Zum Inhalt springen
Alle Bibliotheksdokumente

LSTM- und NLinear-Sequenzmodelle für Futures-Prognosen

Code Machine Learning for Trading

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Notebook bewertet Sequenzkonfigurationen von LSTM und NLinear für CME-Futures. Sequenzmodelle verarbeiten geordnete Beobachtungsfenster und prüfen, ob der jüngste Verlauf zusätzliche Informationen gegenüber konstruierten Zusammenfassungsmerkmalen enthält. Das LSTM lernt über das Fenster hinweg einen veränderlichen verborgenen Zustand, während NLinear normalisierte Beobachtungen auf eine Prognose der Veränderung gegenüber dem letzten Wert abbildet. Das Dokument begründet beide Architekturen: ein flexibles rekurrentes Modell und eine einfachere lineare Baseline, insbesondere angesichts der begrenzten und überlappenden Sequenzbeispiele im Produktuniversum.

Es erläutert Schutzmaßnahmen gegen Zeitreihen-Datenleckage: Jedes Fenster endet vor dem Prognosezeitpunkt, Purge-Abstände und Fold-Grenzen verhindern, dass Fenster Bewertungsintervalle überschreiten, und der verborgene Zustand wird zwischen Produkten und Folds zurückgesetzt. Angegebene Epoch-Checkpoints werden für eine spätere Auswahl anhand von Validierung und Backtest veröffentlicht. MC-Dropout muss Teil der Modellkonfiguration sein, da stochastische Prognosen die Ausgaben verändern. Der Auszug erläutert das Auswertungs- und Reproduzierbarkeitsdesign, enthält aber keine Leistungsbefunde. Er zeigt daher nicht, dass eine der Architekturen Renditen prognostiziert oder eine profitable Strategie unterstützt.

Kernaussagen

  • Sequenzmodelle verwenden geordnete historische Fenster statt einer einzelnen Merkmalszeile je Produkt und Datum.
  • LSTM lernt einen rekurrenten Zustand, während NLinear Veränderungen nach Entfernung des letzten Niveaus im Fenster prognostiziert.
  • Kleine, überlappende Trainingsfenster können Sequenzmodelle in dieser Futures-Stichprobe anfällig für Overfitting machen.
  • Fensterzeitpunkt, Purge-Abstände, Fold-Grenzen und Zustandszurücksetzungen begegnen unterschiedlichen Datenleckagerisiken.
  • Alle angegebenen Checkpoints bleiben für eine spätere Auswahl erhalten; MC-Dropout muss angegeben werden, da es die Prognosen verändert.

