that link I gave on the wiki about the semi. I understood the marks are the edges of the stable sections.
ZZ does not go, because marking just goes without differences of sites, and learning goes the same way, and if by labels ZZ it is like too many examples with different features and the result of learning can not be good.
Labels are known target\classes. The rest of the data without them, just in the form of traits
These labels are supposed to carry some meaning. For example, labels that are cats or crocodiles
in our case we have no idea where the cats are. I.e. we don't know any patterns and how they differ, this makes it even more difficult
so the initial marking of labels can bruteforce, go through the variants
are just the known target classes. The rest of the data without them.
It's like setting the right search direction.))
Maxim Dmitrievsky:
These labels are supposed to carry some meaning. For example, tags that it's cats or crocodiles
In our case, we have no idea where the cats are. That is, we do not know any patterns and how they differ, this further complicates the task
so we can bruteforce the initial markings, go through the variants.
Full bruteforcing is always better than incomplete bruteforcing. The point about not full correct markup has always been there. And the curse of dimensionality is only solved by getting the search direction right. It's a question of finding / determining a good area to search for variants.
I tried to extend the idea of acceptability of small samples for GMM. Train 6 months, test 5 years. I split tags into n parts of fixed size. For each part I created my own GMM model, generated 1000 samples from each, piled them up and trained the catbust. I picked up the features and got like this:
One fixed target was used in both cases. I can reproduce this experiment if you wish. I am not strong in the interpretation of such phenomena, perhaps there is an explanation.
I tried to extend the idea of acceptability of small samples for GMM. Train 6 months, test 5 years. I split tags into n parts of fixed size. For each part I created my own GMM model, generated 1000 samples from each, piled them up and trained the catbust. I picked up the features and got like this:
Second version, same labels, with the same partitioning, but with pre-mixing:
One fixed target was used in both cases. I can reproduce this experiment if you wish. I am not strong in the interpretation of such phenomena, perhaps there is an explanation.
Is this mixing before gmm or before boost? You should check the class balance for traine/test. Maybe zeros went to traine and ones to test. You could also try separate clustering by buy and sell marks.
Maxim Dmitrievsky: Is this mixing before the gmm or before the boost? You need to check the class balance for traine/test. Maybe zeros went to traine and ones to test. You could also try separate clustering by buy and sell marks.
this always brings the class balance to 1/1 with slight variations:
count labels 0 before GMM: 57
count labels 1 before GMM: 58
In this case, 115 tags were shuffled, and divided into 4 parts. Then 4 GMM models were created based on them. From each, 1000 labels are sampled and they are combined into one dataframe. After that it was split into trace and test.
The balance of samples classes in this case was a little different from the ideal. But the samples of the train and the test had approximately the same ratio
count labels train before train_test_split lab0/lab1 2006/1994
count labels train before CatBoost lab0/lab1 972/1028
count labels test before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1034/966
Iteration: 0 R^2: -0.09193595558595069
count labels train before train_test_split lab0/lab1 1956/2044
count labels train before CatBoost lab0/lab1 968/1032
count labels test before CatBoost lab0/lab1 988/1012
Iteration: 1 R^2: 0.2187933983460144
count labels train before train_test_split lab0/lab1 1937/2063
count labels train before CatBoost lab0/lab1 968/1032
count labels test before CatBoost lab0/lab1 969/1031
Iteration: 2 R^2: 0.07935341972355503
count labels train before train_test_split lab0/lab1 2004/1996
count labels train before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1006/994
count labels test before CatBoost lab0/lab1 998/1002
Iteration: 3 R^2: 0.5243959241368454
count labels train before train_test_split lab0/lab1 2002/1998
count labels train before CatBoost lab0/lab1 999/1001
count labels test before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1003/997
Iteration: 4 R^2: -0.11495440249539668
count labels train before train_test_split lab0/lab1 2034/1966
count labels train before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1016/984
count labels test before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1018/982
Iteration: 5 R^2: -0.2007764868672567
...
