Evaluación de familias de modelos para predecir retornos transversales de acciones

# 10_model_analysis.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]
# # Model Analysis: US Firm Characteristics
#
# Nine notebooks before this one fitted models on the same panel of US firm
# characteristics and wrote their predictions to the run log. This notebook reads all
# of them back and asks one question: which of those learned signals is strong enough,
# and steady enough across validation windows, to be worth a backtest?
#
# The panel is the cross-sectional asset-pricing setting studied by Gu, Kelly and Xiu
# (2020) and by the wider literature on machine learning for the cross-section of
# returns: US stocks at monthly frequency, described by accounting and market-based
# firm characteristics, with a one-month forward return as the label. Five families
# were fitted on it here: ridge and lasso regressions
# ([`05_linear`](05_linear.ipynb)), gradient-boosted trees
# ([`06_gbm`](06_gbm.ipynb)), a deep tabular architecture
# ([`07_tabular_dl`](07_tabular_dl.ipynb)), four latent-factor estimators
# ([`08_latent_factors`](08_latent_factors.ipynb) and the four notebooks after it),
# and a double machine learning treatment-effect estimate
# ([`09_causal_dml`](09_causal_dml.ipynb)).
#
# **What you will be able to do after reading this**
#
# - Read a family comparison off confidence intervals rather than off point estimates,
#   and say when the ordering between two families is not evidence about the families.
# - Separate three kinds of evidence that all report a number that looks like an
#   information coefficient: a predictive forecast, a latent structural fit, and a
#   conditional causal effect.
# - Judge a signal by how it behaves across validation windows, not only by its mean.
# - Decide which predictions go forward to a backtest, and write down what that
#   decision does not rest on.
#
# **What has to have run first**: the nine modelling notebooks above. Their
# predictions and metrics are read from this case study's registry, so a family that
# has not been fitted is simply absent from every table here rather than an error.
#
# This notebook and [`17_strategy_analysis`](17_strategy_analysis.ipynb) are the two
# places in this case study where results are interpreted. The modelling notebooks
# state what their run produced and stop.

# %%
"""Model Analysis: US Firm Characteristics, comparative evaluation across model families."""

import sqlite3

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import polars as pl
import yaml
from scipy.stats import spearmanr

from case_studies.research import CausalResult, open_study
from case_studies.utils.latent_factors import load_fold_extras
from case_studies.utils.model_analysis import (
    best_model_per_family_fast,
    fold_performance_matrix,
    load_all_metrics,
    load_gbm_feature_importance,
    load_predictions,
    prediction_bucket_monotonicity,
    prediction_correlation_matrix,
    regime_conditional_ic,
)
from case_studies.utils.model_viz import (
    plot_bucket_monotonicity,
    plot_correlation_matrix,
    plot_cv_timeline,
    plot_feature_importance_heatmap,
    plot_fold_boxplot,
    plot_fold_heatmap,
    plot_label_horizon_forest,
    plot_learning_curves,
    plot_regime_bars,
)
from case_studies.utils.notebook_render import (
    conformal_coverage_diagnostic,
)
from case_studies.utils.warning_policy import apply_notebook_warning_policy
from utils.modeling import load_configs
from utils.paths import get_case_study_dir
from utils.style import COLORS

apply_notebook_warning_policy()

# %% tags=["parameters"]
CASE_STUDY = "us_firm_characteristics"
# Empty or zero means "take the declared value". A run that passes one overrides the
# declaration; a run that passes none reproduces the published analysis.
LABEL = ""
DATE_COL = "timestamp"
ENTITY_COL = "symbol"
N_BUCKETS = 10
TOP_N_FEATURES = 15
# Both names stay bound here although nothing below reads them: that is what makes the harness
# force preview and supply a workspace - `_declares_tier_and_workspace` in `tests/pm_helpers.py`
# looks for exactly this pair. Without them the canonical branch regenerates in place, which
# needs symlinks a CI checkout does not have.
EXECUTION_TIER = "canonical"
WORKSPACE: str = ""

# %% [markdown]
# The study is opened before anything resolves a path or reads the registry. Under the preview
# tier, opening it activates a workspace and rewrites `ML4T_OUTPUT_DIR` process-wide, and every
# later `get_case_study_dir` call resolves against that. A `CASE_DIR` built first would point at
# the released registry while everything after it reads the preview one.