Schlagwörter

Volltext
# 09_dl_lstm.py


```py
# ---
# jupyter:
#   jupytext:
#     cell_metadata_filter: tags,-all
#     text_representation:
#       extension: .py
#       format_name: percent
#       format_version: '1.3'
#       jupytext_version: 1.19.3
#   kernelspec:
#     display_name: Python 3 (ipykernel)
#     language: python
#     name: python3
# ---

# %% [markdown]
# # CME Futures: Sequence Models
#
# This notebook evaluates the declared NLinear and LSTM sequence configurations. Each input window
# contains observations from one product and ends before its prediction timestamp. Purge gaps and
# fold boundaries prevent a sequence from crossing into another validation interval, and hidden
# state does not pass between products or folds.
#
# Every declared epoch checkpoint is published with fitted weights and exact chronological
# eligibility. MC dropout is not an undeclared side experiment. Configuration selection remains the
# validation backtest decision in `13_backtest`.
#
# Prerequisites: `03_financial_features`, `04_model_based_features`, and `05_evaluation`.

# %% [markdown]
# ## What a sequence model reads that the other families do not
#
# Every family up to this point saw one row per product per decision: a vector of features
# describing that product at that moment. Anything about how it got there had to be engineered
# into a column - a 21-session volatility, a momentum composite, a carry z-score against a
# rolling window. The model saw the summary, never the path.
#
# A sequence model reads the path. Its input is a window of consecutive observations for one
# product, and the architecture is built to make use of their order. The claim being tested is
# that the shape of recent history carries information that no fixed set of summary statistics
# captured - that a product whose carry rose steadily to its current level differs from one that
# spiked and fell back, even where both end at the same value with the same 21-session
# volatility.
#
# For thirty futures products the windows are also the scarcest data in the case study. A
# feature-row model gets one training example per product per session; a sequence model needs a
# whole window per example, so the same history yields fewer independent examples and they
# overlap heavily with each other. That is the structural reason to expect these models to
# struggle here relative to a benchmark with millions of series, and it is worth holding
# alongside whatever the backtest reports.
#
# ### Two architectures, and why both
#
# **LSTM** processes the window one step at a time, carrying a hidden state forward and learning
# what to keep and what to forget. It is the general answer, and its generality is the cost: it
# has many parameters, it trains slowly, and on a short noisy series it has ample capacity to
# memorize.
#
# **NLinear** is close to the opposite. It is a linear map from the window to the forecast, with
# a normalization step that subtracts the window's last value before the map and adds it back
# afterwards. That subtraction is the whole idea: it makes the model predict the *change* from
# where the series currently sits rather than the level, which removes the drift that otherwise
# dominates a naive fit.
#
# It is here because a body of recent work found that simple linear baselines matched or beat
# elaborate sequence architectures on many forecasting benchmarks once evaluated carefully - a
# finding that survived enough scrutiny to be worth designing around. Running both is what turns
# "the sophisticated model should win" into something this case study measures rather than
# assumes.
#
# ## Where a sequence model can leak, and what stops it
#
# A window is a span of time rather than a point, which gives leakage more places to enter than
# the other families have.
#
# - **Each window ends before its prediction timestamp.** The last observation a window contains
#   is strictly earlier than the moment being predicted, so a forecast never reads the bar it is
#   forecasting.
# - **Purge gaps and fold boundaries stop a window crossing into another interval.** Without them
#   a window ending just after a fold boundary would extend back across it, and validation rows
#   would be predicted from a window overlapping the training period. The failure would be
#   invisible in the output: the prediction is dated correctly and the returns are real.
# - **Hidden state does not pass between products or folds.** An LSTM's state accumulates
#   whatever it has seen, so carrying it across a boundary carries information across that
#   boundary too - and unlike a feature column, the state never appears in any frame, so nothing
#   downstream could detect it.
#
# The three are separate mechanisms rather than one guarantee stated three times, which is why
# they are enforced separately rather than by a single check on the output.

# %%
"""Fit the declared CME futures sequence-model population."""

import polars as pl

from case_studies.cme_futures.research_workflow import (
    ALL_LABELS,
    model_request_catalog,
    open_study,
    product_universe_table,
    resolve_model_requests,
    resolved_model_plan,
    run_official_model_catalog,
    run_resolved_model_requests,
)
from case_studies.research import population_supersedes

# %% tags=["parameters"]
EXECUTION_TIER = "canonical"
WORKSPACE: str | None = None
PREVIEW_REDUCTIONS: dict = {}
# The population hash this run replaces, read from the registry and set by a person. A
# first population takes None; a re-run whose membership has changed is refused without
# the hash it supersedes, and the refusal names the value required.
SUPERSEDES_POPULATION: str | None = "8c2c87299a47"
# The device to fit on. Empty means the device this population was published on.
DEVICE: str = ""
