In my last post I suggested that I was unsure of my coding of the cross validation test I had written so what I have done is take a new coding approach and completely rewritten the test, which I'm happy to say has been very successful. Using this newly coded implementation the out of sample accuracy of the trained neural nets is 100 %. As before, these tests were run overnight, but this time for a total of 2,400,000 separate test examples due to increased code efficiency.

The next test I'm going to code, more out of curiosity than anything else, is a concurrent cross validation test to test both my new neural net classifier algorithm and my Naive Bayesian Classifier together. I expect the NN to again obtain results similar to the above, but anticipate that the Naive Bayesian Classifier will perform quite poorly, achieving between 20 % to 30 % accuracy. I expect such low performance simply because the Naive Bayesian Classifier was developed using just 5 exemplar market type examples compared to 25 for the NN.

## Tuesday, 31 July 2012

## Friday, 20 July 2012

### Neural Net Cross Validation Tests Completed

These tests were conducted by looping over a series of replicated "idealised" market types; in each iteration cyclic component amplitudes were randomly chosen to range between 1 and 25 and phase shifts were randomly chosen such that the phase shifts that appear in the training set markets do not also appear in these cross validation sets of markets. For each combination of the above one of 25 possible market type changes was also randomly applied and then the relevant feature vector for each iteration was extracted. These tests were run overnight for a total of 1,200,000 separate, iterated test examples. The results are shown below.

Complete Accuracy percentage: 33.574500

"Acceptable" mis-classifications percentages

Predicted = uwr & actual = unr: 5.083417

Predicted = unr & actual = uwr: 7.230083

Predicted = dwr & actual = dnr: 5.170667

Predicted = dnr & actual = dwr: 7.180167

Predicted = uwr & actual = cyc: 3.287917

Predicted = dwr & actual = cyc: 7.180167

Predicted = cyc & actual = uwr: 3.623167

Predicted = cyc & actual = dwr: 3.554333

Dubious, difficult to trade mis-classification percentages

Predicted = uwr & actual = dwr: 2.432667

Predicted = unr & actual = dwr: 2.432667

Predicted = dwr & actual = uwr: 2.351500

Predicted = dnr & actual = uwr: 2.351500

Completely wrong classifications percentages

Predicted = unr & actual = dnr: 0.210083

Predicted = dnr & actual = unr: 0.207333

The complete accuracy percentage requires no comment. The "acceptable" mis-classifications are situations in which the erroneous prediction would not have one trading in a manner that would be inconsistent with the actual state of the market i.e. a predicted uwr and actual cyc is a situation where the market is predicted to be trending upwards with 50% retracements, but in actual fact is trending sideways in a cyclic manner. In either case one might be tempted to trade the swings of the market, so the mis-classification is acceptable because the erroneous prediction would still have you trading in a manner suitable to the "true" situation.

The "Dubious, difficult to trade" mis-classifications are where the above does not apply, i.e. attempting to swing trade in a bullish manner when in fact the market is trending down. One might get lucky and extract some profit, but in all probability the net expectation would be to make a loss. The completely wrong classifications again require no comment. The above totals of percentages do not add up to 100 because some combinations of mis-classifications are not included in this summary.

I'm not overwhelmed by these results, and so I shall continue to extend the features vector with more informative features to hopefully improve future cross validation test results. Also, I'm not 100% sure that my test implementation code is doing what I think it is doing, so that needs checking too.

On a related note, I've just enrolled in another online course, this time devoted entirely to neural nets.