# %%
study = open_study(CASE_STUDY, execution_tier=EXECUTION_TIER, workspace=WORKSPACE or None)

CASE_DIR = get_case_study_dir(CASE_STUDY)

with open(CASE_DIR / "config" / "setup.yaml") as f:
    setup = yaml.safe_load(f)

PRIMARY_LABEL = LABEL or setup["labels"]["primary"]
n_splits = setup["evaluation"]["n_splits"]
train_size = setup["evaluation"]["train_size"]
val_size = setup["evaluation"]["val_size"]
holdout_start = setup["evaluation"].get("holdout_start")
holdout_end = setup["evaluation"].get("holdout_end")
cost_range = setup["costs"]["per_leg_cost_bps_range"]

with open(CASE_DIR / "config" / "training" / f"{PRIMARY_LABEL}.yaml") as f:
    declared_configs = yaml.safe_load(f)
declared_lf = list(declared_configs.get("latent_factors", []))

print(f"Case study: {CASE_STUDY}")
print(f"  label: {PRIMARY_LABEL} (variants {', '.join(setup['labels']['variants'])})")
print(f"  cross-validation: {n_splits} folds, train={train_size}, validate={val_size}")
print(f"  holdout: {holdout_start} to {holdout_end}")
print(f"  declared latent-factor estimators: {', '.join(declared_lf)}")
print(f"  per-leg cost range: {cost_range[0]} to {cost_range[1]} bps")

# %% [markdown]
# ## 1. What Is the Prediction Problem?
#
# At the end of each month every stock in the universe is described by a vector of
# firm characteristics, and the label is that stock's return over the following month.
# A model is asked to rank the cross-section: not to guess the level of next month's
# return, but to say which stocks will do better than which others. That is why the
# headline statistic throughout is the **information coefficient**, the rank
# correlation between the predicted ordering and the realised one, measured within a
# month and then pooled across months.
#
# The characteristics span the categories the anomaly literature works in: valuation
# ratios, profitability, investment and asset growth, momentum and reversal, size,
# and risk measures such as beta and idiosyncratic volatility. They are lagged so that
# only information a filer had actually published by the decision date enters the
# feature vector. The exact column list and count are printed below rather than quoted
# here, because the feature file is what decides them.
#
# A ranking is only useful if it can be traded, and the cost assumption is what makes
# that a real constraint. The configuration declares a per-leg cost range wide enough
# to cover the difference between a large liquid stock and a small illiquid one, and a
# long-short decile portfolio pays that on both legs at every monthly rebalance. The
# decile-spread figure in Section 5 is drawn against that range for exactly this
# reason.

# %%
features_path = CASE_DIR / "features" / "financial.parquet"
feature_cols = [
    c
    for c in pl.scan_parquet(features_path).collect_schema().names()
    if c not in {DATE_COL, ENTITY_COL} and not c.startswith("fwd_")
]
print(f"feature file: {features_path.name}")
print(f"characteristics available to every family: {len(feature_cols)}")
print(f"first ten: {', '.join(feature_cols[:10])}")

# %%
all_labels_metrics = load_all_metrics(CASE_STUDY, label=None).filter(pl.col("label").is_not_null())
all_metrics = all_labels_metrics.filter(pl.col("label") == PRIMARY_LABEL)

if all_metrics.height == 0:
    raise RuntimeError(f"No metrics found for {CASE_STUDY} / {PRIMARY_LABEL}")

families_present = sorted(all_metrics["family"].unique().to_list())
print(
    f"{all_metrics.height} metric rows on {PRIMARY_LABEL} across {len(families_present)} families"
)

for fam in families_present:
    sub = all_metrics.filter(pl.col("family") == fam)
    configs = sub["config_name"].n_unique()
    checkpoints = sub["checkpoint_value"].drop_nulls().n_unique()
    print(f"  {fam:16s} {configs:3d} configurations {checkpoints:3d} checkpoints")

# %%
best_per_family = best_model_per_family_fast(all_metrics)
print("Highest-IC configuration per family:")
print(best_per_family.select(["family", "config_name", "checkpoint_value", "ic_mean", "ic_std"]))

# %%
# Raw predictions are loaded only for the highest-IC configuration in each family. The
# causal family is excluded here because it publishes a treatment effect rather than a
# per-name score, and is read from its own table in Section 7.
representative_preds = []

for row in best_per_family.filter(pl.col("family") != "causal_dml").iter_rows(named=True):
    family = row["family"]
    config = row["config_name"]
    checkpoint = row.get("checkpoint_value")

    preds = load_predictions(
        CASE_STUDY,
        family=family,
        label=PRIMARY_LABEL,
        config_name=config,
        checkpoint_value=checkpoint,
    )
    if preds.height > 0:
        representative_preds.append(preds)
        print(f"  {family}/{config}: {preds.height:,} predictions")

