|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> Yes you are right. Windows is black box. It truly is. And several
>people were so worried that they developed Linux :-)
If I was a developer I guess I wouldn't be so in love with MSFT then.
brian_z
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Tomasz Janeczko" <groups@xxx>
wrote:
>
> Yes you are right. Windows is black box. It truly is. And several
people were so worried that they developed Linux :-)
>
> Visual Studio - fortunatelly Microsoft DOES provide source codes
for MFC and you can single-step into source down to C++ or assembly
level
> on ANY code produced by Visual Studio. Without that I won't use it.
Many times I needed to investigate the sources of MFC
> to find why things work that way or another. There are zillions of
details that do not exist in Microsoft help files, but
> can be revealed when analysing MFC sources.
>
> The main thing that makes difference whenever you need sources or
not is the ability to validate results.
>
> If you have Windows function SetWindowText that just sets the text
for the window, it is easy to verify if it works or not, without
having source code.
> The same with AmiBroker's AFL functions. It is easy to verify if 10-
day simple moving average is correct or not.
>
> As 2*2 the result is 4 and everyone knows that. With "intelligent
search" algorithm the answers are not that obvious. Very few
evolutionary algorithms
> have strong mathematical proofs behind them.
>
> That's why having source files is huge advantage, and that's why
all non-exhaustive optimizers from AmiBroker come with the source
code.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz Janeczko
> amibroker.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fred Tonetti
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 9:01 PM
> Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: The EASIEST way to use new optimizer
engines
>
>
> Thanks for your comments about the individual engines . What I
have or haven't read has nothing to do with how someone chose to
implement something. IO too is capable of performing multiple runs
or what I termed "passes" but this is implemented somewhat
differently as documented.
>
>
>
> One last thought about "black boxes" . By your definition Windows
would be a black box as would Visual Studio or for that matter all of
AmiBroker with the exception of the plugins where the code was
supplied.
>
>
>
> Should we not use these tools because they are black boxes ?
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
> From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tomasz Janeczko
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:12 AM
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: The EASIEST way to use new optimizer
engines
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Fred>"fairly standard simple algorithms with some tweaks that
after tons of experimentation "
>
> The PSO was first described in 1995 by James Kennedy and Russel
C. Eberhart, since then
> LOTS of people developed their own algorithms based on PSO.
> There are at least 20 DIFFERENT PSO public algorithms that I
know. All producing different results. What is "fairly standard"
then?
> I am pretty sure that you are not using Standard 2007
(as "spso"), are you???
> Unless source code for IO is provided, it *IS* a black box.
>
>
>
> Fred> How does one intelligently decide how many runs and tests
to use for PSO & Tribes based on differing number of variables to be
optimized ?
>
> You actually answered yourself: you decide "after tons of
experimentation". Depending on problem under test, its complexity,
etc, etc.
> Any stochastic non-exhaustive method does not give you guarantee
of finding global max/min, regardless of number of tests if it is
smaller
> than exhaustive. The easiest answer is to : specify as large
number of tests as it is reasonable for you in terms of time required
to complete.
> Another simple advice is to multiply by 10 the number of tests
with adding new dimension. That may lead to overestimating number
> of tests required, but it is quite safe.
> In case you did not notice this is a very first version that is
subject to improvements. I want to keep things simple to use and do
not require
> people to read 60+ page doc to be able to run first optimization.
Therefore the work is being done to provide "reasonable"
default/automatic values
> so optimization can be run without specifying anything.
>
> Fred> What happens differently for these two engines when one
specifies 5 runs of 1000 tests versus 1 run of 5000 tests ?
>
> Well, if you read that many scientific papers on intelligent
methods, you should already now the difference, as it is the most
basic thing.
> TEST (or evaluation) is single backtest (or evaluation of
objective function value).
> RUN is one full run of the algorithm (finding optimum value).
> Each run simply RESTARTS the entire optimization process from the
new beginning (new initial random population).
> Therefore each run may lead to finding different local max/min
(if it does not find global one).