Complete Accuracy percentage: 33.574500

"Acceptable" mis-classifications percentages

Predicted = uwr & actual = unr: 5.083417

Predicted = unr & actual = uwr: 7.230083

Predicted = dwr & actual = dnr: 5.170667

Predicted = dnr & actual = dwr: 7.180167

Predicted = uwr & actual = cyc: 3.287917

Predicted = dwr & actual = cyc: 7.180167

Predicted = cyc & actual = uwr: 3.623167

Predicted = cyc & actual = dwr: 3.554333

Dubious, difficult to trade mis-classification percentages

Predicted = uwr & actual = dwr: 2.432667

Predicted = unr & actual = dwr: 2.432667

Predicted = dwr & actual = uwr: 2.351500

Predicted = dnr & actual = uwr: 2.351500

Completely wrong classifications percentages

Predicted = unr & actual = dnr: 0.210083

Predicted = dnr & actual = unr: 0.207333

The complete accuracy percentage requires no comment. The "acceptable" mis-classifications are situations in which the erroneous prediction would not have one trading in a manner that would be inconsistent with the actual state of the market i.e. a predicted uwr and actual cyc is a situation where the market is predicted to be trending upwards with 50% retracements, but in actual fact is trending sideways in a cyclic manner. In either case one might be tempted to trade the swings of the market, so the mis-classification is acceptable because the erroneous prediction would still have you trading in a manner suitable to the "true" situation.

The "Dubious, difficult to trade" mis-classifications are where the above does not apply, i.e. attempting to swing trade in a bullish manner when in fact the market is trending down. One might get lucky and extract some profit, but in all probability the net expectation would be to make a loss. The completely wrong classifications again require no comment. The above totals of percentages do not add up to 100 because some combinations of mis-classifications are not included in this summary.

I'm not overwhelmed by these results, and so I shall continue to extend the features vector with more informative features to hopefully improve future cross validation test results. Also, I'm not 100% sure that my test implementation code is doing what I think it is doing, so that needs checking too.

On a related note, I've just enrolled in another online course, this time devoted entirely to neural nets.

## Wednesday, 18 July 2012

### Neural Net Training Completed

I am pleased to say that I have now completed the training of my NN market type classifier.

In an earlier post I mentioned that I had constructed a training set of 324,000 training examples to train the NN on. However, my first attempt at using this in its entirety wasn't successful, with an accuracy on the training set of between 52 % to 58 %. What's more, one training "session" lasted approximately 24 hours, with only 50 calls to the fmincg.m function ( a Java implementation is available from here ), and this would need to be repeated many times. This wasn't a practical proposition and I began to think about ways in which I could speed up the training process. One possible solution was to use other software and in my search of the internet I discovered the FANN library and the Fanntool GUI. After a close reading of the manuals I decided that for my purposes this wasn't the route I wanted to take, but in the future I may come back to this, particularly since the library has bindings to Octave.

After some consideration I decided to split the training set into smaller sets, with the intention of training numerous NNs, each trained to classify a market with a given period, and then to index into the relevant NN in a manner similar to that used in my brute force similarity classifier. The code for this training session is shown below.

So now I have a set of trained NNs, and the next step will be to test them on a cross validation set of my normal "ideal" market types, which will be the subject of my next post.

In an earlier post I mentioned that I had constructed a training set of 324,000 training examples to train the NN on. However, my first attempt at using this in its entirety wasn't successful, with an accuracy on the training set of between 52 % to 58 %. What's more, one training "session" lasted approximately 24 hours, with only 50 calls to the fmincg.m function ( a Java implementation is available from here ), and this would need to be repeated many times. This wasn't a practical proposition and I began to think about ways in which I could speed up the training process. One possible solution was to use other software and in my search of the internet I discovered the FANN library and the Fanntool GUI. After a close reading of the manuals I decided that for my purposes this wasn't the route I wanted to take, but in the future I may come back to this, particularly since the library has bindings to Octave.

