Conference Paper

Testing the Dinosaur Hypothesis under Empirical Datasets.

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-15871-1_21 Conference: Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN XI, 11th International Conference, Kraków, Poland, September 11-15, 2010. Proceedings, Part II
Source: DBLP

ABSTRACT In this paper we present the Dinosaur Hypothesis, which states that the behaviour of a market never settles down and that
the population of predictors continually co-evolves with this market. To the best of our knowledge, this observation has only
been made and tested under artificial datasets, but not with real data. In this work, we attempt to formalize this hypothesis
by presenting its main constituents. We also test it with empirical data, under 10 international datasets. Results show that
for the majority of the datasets the Dinosaur Hypothesis is not supported.


Available from: Edward P. K. Tsang, Jun 26, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper provides a foundation for decision making with bounded rationality in economic entities from the viewpoint of evolutionary theory. To this end, first, we conducted an investment test with participants to extract a behavioral learning model for activities with bounded rationality. We found that the decision-making model obtained from this behavioral science approach has characteristics that are frequently seen in the results of observations of instances of bounded rationality. Furthermore, the model presents some well-known biases in decision making, such as profit-and-loss asymmetry in risk avoidance, reference point dependence, and the asset effect. Next, using agent-based simulations, we examined whether our behavioral-learning model for activities had the capacity to become a stable strategy in a market environment where selection pressure exists. When, in response to maximum loss, a drawdown is set as an evaluation criterion for selection, the results of our simulations imply the following: 1) our decision-making model with bounded rationality has the capacity to become a stable evolutionary strategy and 2) entities with bounded rationality can survive in a competitive market. These results are antithetical to the evolutionary explanations used as a basis for rationality in traditional economics, and they indicate the possibility that many well-known biases in decision making can be derived evolutionarily from a single criterion.
    IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 08/2013; 17(4):528-544. DOI:10.1109/TEVC.2012.2208465 · 5.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Dinosaur Hypothesis states that the behaviour of a market never settles down and that the population of predictors continually co-evolves with this market. This observation had been made and tested under artificial datasets. Recently, we formalized this hypothesis and also tested it under 10 empirical datasets. The tests were based on a GP system. However, it could be argued that results are dependent on the GP algorithm. In this paper, we test the Dinosaur Hypothesis under two different GP algorithms, in order to prove that the previous results are rigorous and are not sensitive to the choice of GP. We thus test again the hypothesis under the same 10 empirical datasets. Results are consistent among all three algorithms and thus suggest that market behavior can actually repeat itself, and have a number of `typical states', where past rules may become useful again.
    Computational Intelligence (UKCI), 2010 UK Workshop on; 10/2010