>
> Once you know the basics the difference is obvious.
> 5 RUNS of 1000 tests is simply doing 5 times the 1000-backtest
PSO optimization .
> 1 RUN of 5000 tests is simply doing 5000-backtest PSO
optimization ONCE only.
>
> Now if the problem is relatively simple and 1000 tests are enough
to find global max, 5x1000 is more likely to find global maximum
> because there are less chances to be stuck in local max, as
subsequent runs will start from different initial random population.
>
> The difference will be if problem is complex enough (has many
dimensions). In that case running 1x5000 is more likely to
> produce better result.
>
> Actually this can be used as a stop condition. You can for
example say that you want to restart (make another run) as long
> as two (or three) subsequent runs produce the same maximum.
>
> CMA-ES is slightly different in terms of how RUN is interpreted.
>
> Currently the CMA-ES plugin implements G-CMA-ES flavour (i.e.
global search with increasing population size).
> As it is written in the READ ME
>
> http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/wp-
content/uploads/2008/06/readme5130.html
>
>
> You may vary it using OptimizerSetOption("Runs", N ) call, where
N should be in range 1..10.
> Specifying more than 10 runs is not recommended, although
possible.
>
> **** Note that each run uses TWICE the size of population of
previous run so it grows exponentially.
> Therefore with 10 runs you end up with population 2^10 greater
(1024 times) than the first run. ****
>
>
>
> So each subsequent CMA-ES run will take TWICE as much time as
previous one and TWICE the population size.
>
>
>
> Of course this can be changed (the source code is available and
well documented).
>
>
> Fred> How should one set up CMA-ES so that it produces
superior results in less time for problems like the one I outlined
i.e. that are of a type that can not be solved by exhaustive
search ?
>
>
>
> Just use one run.
>
>
>
> OptimizeSetOption("Runs", 1 );
>
>
>
> it will produce results in less time.
>
> Doing so is actually equivalent to running L-CMA-ES (local
search).
>
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz Janeczko
> amibroker.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fred Tonetti
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:46 AM
> Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: The EASIEST way to use new optimizer
engines
>
>
> TJ,
>
> IO, which was preceded by PSO, was initially an experiment to
determine whether or not it could even be done and then whether or
not it was a worthwhile tool to have.
>
> Following that it was and is for the most part a give back to the
community as most of the bells and whistles are FREEWARE in a user
friendly format. Stating that it is a black box is absurd as it uses
fairly standard simple algorithms with some tweaks that after tons of
experimentation I know to be of benefit and users have control over
all aspects of how the algorithms work from their AFL if they choose
to use them without having to research them on the internet as
there's 60+ pages of documentation about what has been implemented,
how it works and the associated feature/functions .
>
> Frankly I could care less if anyone ever bought a copy with the
more advanced features as the fees associated with those features
were put on simply to reduce the amount of support that would no
doubt be required if the entire community used them.
>
> What I want to compare is the usefulness of the different engines
for different types of problems and how long they take to arrive at
relatively decent results to solve problems that can not be solved by
exhaustive search and to that end I have already asked several
straight forward questions that for whatever reason you have chosen
to ignore . So I'll try them again .
>
> - How does one intelligently decide how many runs and
tests to use for PSO & Tribes based on differing number of variables
to be optimized ?
>
> - What happens differently for these two engines when
one specifies 5 runs of 1000 tests versus 1 run of 5000 tests ?
>
> - How should one set up CMA-ES so that it produces
superior results in less time for problems like the one I outlined
i.e. that are of a type that can not be solved by exhaustive
search ?
>
> These are basic questions about the use of the intelligent
optimization engines that you have chosen to include in the product
which I would think lots of folks would want the answers to without
having to search the internet.
>
> Personally I've already read way beyond my share of scientific
papers on intelligent optimization.