After some consideration I decided to split the training set into smaller sets, with the intention of training numerous NNs, each trained to classify a market with a given period, and then to index into the relevant NN in a manner similar to that used in my brute force similarity classifier. The code for this training session is shown below.

```
% first, training data "training_data.mat" should be loaded in command line
clear -exclusive X y accurate_period % clear everything except y and X, previously loaded from the command line
% ************************************************************************
% Comment out the non relevant preprocessing step for the test in question
% ************************************************************************
% use X as it is for X_train
X_train = X ;
% ************************************************************************
% change zeros in X into -1 for X_train
%X_train = X ;
%change = X_train(:,4:end) ;
%change( change == 0 ) = -1 ;
%X_train(:,4:end) = change ;
%*************************************************************************
% train on just one period's features in X
% index into training set based on period measurement
% create final matrices for storing all unrolled Theta1 and Theta2 and cost record
all_ur_Theta1 = zeros(2862,288) ;
all_ur_Theta2 = zeros(270,288) ;
cost_record = zeros(288,4) ;
col_count = 1 ;
for period = 15:50
[i_X j_X] = find( accurate_period(:,1) == period ) ;
% extract the relevant part of X using above i_X index
X_train = X( [i_X] , 2:54 ) ;
% and same for market labels vector y
y_train = y( [i_X] , 1 ) ;
% ************************************************************************
%% Setup the parameter sizes
input_layer_size = size(X_train,2) ; % the number of features ( columns ) in X_train
hidden_layer_size = size(X_train,2) ; % original was 25 hidden units
num_labels = 5 ; % 5 labels, from 1 to 5
% 1=uwr 2=unr 3=dwr 4=dnr 5=cyc
for lambda = [ 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.3 1 3 10 30 ]
% Initializing Neural Network Parameters
initial_Theta1 = randInitializeWeights( input_layer_size , hidden_layer_size ) ;
initial_Theta2 = randInitializeWeights( hidden_layer_size , num_labels ) ;
% Unroll parameters
initial_nn_params = [ initial_Theta1(:) ; initial_Theta2(:) ] ;
%% =================== Training NN ===================
% To train the neural network, we will now use "fmincg", which
% is a function which works similarly to "fminunc". Recall that these
% advanced optimizers are able to train our cost functions efficiently as
% long as we provide them with the gradient computations.
%
fprintf( '\nTraining Neural Network... \n' )
% After you have completed the assignment, change the MaxIter to a larger
% value to see how more training helps.
options = optimset( 'MaxIter' , 200 ) ; % original was 50
% try different values of lambda
%lambda = 0.1 ;
% Create "short hand" for the cost function to be minimized
costFunction = @(p) nnCostFunction( p, ...
input_layer_size, ...
hidden_layer_size, ...
num_labels, X_train, y_train, lambda ) ;
% Now, costFunction is a function that takes in only one argument (the
% neural network parameters)
[ nn_params , cost ] = fmincg( costFunction , initial_nn_params , options ) ;
% Obtain Theta1 and Theta2 back from nn_params
Theta1 = reshape( nn_params( 1:hidden_layer_size * (input_layer_size + 1) ) , ...
hidden_layer_size , (input_layer_size + 1) ) ;
Theta2 = reshape( nn_params( (1 + (hidden_layer_size * (input_layer_size + 1))):end ) , ...
num_labels , (hidden_layer_size + 1) ) ;
%% ================= Implement Predict =================
% After training the neural network, we would like to use it to predict
% the labels. You will now implement the "predict" function to use the
% neural network to predict the labels of the training set. This lets
% you compute the training set accuracy.
pred = predict( Theta1 , Theta2 , X_train ) ;
training_set_accuracy = mean( double(pred == y_train) ) * 100.0 ;
fprintf( 'Training Set Accuracy: %f\n' , training_set_accuracy ) ;
fprintf( 'for lambda value of: %f\n' , lambda ) ;
fprintf( 'and period: %f\n' , period ) ;
% write to all_ur_Theta1 & all_ur_Theta2 & cost record
all_ur_Theta1(:,col_count) = Theta1(:) ;
all_ur_Theta2(:,col_count) = Theta2(:) ;
cost_record(col_count,1) = period ;
cost_record(col_count,2) = lambda ;
cost_record(col_count,3) = training_set_accuracy ;
cost_record(col_count,4) = cost(end) ;
col_count = col_count + 1 ;
end % lambda loop
end % period loop
save -binary all_ur_Thetas.mat all_ur_Theta1 all_ur_Theta2 cost_record
```

