[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RE: [amibroker] Re: Fitness Criteria that incorporates Walk Forward Result



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

Paul,
 
Let's take this offline ... Tell me what you have in mind via email and I'll consider it ...

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Ho
Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 12:28 pm
Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: Fitness Criteria that incorporates Walk Forward Result
To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> The purpose of OOS is to make sure there is no over fitting of
> data. So all
> optimization is done on In sample data. It is always possible to
> have more
> than 1 set of optimized parameters, because of different
> markets, or
> different selection of stocks, different parameters being
> optimized or even
> different fitness criteria. I currently run my optimzation
> nearly 3000
> tickers, generating thousands of trades. There needs to be a
> systematic way
> of choosing the "right" system and I strongly argue that OOS has
> a major
> role in that. I think it is not invalidating the OOS because,
> the amount of
> data mining is very small compared to insample. I think by just
> examing it
> casually, OOS is under utilised, at least in my case. From what
> I hear, a
> lot of people only optimize on individual or just a few tickers
> and the
> degree of freedom is comparatively low. What I do here is to run
> optimization over the whole ASX exchange, past and present.
> Finally, I think you should consider automating the process in
> IO and allow
> the user a choice.
> Cheers
> Paul
>
>
> _____
>
> From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Fred Tonetti
> Sent: Thursday, 8 May 2008 12:12 AM
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: Fitness Criteria that incorporates
> Walk Forward
> Result
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> One other word of caution .
>
>
>
> If you are using OOS testing to drive the selection process of
> parameters to
> be used in sample then you run the risk of invalidating the OOS.
>
>
>
> I could have automated this process in IO but I didn't for
> exactly this
> reason.
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> 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.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__._,_.___

Please note that this group is for discussion between users only.

To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com

For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/

For other support material please check also:
http://www.amibroker.com/support.html




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___