Re: RE: [amibroker] Re: Fitness Criteria that incorporates Walk Forward Result, AmiBroker Email List Archive

During in sample optimization Fitness is adjusted for sensitivity if users direct it to be so ...

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Ho
Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 10:26 am
Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: Fitness Criteria that incorporates Walk Forward Result
To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Fred
> Fitness is adjusted for sensitivity isnt it? even though it
> doesnt prelude
> it.
>
>
> _____
>
> From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Fred Tonetti
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2008 11:49 PM
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: Fitness Criteria that incorporates
> Walk Forward
> Result
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> Sensitivity analysis during in sample optimization is not
> directly related
> to finding a new fitness high.
>
>
>
> That would be too restrictive and might well preclude finding
> solutions that
> have better fitness after being adjusted for sensitivity.
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Paul Ho
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:37 AM
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [amibroker] Re: Fitness Criteria that incorporates Walk
> ForwardResult
>
>
>
> Hi Fred
> Yes, I want to use the composite fitness to compare different
> systems
> and or use it as a feedback in deciding on different parameter
> sets
> of the same system, This is not too dissimilar to how
> sensitivity
> analysis is incorporated into the fitness criteria. The only
> difference is that sensitivity analysis during optimization, and
> walk
> forward is done after a new fitness high is found. Instead of
> using
> the insample fitness as the selection criteria for the best fit
> system, the composite is criteria is used to choose among the
> various
> peak values in one system or in different systems.
>
> What you said "the capability to automatically reoptimize when
> some
> condition related to the performance metrics occurs during the
> out of
> sample period i.e. MDD goes beyond some static threshold or when
> it
> goes beyond some relationship to the same" is particularly
> interesting. Because you are addressing a similar problem but
> using a
> different method, in your case, you change the time frame and
> reoptimize. In my case, I am looking at refining my fitness
> criteria
> so I might end up in choosing a different optimized parameter
> set in
> the same time frame.
>
> Paul.
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxx
> ps.com, Fred
> Tonetti wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> >
> >
> > I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure what you do
> with
> the
> > combined fitness when you get it . Do you use it to compare
> different
> > systems to each other ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Personally from the perspective of multiple automated WF's I
> am more
> > interested in . When to reoptimize .
> >
> >
> >
> > IO already has the capability to reoptimize based on:
> >
> >
> >
> > - Some static amount of time occurring during the OOS i.e.
> >
> >
> >
> > //IO: WFAuto: Rolling: 2: Weeks
> >
> >
> >
> > - or in some undefined amount of time based on some number of
> long/short
> > entries/exits etc i.e.
> >
> >
> >
> > //IO: WFAuto: Rolling: 2: LongEntrys
> >
> >
> >
> > What I've been playing with recently is something a little
> different that is
> > also based on a variable amount of time in the OOS i.e. the
> capability to
> > automatically reoptimize when some condition related to the
> performance
> > metrics occurs during the out of sample period i.e. MDD goes
> beyond
> some
> > static threshold or when it goes beyond some relationship to
> the
> same or
> > different performance metrics of in sample.
> >
> >
> >
> > For example .
> >
> >
> >
> > Assume the In Sample Performance Metrics are prefaced by IS
> and Out
> of
> > Sample Performance Metrics are prefaced by OS then one should
> be
> able to
> > write ( in terms of IO Directives )
> >
> > //IO: WFAuto: Rolling: Condition: OSMDD > 10 or OSMDD > 0.75 * ISMDD
> >
> >
> >
> > In reality I suspect this is what most people actually do i.e.
> find
> some
> > yardstick(s) that tell them their system is broken or about to
> be
> broken and
> > then reoptimize at that time.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxx
> ps.com[mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxx
> ps.com]
> On Behalf
> > Of Paul Ho
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:41 AM
> > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxx ps.com
> > Subject: [amibroker] Fitness Criteria that incorporates Walk
> Forward Result
> >
> >
> >
> > Howard calls it the objective function. Fred calls it Fitness.
> What
> I
> > meant by Fitness Criteria is a mathematical function on which
> fitness
> > or goodness of the system is judged, and is used as an
> objective
> > criteria to compare different systems, as a score in
> optimization.
> >
> > My currrent question is - So why not incorporate the fitness
> in
> walk
> > forward analysis into our fitness criteria? What I am talking
> about
> > is to formalise the visual inspection process. I am not
> proposing
> to
> > use out of sample data for optimization purposes. Rather the
> > parameter set that has been previously optimized is forward
> tested
> > and a fitness is obtained and incorporated into the original
> criteria
> > to form a composite fitness.
> >
> > For example. My current composite fitness is the geometric
> average
> of
> > In sample fitness and Out of sample fitness divided by the
> standard
> > deviation (?) of In sample and out of sample fitness.
> >
> > Are there anybody doing something is this area? What are your
> > thoughts?
> >
> > If you are wondering why not use visual inspection. My plan is
> to
> use
> > the computer to do most of the work and thats why I need a
> fitness
> > criteria.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Paul.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>