With 200 calls to the fmincg.m function this took an overnight run to complete, but in the morning I had extremely good results. For every period there was a trained NN that obtained 100 % accuracy. In fact for most periods there were several values for lambda ( a regularisation term to avoid over-fitting ) that gave 100 % accuracy, in which case I took the NN that had the lowest cost for 100 % accuracy.So now I have a set of trained NNs, and the next step will be to test them on a cross validation set of my normal "ideal" market types, which will be the subject of my next post.

Labels:
Machine Learning,
Market Classifier,
Neural nets,
Octave

## Monday, 16 July 2012

### Jack Schwagger on Youtube

I have just watched a very interesting Youtube video of Jack Schwagger, of Market Wizards fame, giving a presentation. Well worth watching.

Update on Neural Network:- as I write this I have a NN training session running in Octave, which looks very promising. More in a new post in a day or so.

Update on Neural Network:- as I write this I have a NN training session running in Octave, which looks very promising. More in a new post in a day or so.

## Thursday, 12 July 2012

### Brute Force Classifier in Action

As an update to my recent post, here is a short video of the brute force similarity search classifier in action.

Non-embedded view here.

The coloured coded candlestick bars are coloured thus: purple = a cyclic market classification; green = up with retracement; blue = up with no retracement; yellow = down with retracement; red = down with no retracement. The upper price series is the classification as per the brute force algorithm and the lower is the classification as per my Naive Bayesian classifier, shown for comparative purposes. The cyan trend line is my implementation of a Kalman filter, and where this trend line extends out at the hard right hand edge of the chart it changes to become the prediction of the Kalman filter for the next 10 bars, this prediction based on extending the pattern that was selected during the run of the brute force algorithm.

I will leave it up to readers to judge for themselves the efficacy of this new indicator, but I think it shows some promise, and I have some ideas about how it can be improved. This, however, is work for the future. For now I intend to crack on with working on my neural net classification algorithm.

Non-embedded view here.

The coloured coded candlestick bars are coloured thus: purple = a cyclic market classification; green = up with retracement; blue = up with no retracement; yellow = down with retracement; red = down with no retracement. The upper price series is the classification as per the brute force algorithm and the lower is the classification as per my Naive Bayesian classifier, shown for comparative purposes. The cyan trend line is my implementation of a Kalman filter, and where this trend line extends out at the hard right hand edge of the chart it changes to become the prediction of the Kalman filter for the next 10 bars, this prediction based on extending the pattern that was selected during the run of the brute force algorithm.

I will leave it up to readers to judge for themselves the efficacy of this new indicator, but I think it shows some promise, and I have some ideas about how it can be improved. This, however, is work for the future. For now I intend to crack on with working on my neural net classification algorithm.

## Saturday, 7 July 2012

### A Possible Brute Force Similarity Classifier in Octave Code

As part of the development of my neural net classifier it has been necessary to use training data and as usual I have been using my model market types. To increase the amount of such training data I have extended the range of the data to include a change in market type half way through the cycle of one measured cyclic period. I have done this in increments of 1 degree from 1 degree to 360 degrees of a sine wave, for periods 15 to 50, for all possible combinations of market type, for a total database of 324,000 possible market model patterns. However, it struck me after reading this pdf that I could use this database as the basis of what is called in the pdf a "brute force similarity search" classifier. Below is my proof of concept Octave code implementation of such a classifier,

octave:1> bf_pattern_recognition

Enter a number from 1 to 324,000 to choose a lookup candidate row from X: 100235

Based on this choice the market type to look up is :- ans = 3

and the algo returns a market type of :- ans = 3

with a calculated Euclidean distance of :- ans = 0

which ideally should be 0.0 on this X test set.

Original lookup row check.

original_i_X_check = 100235

which ideally should be the same as row choice entered.

Time for algo to run.

