Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of MIBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of MIBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Investment Strategies / Mechanical Investing
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (43) |
Author: RAMc   😊 😞
Number: of 6131 
Subject: Re: ML for MI
Date: 06/25/24 3:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
anchak;

Thanks for the suggestions.
I too have been using ML for a while. Way back in 1986 the company I was working for became aware that IBM was in competition with us using ML. A group of us were sent off to learn the capabilities of ML. We ended up developing our own array processors but, in the end, IBM outperformed us. So, way back in the late 80’s and early 90’s a significant percentage of the current ML algorithms were known but limited in capability by the processing capabilities and supporting software.
I have been using NN’s for my investing since 1999 so I am well aware of data mining over fit.
However I haven’t been working in the field for over 20 years so have only kept up by playing at home.

I am using time sample cross validation with a gap and holdout. But I have found that rolling-cross/validation results are not a good as simple time series CV, it appears that the longer past history gives the latter a slight advantage.
I previously thought that as the market is changing over time more recent data would be more valuable. But so far, the longer the training historical data the better results. Training from 2000 for 5 years and testing for 2 years after a gap isn’t as good as training for 17 years and testing for 2 after a gap. Almost always better with a longer training set.

Additionally I’m trying to get an Ensemble of models to build a portfolio.
Aurelien Geron “Hands on Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras & Tensor Flow” points out in chapter 7 voting classifiers that Ensemble methods work best when the predictors are as independent as possible.
Voting doesn’t seem appropriate to regrssors.

I’ll have to rethink treating where I train/test bull and bear markets, up to now I have been letting them fall into the arbitrary fixed time folds. It was surprising to me to see bear ML test worked on models trained in bull periods without any special considerations.

Thanks again for the advice, you defiantly are more up to date than I on the subject. As I said I’m going to reevaluate some of the methods I’m using. I’m still in the learning mode.

Rob
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to RAMc here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 6,115 posts about Mechanical Investing. The article-length ones it recommended most:
Dividend investing · 52 recs · 2025
Non-Mag7 screen · 34 recs · 2025
OT - Div yields and returns · 32 recs · 2024
Using AI to generate backtesting programs · 30 recs · 2025
Rankings for 19Dec2022 · 29 recs · 2022
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (43) |


Announcements
Mechanical Investing FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of MI | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community