if representative_preds:
    best_preds = pl.concat(representative_preds, how="diagonal_relaxed")
    # The parquet writers do not agree on a timestamp type, so normalise before joining.
    if best_preds[DATE_COL].dtype == pl.String:
        best_preds = best_preds.with_columns(pl.col(DATE_COL).str.to_datetime())
    elif best_preds[DATE_COL].dtype == pl.Date:
        best_preds = best_preds.with_columns(pl.col(DATE_COL).cast(pl.Datetime("ms")))
    print(f"\n{best_preds.height:,} predictions loaded across {len(representative_preds)} families")
    print(f"names scored: {best_preds[ENTITY_COL].n_unique():,}")
else:
    best_preds = pl.DataFrame()
    raise RuntimeError(f"No predictions could be loaded for {CASE_STUDY} / {PRIMARY_LABEL}")

# %%
fold_ranges = (
    best_preds.filter(pl.col("fold_id").is_not_null())
    .group_by("fold_id")
    .agg(
        pl.col(DATE_COL).min().cast(pl.Date).alias("val_start"),
        pl.col(DATE_COL).max().cast(pl.Date).alias("val_end"),
    )
    .sort("fold_id")
)
print(fold_ranges)

# %% [markdown]
# ### Figure 1: Cross-Validation Timeline

# %%
plot_cv_timeline(fold_ranges, n_splits, holdout_start)

# %% [markdown]
# Each fold trains on a fixed-length window and validates on the year that follows it,
# and the windows step backwards so that the earliest fold index is the most recent
# year. The table above gives the exact validation span of each one. The holdout year
# declared in the configuration appears in none of them: no model selection anywhere
# in this case study, including everything in this notebook, has seen it.
#
# What the timeline buys is a defence against reading a single lucky window as a
# result. A model that ranks the cross-section well only in the year credit markets
# froze has told you something about that year. Ten separate validation windows,
# covering expansion, crisis and recovery, are what let a difference between families
# be attributed to the families.

# %% [markdown]
# ## 2. What Was Actually Run?
#
# Before comparing anything, it is worth writing down what is comparable. The families
# were not all trained on all labels, and more importantly they do not all produce the
# same kind of number. Three kinds appear in this case study:
#
# - **Predictive.** Linear, GBM and tabular deep learning each map characteristics to
#   an expected return and are scored by the rank correlation of that map.
# - **Structural.** The latent-factor estimators are fitted to explain the covariance
#   and pricing structure of the panel. They also produce a per-name score, and that
#   score also gets an information coefficient, but the objective they were fitted
#   against is not the ranking.
# - **Causal.** Double machine learning estimates the effect of one declared treatment
#   on the outcome after orthogonalising a declared set of confounders. Its output is
#   an effect size with a standard error, on a different axis entirely.
#
# Forcing all three into one ranking would compare a forecast against a fitted factor
# structure against a treatment effect. The coverage map below keeps them apart, and
# Section 7 reports the structural and causal evidence on its own terms.

# %%
EVIDENCE_TYPE = {
    "linear": "predictive",
    "gbm": "predictive",
    "tabular_dl": "predictive",
    "deep_learning": "predictive",
    "latent_factors": "structural",
    "causal_dml": "causal",
}
SOURCE_NOTEBOOK = {
    "linear": "05_linear",
    "gbm": "06_gbm",
    "tabular_dl": "07_tabular_dl",
    "deep_learning": "07_tabular_dl",
    "latent_factors": "08_latent_factors",
    "causal_dml": "09_causal_dml",
}

coverage = (
    all_labels_metrics.group_by(["family", "label"])
    .agg(
        pl.col("config_name").n_unique().alias("n_configs"),
        pl.col("ic_mean").max().alias("best_ic"),
    )
    .with_columns(
        notebook=pl.col("family").replace(SOURCE_NOTEBOOK),
        evidence=pl.col("family").replace(EVIDENCE_TYPE),
    )
    .sort(["family", "label"])
)

print("Which family was fitted on which label:")
print(coverage.select(["notebook", "family", "label", "evidence", "n_configs"]))

# %%
primary_coverage = coverage.filter(pl.col("label") == PRIMARY_LABEL)
labels_by_family = (
    coverage.group_by("family").agg(pl.col("label").n_unique().alias("n_labels")).sort("family")
)
all_labels = sorted(coverage["label"].unique().to_list())

print(f"labels trained anywhere in this case study: {', '.join(all_labels)}")
print(f"families carrying metrics on {PRIMARY_LABEL}: {primary_coverage.height}")
print(labels_by_family)