Elapsed time is 0.1130519 seconds.

octave:2>

Of course it obtains 100 % accuracy on the test set X because the original choice of pattern to be matched comes from X so there is always an exact match to be found. The important thing is that this is a workable algorithm which, making allowances for all the print statements included in the above code, runs in hundredths of a second.

This speed, despite having such a large database to search through, is achieved by indexing into the database by the measured period of the pattern to be matched, which is the first entry on each line. This reduces the search base down to a more manageable 9000 row matrix, and then one line of vectorised code is used to perform the actual Euclidean distance search and classification.

Another possible advantage of this approach on real market data is that, having hopefully accurately classified the data, the matched pattern in the database can be extrapolated under the assumption that the market model will persist for the next 5 to 10 bars, to make a prediction of near future prices. I shall certainly be doing more work will this classifying algorithm!

```
% first, training data "training_data.mat" should be loaded in command line
clear -exclusive X y % clear everything except y and X, previously loaded from the command line
lookup_value = input( 'Enter a number from 1 to 324,000 to choose a lookup candidate row from X: ' ) ;
fprintf( 'Based on this choice the market type to look up is :- ' ) ;
y( lookup_value , 1 )
tic() ;
% index into training set based on period measurement
[i_X j_X] = find( X(:,1) == X( lookup_value , 1 ) ) ;
% keep a record of all i_X indexes
all_i_X = i_X ;
% extract the relevant part of X using above index
X_look_up_matrix = X( [i_X] , 4:54 ) ;
% and same for market labels vector y
y_look_up_vector = y( [i_X] , 1 ) ;
% find pattern in X_look_up_matrix that minimises Euclidean distance between itself and the training example randomly taken from X
[ euc_dist_min i_euc_dist_min ] = min( sum( ( repmat( X(lookup_value,4:54), size(X_look_up_matrix,1), 1) .- X_look_up_matrix ) .^ 2.0 , 2 , 'extra' ) ) ;
fprintf( 'and the algo returns a market type of :- ' ) ;
% take this minimum distance vector index to get predicted market type
y_look_up_vector( i_euc_dist_min , 1 )
fprintf( '\nwith a calculated Euclidean distance of :- ' ) ;
double(euc_dist_min)
fprintf( 'which ideally should be 0.0 on this X test set.\n' ) ;
fprintf( '\nOriginal lookup row check.\n' ) ;
original_i_X_check = all_i_X( i_euc_dist_min , 1 )
fprintf( 'which ideally should be the same as row choice entered.\n' ) ;
fprintf( '\nTime for algo to run.\n' ) ;
toc() ;
```

where X is the database already mentioned and y is a vector containing the market type labels. Typical terminal output of this code isoctave:1> bf_pattern_recognition

Enter a number from 1 to 324,000 to choose a lookup candidate row from X: 100235

Based on this choice the market type to look up is :- ans = 3

and the algo returns a market type of :- ans = 3

with a calculated Euclidean distance of :- ans = 0

which ideally should be 0.0 on this X test set.

Original lookup row check.

original_i_X_check = 100235

which ideally should be the same as row choice entered.

Time for algo to run.

Elapsed time is 0.1130519 seconds.

octave:2>

Of course it obtains 100 % accuracy on the test set X because the original choice of pattern to be matched comes from X so there is always an exact match to be found. The important thing is that this is a workable algorithm which, making allowances for all the print statements included in the above code, runs in hundredths of a second.

This speed, despite having such a large database to search through, is achieved by indexing into the database by the measured period of the pattern to be matched, which is the first entry on each line. This reduces the search base down to a more manageable 9000 row matrix, and then one line of vectorised code is used to perform the actual Euclidean distance search and classification.

Another possible advantage of this approach on real market data is that, having hopefully accurately classified the data, the matched pattern in the database can be extrapolated under the assumption that the market model will persist for the next 5 to 10 bars, to make a prediction of near future prices. I shall certainly be doing more work will this classifying algorithm!

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)