Skip to content
All library documents

A Reproducible Workflow for Features and Signal Evaluation

Code Machine Learning for Trading

Summary

This notebook introduces a workflow that connects standardized ETF data loading, a feature registry, and signal diagnostics. It shows how to discover indicator metadata, compute features using defaults or explicit parameters, and store configurations for repeatable pipelines. Multiple horizons of an indicator can be calculated in separate calls and joined. A comparison between library RSI and a manual exponential-smoothing version illustrates that implementation choices such as smoothing method produce different values.

The diagnostic example evaluates a momentum feature against forward ETF returns using rank information coefficients, t-statistics, and quantile spreads. The notebook reports near-zero cross-sectional IC for that example and says its t-statistics do not meet conventional significance, underscoring that a raw indicator alone may provide little predictive evidence. It also introduces Polars patterns for grouped rolling features, point-in-time as-of joins, and lazy processing. These examples demonstrate a reusable research workflow; the brief signal preview is not a full validation of a trading strategy, and the document directs readers to a separate workflow for turnover and related diagnostics.

Key ideas

  • A feature registry makes standard indicators discoverable with parameters, input requirements, and metadata.
  • Explicit feature configurations support reproducible computation and allow indicators to be calculated at multiple horizons.
  • Different smoothing conventions can produce different indicator values, as shown by the RSI comparison.
  • Signal diagnostics can assess rank correlation, statistical evidence, and quantile spreads against forward returns.
  • As-of joins require sorted inputs and backward matching to support point-in-time data alignment.

Tags

Full text
# 10_ml4t_library_ecosystem.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
# ---

# %%
"""The ml4t Library Ecosystem - unified data, feature, and diagnostic libraries for Chapters 7-12."""

# %% [markdown]
# # The ml4t Library Ecosystem
#
# **Docker image**: `ml4t`
#
# **Chapter 7: Defining the Learning Task**
# **Section Reference**: 7.1 - Data Preprocessing and Encodings
#
# ## Purpose
#
# This notebook introduces the **ml4t library ecosystem** used throughout
# Chapters 7-12: data loaders (`ml4t-data`), feature computation
# (`ml4t-engineer`), and evaluation tools (`ml4t-diagnostic`).
#
# ## Learning Objectives
#
# 1. Load datasets using the unified `ml4t-data` loaders
# 2. Discover and compute features via the `ml4t-engineer` registry
# 3. Configure features with lists, dicts, or YAML for reproducibility
# 4. Validate library features against manual implementations
# 5. Preview feature evaluation with `ml4t-diagnostic` (full treatment in
#    `05_signal_evaluation`)
# 6. Understand when to use the library vs manual code
#
# ## Data Policy
#
# All examples use **real ETF data** (no synthetic data).
#
# ## Prerequisites
#
# - `01_data_quality_diagnostics` - establishes the ETF dataset shape used here.
# - Polars basics (`with_columns`, `over`, `lazy`).

# %%
from __future__ import annotations

from datetime import datetime

import numpy as np
import polars as pl
from IPython.display import display
from ml4t.diagnostic.signal import analyze_signal
from ml4t.engineer import compute_features
from ml4t.engineer.core.registry import get_registry

from data import load_etfs

# %% tags=["parameters"]
# Production defaults - Papermill injects overrides for CI
SPY_START_DATE = "2015-01-01"

# %% [markdown]
# ## ml4t-data: Unified Data Loaders
#
# The `data` module provides consistent interfaces for all seven
# datasets introduced in Chapter 2. Each loader returns a Polars DataFrame
# with standardized column names.

# %%
etfs = load_etfs()
print(f"ETF universe: {len(etfs):,} rows, {etfs['symbol'].n_unique()} symbols")
print(f"Columns: {etfs.columns}")
print(f"Date range: {etfs['timestamp'].min()} to {etfs['timestamp'].max()}")

# %%
# For demos: SPY only
spy = etfs.filter(
    (pl.col("symbol") == "SPY")
    & (pl.col("timestamp") >= datetime.fromisoformat(SPY_START_DATE).date())
).sort("timestamp")

print(f"SPY: {len(spy):,} rows from {spy['timestamp'].min()} to {spy['timestamp'].max()}")

# %% [markdown]
# ## ml4t-engineer: Feature Registry
#
# The `ml4t-engineer` library provides 120+ pre-built features with
# consistent naming, validation against reference implementations (TA-Lib
# where applicable), and self-documenting metadata.

# %%
registry = get_registry()
all_features = registry.list_all()

# Features by category
categories = {}
for name in all_features:
    metadata = registry.get(name)
    categories.setdefault(metadata.category, []).append(name)

print(f"Total features available: {len(all_features)}\n")
print("Features by category:")
for cat, feats in sorted(categories.items()):
    examples = ", ".join(feats[:4])
    suffix = ", ..." if len(feats) > 4 else ""
    print(f"  {cat:20s}: {len(feats):3d}  ({examples}{suffix})")

# %% [markdown]
# ### Feature Metadata
#
# Each registry entry carries its default parameters, input requirements, and
# a description, plus a closed-form formula where a standard one exists (about
# a quarter of the catalog: momentum and price transforms tend to have one,
# while estimator-based volatility and microstructure features do not). This
# makes features discoverable without reading source code.

# %%
for feature_name in ["rsi", "atr", "garman_klass_volatility"]:
    meta = registry.get(feature_name)
    print(f"\n{'=' * 50}")
    print(f"Feature:     {meta.name}")
    print(f"Category:    {meta.category}")
    print(f"Description: {meta.description}")
    print(f"Formula:     {meta.formula or '(not recorded)'}")
    print(f"Parameters:  {meta.parameters}")
    print(f"Input type:  {meta.input_type}")

# %% [markdown]
# ## Config-Driven Feature Computation
#
# `compute_features()` accepts three input formats, from simplest to most
# reproducible:
#
# 1. **List of names** - default parameters
# 2. **List of dicts** - custom parameters per feature
# 3. **YAML config** - stored configuration for pipelines

# %% [markdown]
# ### Simple Feature List

# %%
result = compute_features(spy, ["rsi", "sma", "ema", "atr"])

new_cols = [c for c in result.columns if c not in spy.columns]
print(f"Computed {len(new_cols)} features: {new_cols}")
display(result.select(["timestamp", "close"] + new_cols).tail(5))

# %% [markdown]
# ### Parameterized Features
#
# A list of dicts sets explicit parameters per feature. Each feature name
# resolves to one output column per call, so a single call holds one parameter
# set per feature. To compute several horizons of the *same* indicator (a
# common multi-timeframe setup), call `compute_features` once per parameter set
# and suffix the columns before joining.

# %% [markdown]
# Each entry below names one feature with an explicit parameter set. Bollinger bands take
# their two deviations separately, following TA-Lib, so the upper and lower band need not
# sit the same distance from the moving average.

# %%
parameterized = [
    {"name": "rsi", "params": {"period": 10}},
    {"name": "atr", "params": {"period": 20}},
    {"name": "bollinger_bands", "params": {"period": 20, "nbdevup": 2.0, "nbdevdn": 2.0}},
]

result = compute_features(spy, parameterized)

new_cols = [c for c in result.columns if c not in spy.columns]
print(f"Parameterized features ({len(new_cols)} columns): {', '.join(new_cols)}")

# %%
# Multiple horizons of one indicator: one call per period, suffix, then join.
rsi_multi = spy.select(["timestamp"])
for period in (10, 21, 63):
    horizon = compute_features(spy, [{"name": "rsi", "params": {"period": period}}])
    rsi_multi = rsi_multi.join(
        horizon.select(["timestamp", pl.col("rsi").alias(f"rsi_{period}")]),
        on="timestamp",
    )

rsi_cols = [c for c in rsi_multi.columns if c != "timestamp"]
print(f"Multi-horizon RSI columns: {rsi_cols}")
display(rsi_multi.tail(5))

# %% [markdown]
# ### YAML Configuration (Production)
#
# For reproducibility across notebooks and case studies, store feature
# configurations in YAML:
#
# ```yaml
# features:
#   - name: rsi
#     params:
#       period: 14
#
#   - name: macd
#     params:
#       fast: 12
#       slow: 26
#       signal: 9
#
#   - name: atr
#     params:
#       period: 14
# ```
#
# Load with: `compute_features(df, config_path="features.yaml")`

# %% [markdown]
# ## Validation: Library vs Manual
#
# The library uses Wilder's smoothing (matching TA-Lib) while a naive
# implementation might use EWM span. Let's compare to understand the
# difference.


# %%
def manual_rsi(df: pl.DataFrame, period: int = 14) -> pl.DataFrame:
    """Manual RSI using EWM span (not Wilder's smoothing)."""
    return (
        df.with_columns(pl.col("close").diff().alias("delta"))
        .with_columns(
            pl.when(pl.col("delta") > 0).then(pl.col("delta")).otherwise(0).alias("gain"),
            pl.when(pl.col("delta") < 0).then(-pl.col("delta")).otherwise(0).alias("loss"),
        )
        .with_columns(
            pl.col("gain").ewm_mean(span=period, adjust=False).alias("avg_gain"),
            pl.col("loss").ewm_mean(span=period, adjust=False).alias("avg_loss"),
        )
        .with_columns(
            (100 - 100 / (1 + pl.col("avg_gain") / pl.col("avg_loss"))).alias("rsi_manual"),
        )
    )


manual_result = manual_rsi(spy.select(["timestamp", "close"]))
library_result = compute_features(spy, [{"name": "rsi", "params": {"period": 14}}])

comparison = manual_result.join(
    library_result.select(["timestamp", "rsi"]),
    on="timestamp",
    how="inner",
).select(["timestamp", "rsi_manual", "rsi"])

print("RSI comparison (manual EWM vs library Wilder's):")
display(comparison.filter(pl.col("rsi").is_not_null()).tail(10))

# Both columns can carry a leading NaN/null from the warm-up window; in Polars
# NaN is distinct from null, so guard against both before averaging.
diff = comparison.filter(
    pl.col("rsi").is_not_null()
    & pl.col("rsi").is_not_nan()
    & pl.col("rsi_manual").is_not_null()
    & pl.col("rsi_manual").is_not_nan()
).with_columns((pl.col("rsi") - pl.col("rsi_manual")).abs().alias("abs_diff"))
print(f"Mean absolute difference: {diff['abs_diff'].mean():.4f}")
print("Differences are due to smoothing method (EWM span vs Wilder's).")

# %% [markdown]
# ### When to use the library vs manual code
#
# | Use ml4t-engineer | Implement manually |
# |---|---|
# | Standard indicators (RSI, MACD, ATR) | Custom alpha factors |
# | Production pipelines | Pedagogical demonstrations |
# | Cross-validation with TA-Lib | Non-standard variations |

# %% [markdown]
# ## ml4t-diagnostic: Feature Evaluation (Preview)
#
# The third library, `ml4t-diagnostic`, closes the loop: once a feature is
# computed, `analyze_signal()` measures whether it predicts forward returns in
# the cross-section, reporting the Information Coefficient (rank correlation of
# factor to forward return), its t-statistic, and quantile spreads. Here we run
# a single call to show the `ml4t-engineer` to `ml4t-diagnostic` handoff on the
# full ETF panel. Notebook `05_signal_evaluation` develops the full workflow
# (ICIR, quantile monotonicity, turnover, half-life).

# %%
# Compute one momentum factor across the whole ETF cross-section, then evaluate.
panel = etfs.sort(["symbol", "timestamp"])
factor = (
    panel.group_by("symbol", maintain_order=True)
    .map_groups(lambda g: compute_features(g, [{"name": "mom", "params": {"period": 21}}]))
    .select(["timestamp", "symbol", pl.col("mom").alias("factor")])
    .drop_nulls()
)
prices = panel.select(["timestamp", "symbol", pl.col("close").alias("price")])

signal = analyze_signal(
    factor,
    prices,
    periods=(1, 5, 21),
    quantiles=5,
    date_col="timestamp",
    asset_col="symbol",
    price_col="price",
    factor_col="factor",
)

print(f"Evaluated on {signal.n_assets} assets over {signal.n_dates:,} dates")
for horizon in ("1D", "5D", "21D"):
    print(
        f"  {horizon:>3s}  IC={signal.ic[horizon]:+.4f}  "
        f"t-stat={signal.ic_t_stat[horizon]:+.2f}  "
        f"quantile spread={signal.spread[horizon]:+.4f}"
    )

