Machine learning in trading: theory, models, practice and algo-trading - page 3443
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
Nowadays it is common to add the word "causal" to everything - and it reads beautifully and with a hint of magic :)
If you're into feature enumeration, here's a list with formulas, for time series:
https://tsfresh.readthedocs.io/en/latest/text/list_of_features.html
Earlier I published graphs of probability shifts in clusters here, but there the sample was on leaves, and now I decided to see how the situation would look like if I just took the sample, and I used different normalisation methods (the name of the method from the sklearn library is in brackets).
1. without normalisation
2. Normalises the feature values to a range from 0 to 1 (MinMaxScaler). 3.
3. converts feature values to a distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation 1 (StandardScaler)
4. converts feature values to a range that is robust to the presence of outliers (RobustScaler).
I found it curious how normalisation affects clustering.
If we filter by two criteria - probability bias from 5% and the number of examples in the cluster from 1% of rows, the variant without normalisation gives nothing at all, while the others are orders of magnitude higher:
MinMaxScaler - total percentage of sample lines train 4%
StandardScaler - total percentage of sample rows train 5.6%
RobustScaler - total percentage of sample lines train8,83% .
Yes, according to my criteria of string selection it is not enough sample for further training, except to try selection after clustering with RobustScaler normalisation method.
Here is what ChatGPT reports:
"
RobustScaler is a data normalisation method that uses the median and interquartile range to scale the data. This method is more robust to the presence of outliers in the data than the standard MinMaxScaler or StandardScaler.
Here's how RobustScaler works:
Calculating the median and interquartile range: Unlike MinMaxScaler or StandardScaler, which use the mean and standard deviation respectively, RobustScaler uses the median and interquartile range (IQR). The median is the value that divides the data distribution in half, and the IQR is the difference between the 75% quartile and 25% quartile values.
Data normalisation: Each trait value is then subtracted from the median and divided by the IQR. This scales the data so that it has a median of 0 and a spread of 1.
Benefits of RobustScaler :
Outlier robustness: The use of median and interquartile range makes RobustScaler more robust to outliers in the data. This allows it to better preserve the structure of the data in the presence of outliers.
Does not require assumptions about the distribution of the data: Because RobustScaler uses median and IQR, it does not require assumptions about the normal distribution of the data.
"
Earlier I published graphs of probability shifts in clusters here, but there the sample was on leaves, and now I decided to see how the situation would look like if I just took a sample, and I used different normalisation methods (the name of the method from the sklearn library is in brackets).
It looks like normalisation and scaling is done on the whole sample, and then the model is trained on the subsamples. You get peeking and improving the results.
It looks like normalisation and scaling is done on the whole sample and then training the model on the subsamples. The result is peeking and improving the results.
I don't think it should
I don't think it's supposed to
Well, agg data load contains the whole history? So clustering is done on the whole history.
You're as perceptive as a vanga.
Well, does the agg data load contain the whole history? So clustering is done on the whole history.
You don't fool me, you're as perceptive as a vanga.
No, the data is from files that have been subsampled before.
No, the data is from files split into subsamples earlier.
Where is the aplai on another subsample (test, exam) of the same scaler?
Where then is the aplai on the other subsample (test, exam) of the same scaler
It's kind of the same thing.
On the first sample we count, and apply on all of them in a loop.Where then is the aplai on the other subsample (test, exam) of the same scaler
like here.
Ah, well, let's say it's okay.
Then I don't understand why there's such a difference in the results.