Below are the simulation results with the same sample of 115 tags split into 4 parts, but without mixing. The balance of classes, of course, a little better, but I think it does not significantly affect the result.
count labels train before train_test_split lab0/lab1 2012/1988
count labels train before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1008/992
count labels test before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1004/996
Iteration: 0 R^2: 0.6604621522811843
count labels train before train_test_split lab0/lab1 1978/2022
count labels train before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1003/997
count labels test before CatBoost lab0/lab1 975/1025
Iteration: 1 R^2: 0.9280130097632814
count labels train before train_test_split lab0/lab1 2024/1976
count labels train before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1031/969
count labels test before CatBoost lab0/lab1 993/1007
Iteration: 2 R^2: 0.8262169779783981
count labels train before train_test_split lab0/lab1 1980/2020
count labels train before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1010/990
count labels test before CatBoost lab0/lab1 970/1030
Iteration: 3 R^2: 0.9348696093090818
count labels train before train_test_split lab0/lab1 2030/1970
count labels train before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1016/984
count labels test before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1014/986
Iteration: 4 R^2: 0.5284975351783288
count labels train before train_test_split lab0/lab1 2042/1958
count labels train before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1024/976
count labels test before CatBoost lab0/lab1 1018/982
Iteration: 5 R^2: 0.9246045699747673
...
This may sound silly, but it seems to me that there is some kind of time correlation in the series that GMM models find in different parts of the series. It disappears if you break the ordering by shuffling the row.
I didn't think about separate clustering, I'll try it tonight.
Сбербанк запустил сервис, в котором диагноз по описанным пациентами симптомам будет ставить искусственный интеллект. Цифровая медицина — перспективное направление, но эксперты пока видят очень много рисков в «лечении» нейросетями Входящие в группу Сбербанка компании — «СберЗдоровье», «СберМед ИИ» и «Лаборатория по искусственному интеллекту» —...
this always brings the class balance to 1/1 with slight variations:
In this case, 115 labels were shuffled, and divided into 4 parts. Then 4 GMM models were created based on them. From each, 1000 labels are sampled and they are combined into one dataframe. After that it was split into trace and test.
The balance of samples classes in this case was a little different from the ideal. But the samples of the train and the test had approximately the same ratio
Below are the simulation results with the same sample of 115 tags split into 4 parts, but without mixing. The balance of classes, of course, a little better, but I think it does not significantly affect the result.
This may sound silly, but it seems to me that there is some kind of time correlation in the series that GMM models find in different parts of the series. It disappears if you break the ordering by shuffling the row.
I hadn't thought about separate clustering, I'll try it tonight.
I'll have to draw it, it's not very clear... Well, the fact that the distributions are different in both cases. Plus you have already removed the serialization. Most likely the distributions are heavily uninformative, and the new points after sampling start to lie in the middle of nowhere. I.e. the information in the series is lost, yes, since the quotes are not independent.
Or do on some simple example (not quotes) and compare then.
I'll have to draw, it's not very clear... Well, the fact that the distributions are different in both cases is a fact. Plus you have already removed the seriality. Most likely, the distributions are very uninformative, and the new points after sampling start to lie in an incomprehensible place. I.e. the information in the series is lost, yes, since the quotes are not independent.
Or do it on some simple example (not quotes) and compare then.
Maxim, hi. It's been a long time since I came here... I may be interested in your article) I have installed Python) I should understand it and have lots of questions))) I take it MARKUP is a spread? Markup is a simple comparison of current value with the current + a random number, depending on the sign > or < you put a markup 1 or 0. right? For the test, you set markup=0.0? (if the tray MARKUP=0.00001)) right?
Maxim, hi. It's been a long time since I came here... It's about your last article) I have installed Python) I'm trying to understand it, and I have a lot of questions))) I take it MARKUP is a spread? Markup is a simple comparison of current value with the current + a random number, depending on the sign > or < you put a markup 1 or 0. right? For a test, you put markup=0.0? ( I think it's MARKUP=0.00001)) right?
Hi. Yes, that's right. The same markup is used in the tester. About articles is probably better to ask in the articles. That in one place was
I analyze the feedback and see what can be improved
that link I gave on the wiki about the semi. I understood the marks are the edges of the stable sections.
ZZ does not go, because marking just goes without differences of sites, and learning goes the same way, and if by labels ZZ it is like too many examples with different features and the result of learning can not be good.
Labels are known target\classes. The rest of the data without them, just in the form of traits
These labels are supposed to carry some meaning. For example, labels that are cats or crocodiles
in our case we have no idea where the cats are. I.e. we don't know any patterns and how they differ, this makes it even more difficult
so the initial marking of labels can bruteforce, go through the variants
are just the known target classes. The rest of the data without them.
It's like setting the right search direction.))
These labels are supposed to carry some meaning. For example, tags that it's cats or crocodiles
In our case, we have no idea where the cats are. That is, we do not know any patterns and how they differ, this further complicates the task
so we can bruteforce the initial markings, go through the variants.