# The population this run publishes into. Empty publishes the canonical one, which a run
# on another device may not do.
POPULATION_NAME: str = ""

# %% [markdown]
# ## Declared requests
#
# The request rows identify architecture, label, and published configuration. Sequence length,
# checkpoint schedule, seed, gap policy, and device enter the resolved computation identity.
#
# **The device is declared here rather than inherited.** With no override the shared sequence
# adapter falls back to a literal `"cuda"` written in `case_studies/utils/deep_learning.py`, and
# resolving the request raises `CUDA was requested for sequence training, but CUDA is unavailable`
# rather than quietly moving the fit to the CPU. That refusal comes from resolving the request, so
# it arrives before any fitting starts. Stating it in the request puts that requirement where a
# reader meets it instead of two layers below. The resolved specification hash is the same with the
# override as without, so this names what the published run already did.
#
# The device is part of what the fitted model is, not a note beside it: the same architecture
# trained on a GPU and on a CPU accumulates its sums in different orders and reaches different
# weights. `PUBLISHED_DEVICE` is the device this population was fitted on, and the canonical
# population accepts no other. A reader without an NVIDIA card sets `DEVICE="cpu"` and passes a
# `POPULATION_NAME` to fit the same grid into a population of its own, which the backtest does
# not read.

# %%
PUBLISHED_DEVICE = "cuda"
device = DEVICE or PUBLISHED_DEVICE
if device != PUBLISHED_DEVICE and not POPULATION_NAME:
    raise ValueError(
        f"this run fits on device {device!r}, which is not the {PUBLISHED_DEVICE!r} this "
        f"population was published on, so it cannot publish the canonical population; pass "
        f"POPULATION_NAME to give it its own"
    )

population_name = POPULATION_NAME or "cme_futures-deep_learning-validation-v1"

study = open_study(execution_tier=EXECUTION_TIER, workspace=WORKSPACE)
requests = model_request_catalog("deep_learning", labels=ALL_LABELS)
resolved = resolve_model_requests(
    study,
    requests,
    execution_tier=EXECUTION_TIER,
    overrides={"device": device},
    preview_reductions=PREVIEW_REDUCTIONS,
)
universe = product_universe_table()
universe

# %%
resolved_model_plan(resolved)

# %% [markdown]
# ## Execute and validate
#
# The shared sequence adapter owns window construction, checkpoint reload, prediction coverage, and
# restart. A failed configuration cannot remove itself from the population snapshot.
#
# **"Cannot remove itself" is the load-bearing clause.** The natural way to write a sweep is to
# catch a failure, log it, and carry on with what worked - which produces a population defined
# by what happened to train rather than by what was declared. The leaderboard still looks
# sensible, and the configuration that failed is indistinguishable from one that was never
# requested. Sequence models make this more likely than the other families do, because they are
# the ones that run out of memory or fail to converge on a thin product.
#
# ### What MC dropout is, and why it is declared rather than switched on
#
# Dropout during training randomly disables units so the network cannot rely on any one path.
# **MC dropout** leaves it enabled at prediction time and runs the forward pass several times, so
# each pass gives a slightly different answer and their spread estimates the model's uncertainty
# about that prediction.
#
# That is a useful quantity - it is what an allocator sizing inversely to uncertainty would want
# - but it changes what the model outputs. A prediction averaged over stochastic passes is not
# the same number as the deterministic one, and a run that quietly enabled it would publish
# different values under the same configuration name. So it is part of the declared
# configuration and enters the identity, which is what the header means by "not an undeclared
# side experiment": either the population says these predictions are MC-dropout predictions, or
# they are not, and no run gets to decide that on its own.
#
# ### Why checkpoints are published rather than chosen
#
# As in `08_tabular_dl`: a neural fit is a trajectory, and choosing the best epoch by validation
# performance before reporting that model's validation performance is selection inside the
# number being reported. Every declared checkpoint becomes a candidate row and `13_backtest`
# selects among them on Sharpe, so the choice sits in the same funnel and the same trial count
# as everything else.

# %%
if EXECUTION_TIER == "canonical":
    execution, population = run_official_model_catalog(
        study,
        requests,
        population_name=population_name,
        resolved_requests=resolved,
        supersedes=population_supersedes(
            study,
            name=population_name,
            declared=SUPERSEDES_POPULATION,
        ),
    )
else:
    if WORKSPACE is None or not PREVIEW_REDUCTIONS:
        raise ValueError("preview execution requires WORKSPACE and PREVIEW_REDUCTIONS")
    execution = run_resolved_model_requests(study, resolved)
    population = None

# %% tags=["results"]
catalog = execution.catalog_rows.select(
    "family",
    "label",
    "config_name",
    "checkpoint_kind",
    "checkpoint_value",
    "execution_tier",
    "complete",
    "training_hash",
    "prediction_hash",
).sort("label", "config_name", "checkpoint_value")
if catalog.filter(~pl.col("complete")).height:
    raise RuntimeError("sequence execution returned a partial prediction")
catalog

```

Vollständig mit Quellenangabe unter der Lizenz der Quelle angezeigt. Lizenz: MIT

Diese Zusammenfassung wurde vom Research-Agenten von Stratmill anhand des Originals verfasst; sie ist keine Kopie der Quelle.