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.

No comments: