 rejection mints share 1 mint, and within the covered interval none, a count too small to be informative. Both windows show nearly disjoint outputs, agreeing in direction but not in magnitude. Collector configuration, not only market behaviour, therefore shapes which tokens an on-chain study observes, and the paper proposes reporting cross-collector overlap and collector coverage as a routine check. Data and a script that re-derives every number are openly available.

q-fin.TR↗

The Marginal Effects of Ethereum Network MEV Transaction Re-Ordering

Two MEV builders now produce nearly 80\% of Ethereum blocks. Block builders have the ability to reorder transactions on the blockchain in a way that can be harmful to participants. We estimate participants would pay in the aggregate nearly \$7.2 million per month to guarantee that they remained in the first quartile of the block. Sandwich attacks, in which a transaction is front run, are frequent, averaging more than one every two blocks. Gas fees on these transactions pay for nearly 9.6\% of the MEV payments to the validator. Reforms such as gas fee priority or private transaction pools might be helpful.

q-fin.TR↗

Computable Countermarkets and the Limits of Universal Trading

We explain why no trading algorithm can guarantee profit in every market. For each deterministic program that always returns a finite-precision position, we construct a fixed, algorithmically generated price path on which every active position loses and inactivity earns nothing. This holds with positive, continually changing prices, costless trading, and unlimited computation time. Separate arguments limit learning market rules, certifying future events, and establishing randomness from finite data. Useful strategies may exploit market structure, information, or compensation for risk, while benchmark performance need not imply profit. Reversing and rearranging price histories within the assumed market class provide practical stress tests, distinguishing conditional success from universal guarantees.

q-fin.TR↗