Full bruteforcing is always better than incomplete bruteforcing. The point about not full correct markup has always been there. And the curse of dimensionality is only solved by getting the search direction right. It's a question of finding / determining a good area to search for variants.
I tried to extend the idea of acceptability of small samples for GMM. Train 6 months, test 5 years. I split tags into n parts of fixed size. For each part I created my own GMM model, generated 1000 samples from each, piled them up and trained the catbust. I picked up the features and got like this:
Second version, same labels, with the same partitioning, but with pre-mixing:
X = X.sample(frac=1.0)One fixed target was used in both cases. I can reproduce this experiment if you wish. I am not strong in the interpretation of such phenomena, perhaps there is an explanation.
I tried to extend the idea of acceptability of small samples for GMM. Train 6 months, test 5 years. I split tags into n parts of fixed size. For each part I created my own GMM model, generated 1000 samples from each, piled them up and trained the catbust. I picked up the features and got like this:
Second version, same labels, with the same partitioning, but with pre-mixing:
One fixed target was used in both cases. I can reproduce this experiment if you wish. I am not strong in the interpretation of such phenomena, perhaps there is an explanation.
Sorry, guys, there's a question.
What is the number of weighting ratios in your grids, and how many trades are being trained on?
I want to understand the relationship between those numbers and speculate on the dependence of overtraining on that relationship. Thank you.
Is this mixing before the gmm or before the boost? You need to check the class balance for traine/test. Maybe zeros went to traine and ones to test. You could also try separate clustering by buy and sell marks.
Mixing is done before creating GMM.
Before that I drop labels by condition:
this always brings the class balance to 1/1 with slight variations:
In this case, 115 tags were shuffled, and divided into 4 parts. Then 4 GMM models were created based on them. From each, 1000 labels are sampled and they are combined into one dataframe. After that it was split into trace and test.
The balance of samples classes in this case was a little different from the ideal. But the samples of the train and the test had approximately the same ratio
Below are the simulation results with the same sample of 115 tags split into 4 parts, but without mixing. The balance of classes, of course, a little better, but I think it does not significantly affect the result.
This may sound silly, but it seems to me that there is some kind of time correlation in the series that GMM models find in different parts of the series. It disappears if you break the ordering by shuffling the row.
I didn't think about separate clustering, I'll try it tonight.
Stirring is done before creating the GMM.
Before that I drop labels by condition:
this always brings the class balance to 1/1 with slight variations:
In this case, 115 labels were shuffled, and divided into 4 parts. Then 4 GMM models were created based on them. From each, 1000 labels are sampled and they are combined into one dataframe. After that it was split into trace and test.
The balance of samples classes in this case was a little different from the ideal. But the samples of the train and the test had approximately the same ratio
Below are the simulation results with the same sample of 115 tags split into 4 parts, but without mixing. The balance of classes, of course, a little better, but I think it does not significantly affect the result.
This may sound silly, but it seems to me that there is some kind of time correlation in the series that GMM models find in different parts of the series. It disappears if you break the ordering by shuffling the row.
I hadn't thought about separate clustering, I'll try it tonight.
I'll have to draw it, it's not very clear... Well, the fact that the distributions are different in both cases. Plus you have already removed the serialization. Most likely the distributions are heavily uninformative, and the new points after sampling start to lie in the middle of nowhere. I.e. the information in the series is lost, yes, since the quotes are not independent.
Or do on some simple example (not quotes) and compare then.
I'll have to draw, it's not very clear... Well, the fact that the distributions are different in both cases is a fact. Plus you have already removed the seriality. Most likely, the distributions are very uninformative, and the new points after sampling start to lie in an incomprehensible place. I.e. the information in the series is lost, yes, since the quotes are not independent.
Or do it on some simple example (not quotes) and compare then.
Maxim, hi. It's been a long time since I came here... I may be interested in your article) I have installed Python) I should understand it and have lots of questions))) I take it MARKUP is a spread? Markup is a simple comparison of current value with the current + a random number, depending on the sign > or < you put a markup 1 or 0. right? For the test, you set markup=0.0? (if the tray MARKUP=0.00001)) right?
Maxim, hi. It's been a long time since I came here... It's about your last article) I have installed Python) I'm trying to understand it, and I have a lot of questions))) I take it MARKUP is a spread? Markup is a simple comparison of current value with the current + a random number, depending on the sign > or < you put a markup 1 or 0. right? For a test, you put markup=0.0? ( I think it's MARKUP=0.00001)) right?
Hi. Yes, that's right. The same markup is used in the tester. About articles is probably better to ask in the articles. That in one place was
I analyze the feedback and see what can be improved