>
>
>
>
> From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tomasz Janeczko
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 3:59 AM
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: The EASIEST way to use new optimizer
engines
>
> Fred,
>
> I don't know why you took some kind of mission on criticizing
last developments maybe this is because
> you are selling IO while AB optimizer is offered as free upgrade
and that makes you angry.
> I don't know why this is so, because actually you can benefit
from that too - I have provided
> full source code so everything is open for innovation and
improvement, unlike black box IO.
>
> The fact is that you are comparing APPLES TO ORANGES.
>
> You should really READ the documentation I have provided and
visit links I have provided.
>
> CMA-ES DEFAULTS are well suited for tests that are replacement of
exhaustive searches.
>
> They are however too large for 15 variables. For example CMO by
default will use
> 900 * (N + 3 ) * (N+3 ) max evaluations. It converges much
quicker therefore estimate
> displayed in the progress bar is calculated as follows 30 * (N+3)
* (N+3)
>
> You are comparing 1000 evaluations of PSO with CONSTANT
population size
> to 10000+ evaluations of CMAE with GROWING population size
default settings.
>
> You are comparing elephant to an ant.
>
> If you want to COMPARE things you need to set up IDENTICAL
conditions.
> That would be:
>
> OptimizerSetOption("Runs", 1 );
> OptimizerSetOption("MaxEval", 10000 );
>
> With *IDENTICAL* conditions, CMA-ES will run faster.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz Janeczko
> amibroker.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fred Tonetti
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:15 AM
> Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: The EASIEST way to use new optimizer
engines
>
> It is somewhat meaningless to compare intelligent optimizers with
exhaustive search due to the fact that for most real world problems
exhaustive search would need more time than the universe has been
around to solve them . It is also somewhat meaningless to compare
intelligent optimizers with each other based on problems that are
solvable by exhaustive search.
>
> In regards to the imbedded PSO & Tribes algorithms you state .
>
> "You should increase the number of evaluations with increasing
number of dimensions. The default 1000 is good for 2 or maximum 3
dimensions" .
>
> Can you provide any guidance as to what relationship should exist
between the number of dimensions and the number of tests ? i.e.
what's a reasonable number of tests for 5 dimensions, 10, 100 ?
>
> Can you explain the difference between 1 run with 5000 tests and
5 runs with 1000 tests ?
>
>
> As far as CMAE is concerned . Maybe I'm missing something but it
doesn't seem that CMAE has anything in terms of speed over AB's PSO
or Tribes .
>
> I tried CMAE out on a real world intelligent optimization problem
with 15 variables trading 100 symbols by adding the required
statement to the AFL .
>
> Run time for CMAE to complete was 459 minutes .
>
>
> Run times for AB's PSO and Tribes to complete with 5 runs and
1000 tests was in the neighborhood of 75 minutes each with results
being the sane as CMAE.
>
>
> As an FYI .
>
> Run times for IO's DE and PS to complete via their own internal
decision making process w/o the help of additional cores ( servers )
was in the same neighborhood with times of 72 and 53 minutes
respectively.
>
> With the help of additional cores ( 7 ) IO's DE and PSO ran to
completion in 11 and 8 minutes respectively .
>
>
>
>
>
> From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tomasz Janeczko
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 8:05 PM
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: The EASIEST way to use new optimizer
engines
>
> FYI: using new optimizer engine (cmae) to optimize seemingly
> simple 3 parameter (ranging 1..100) system gives speed up
> of more than 1000 times, as cmae optimizer is able to find best
> value in less than 1000 backtests compared to one million
backtests
> using exhaustive search. It also outperforms PSO usually by
factor of 10.
>
> That is 500 times faster than you would get from exhaustive opt
using your dual core
> and 5 times faster than PSO on dual core.
>
> CMA-ES delivers MORE in terms of speed with LESS development time.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz Janeczko
> amibroker.com
>
>
>
>
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 492 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try SPAMfighter for free now!
>
>
>
>
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 492 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try SPAMfighter for free now!
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 492 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try SPAMfighter for free now!
>
------------------------------------
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:amibroker-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:amibroker-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|