Machine learning in trading: theory, models, practice and algo-trading - page 3043
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
One of the directions could be to search not for the best, but for the most stable parameters of the TS. i.e., to discard those variants that have variability of results in different parts of history.
One way is to include indicators of stability of results in the evaluation criteria.
There is a great package on Bayesian optimisation...
You can do multi-criteria optimisation, optimisation on functions with noise and many other things, very interesting package.
I made a toy example of how the algorithm searches for a minimum in a one-dimensional vector.
I still don't get it, there is no way to say with certainty whether the fin. res. is statistically significant or not. or not?
Don't mix two things that are related to the use of the same indicator:
1) Evaluating the result of one TS by this indicator.
2) Selection of one TS from a large number of options by maximising this indicator.
In the first case, the value of the indicator may be statistically significant, but in the second case, it is unlikely.
I still don't get it, there is no way to say with certainty whether the fin. res. is statistically significant or not. or not?
1) Are the data the same as in the example?
2) Maybe in the new R the names of the function arguments have changed
1. yes
2. Maybe - switched on 3.5.0 - requested the library - installed it and again some errors.
1. yes
2. Maybe - switched on 3.5.0 - requested the library - installing and again some errors.
see what arguments the function takes
in the version that had the error with this function.
I wrote it!
Don't mix two things that involve using the same indicator:
1) Evaluation of the result of one TC on this indicator.
2) Selection of one TS from a large number of options by maximising this indicator.
In the first case, the value of the indicator can speak about statistical significance, but in the second case - hardly.
In simple words, if I evaluate one TS by statistical significance, it is good,
if I have 100 TS and I choose the best one by the same criterion, it's bad?
I must have misunderstood something? It can't be right either?
One of the directions may be to search not for the best, but for the most stable parameters of the TS. i.e., to discard those variants that have variability of results in different parts of history.
One way is to include indicators of stability of results in the evaluation criteria.
see what arguments the function takes
in the version in which there was an error with this function.
I wrote it!
It's fine, it should work.
Are you sure you didn't change the code? Show me the code where the error occurs.
It's okay, it should work.
Are you sure you didn't change the code? Show me the code where the error occurs.
No, I didn't change it.