# %% [markdown]
# The 21-day momentum factor carries near-zero cross-sectional IC on this ETF
# universe, and the t-statistics do not clear conventional significance. A
# single raw indicator rarely predicts returns on its own; the feature
# engineering and model-based combination methods in Chapters 8 through 12 are
# what turn raw features into usable signals. The point here is the interface:
# `ml4t-engineer` produces the factor and `ml4t-diagnostic` scores it, with no
# glue code in between.

# %% [markdown]
# ## Key Polars Patterns for Feature Engineering
#
# These three patterns account for most of the feature-engineering code in this book.

# %% [markdown]
# ### GroupBy + Rolling via `.over()`
#
# Polars' `.over()` expression is the window function syntax - parallel
# and significantly faster than pandas' `groupby().transform()`.

# %%
multi_symbol = etfs.filter(pl.col("symbol").is_in(["SPY", "QQQ", "IWM"])).sort(
    ["symbol", "timestamp"]
)

features = multi_symbol.with_columns(
    pl.col("close").pct_change().over("symbol").alias("ret_1d"),
    (pl.col("close").pct_change().rolling_std(21).over("symbol") * np.sqrt(252)).alias("vol_21d"),
    pl.col("close").rolling_mean(21).over("symbol").alias("sma_21"),
)

print("Window function features:")
display(features.select(["symbol", "timestamp", "close", "ret_1d", "vol_21d"]).tail(10))

# %% [markdown]
# **Key pattern**: All transformations in ONE `with_columns()` call
# for parallel execution - never chain separate calls.

# %% [markdown]
# ### ASOF Joins (Point-in-Time Matching)
#
# ASOF joins match by the closest timestamp. Critical for:
# - Trade-quote matching
# - Fundamental data alignment (announcement date to trading date)
# - Macro data alignment (release date to trading date)

# %%
trades = spy.select(["timestamp", "close"]).rename({"close": "trade_price"}).head(1000)

quotes = (
    spy.select(["timestamp", "close"])
    .rename({"close": "quote_price"})
    .with_columns(pl.col("timestamp").cast(pl.Date))
    .head(1000)
)

matched = trades.sort("timestamp").join_asof(
    quotes.sort("timestamp"),
    on="timestamp",
    strategy="backward",
)

print("ASOF join result (most recent quote for each trade):")
display(matched.head(5))

# %% [markdown]
# **Requirements**: Both DataFrames sorted by join key; use
# `strategy="backward"` for point-in-time safety.

# %% [markdown]
# ### Lazy Evaluation (Large File Processing)
#
# For large files, `scan_parquet()` pushes filters to the storage layer.
# Here we demonstrate this using a loader to first get the data, then
# showing the lazy API pattern with `LazyFrame`.

# %%
# In production this would start from pl.scan_parquet on the file itself.
spy_lazy = (
    load_etfs(symbols=["SPY"], start_date="2020-01-01")
    .lazy()
    .select(["timestamp", "close", "volume"])
    .with_columns(pl.col("close").pct_change().alias("returns"))
)

result = spy_lazy.collect()
print(f"Lazy query: {len(result):,} rows")
print(f"\nQuery plan:\n{spy_lazy.explain()}")

# %% [markdown]
# ## Key Takeaways
#
# 1. **ml4t-data** provides unified loaders for all seven datasets
# 2. **ml4t-engineer** offers 120+ validated features via a registry API
# 3. **Config-driven** computation (list, dict, YAML) ensures reproducibility
# 4. **ml4t-diagnostic** scores features against forward returns via
#    `analyze_signal`; notebook `05_signal_evaluation` covers the full workflow
# 5. **Library for production**, manual code for teaching and custom factors
# 6. **Polars patterns** (`.over()`, ASOF joins, lazy scans) power the pipelines
#
# **Next**: Chapter 8 notebooks build features manually to explain the
# economics, then use the registry for case study pipelines.

```

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: MIT

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.