# %% [markdown]
# Two things in that table shape everything downstream.
#
# The first is which families appear at all. A family with no row here was not fitted
# on this panel, and its absence is a statement about what was run rather than a result
# about the method. The declared latent-factor list printed at the top of the notebook
# is where to check whether an estimator was meant to be here.
#
# The second is the label column. Where a family has been fitted on more than one
# label, the same features and the same folds have been asked a slightly different
# question: the raw forward return, a winsorized version of it that removes the
# influence of extreme moves, and a binary up-or-down classification. Section 6 uses
# that to separate a statement about a model from a statement about a label.
#
# The causal family will not appear in this map at all. It writes to a separate table
# rather than to the prediction metrics, which is the point of keeping it on its own
# axis.

# %% [markdown]
# ## 3. Headline Comparative View
#
# The comparison below takes the highest-IC configuration in each family on the
# primary label and puts a HAC confidence interval around it. The interval matters
# more than the point estimate. Monthly cross-sectional ICs are autocorrelated, so a
# naive standard error understates the uncertainty; the HAC correction widens it to
# something the sample supports.
#
# Read the `covers_zero` column first. A family whose interval covers zero has not
# demonstrated a signal on this label, whatever its point estimate happens to be, and
# an ordering among such families is an ordering of one sample's noise. Where intervals
# do separate, the ordering means something.

# %% tags=["results"]
family_leaders = (
    all_metrics.filter(pl.col("ic_mean_daily").is_not_null() & (pl.col("ic_se_hac") > 0))
    .sort("ic_mean_daily", descending=True, nulls_last=True)
    .group_by("family", maintain_order=True)
    .first()
    .select(
        "family",
        "config_name",
        "checkpoint_value",
        "ic_mean_daily",
        "ic_se_hac",
        "ic_t_hac",
        ci_lo=pl.col("ic_mean_daily") - 1.96 * pl.col("ic_se_hac"),
        ci_hi=pl.col("ic_mean_daily") + 1.96 * pl.col("ic_se_hac"),
    )
    .with_columns(covers_zero=(pl.col("ci_lo") <= 0) & (pl.col("ci_hi") >= 0))
    .sort("ic_mean_daily", descending=True)
)
print(f"families compared: {family_leaders.height}")
print(f"intervals covering zero: {family_leaders.get_column('covers_zero').sum()}")
family_leaders

# %% [markdown]
# The table above is the notebook's central result and the rest of it is commentary on
# how far that result can be pushed.
#
# Where a family's interval excludes zero, the panel carries a cross-sectional signal
# that this family finds, and the width of the interval says how precisely. Where it
# covers zero, the honest reading is that the highest-IC configuration in that family
# is indistinguishable from no signal at all on this label, and its position in the
# ordering is not evidence. That reading holds for the structural rows too, with the
# extra caveat that a latent-factor estimator was not fitted to maximise this quantity
# in the first place.
#
# One asymmetry is worth naming. The leader in each family is selected by the same
# statistic the interval is placed around, across as many configurations as that
# family declared. The more configurations a family searched, the more the selected
# point estimate is flattered by that search, and the interval does not correct for it.
# Families with a wide grid should therefore be read a little more sceptically than
# families with a narrow one, and the configuration count printed in Section 2 is the
# scale of the effect.

# %% [markdown]
# ### Which Model Families Extract the Most Signal?
#
# A mean across folds hides how it was earned. The next two figures break the same
# comparison down by validation window, first as a heatmap of every family against
# every fold, then as a distribution.

# %%
fold_ic = fold_performance_matrix(best_preds, date_col=DATE_COL)

# %% [markdown]
# ### Figure 2: Fold-by-Model Performance Heatmap

# %%
model_labels, fold_cols, matrix = plot_fold_heatmap(fold_ic)

# %%
family_stats = (
    fold_ic.group_by("model_label")
    .agg(
        pl.col("ic_mean").mean().alias("mean_ic"),
        pl.col("ic_mean").median().alias("median_ic"),
        pl.col("ic_mean").std().alias("std_ic"),
        pl.col("ic_mean").min().alias("worst_fold"),
        pl.col("ic_mean").max().alias("best_fold"),
        (pl.col("ic_mean") > 0).mean().alias("pct_positive"),
        pl.col("ic_mean").count().alias("n_folds"),
    )
    .sort("mean_ic", descending=True)
)
print(family_stats)

# %% [markdown]
# Read the heatmap by column rather than by row. A column is one validation window,
# and when a whole column is dark or light together, that window was hard or easy for
# every family at once, which is a property of the market in that year rather than of
# any model. What distinguishes families is the rows: whether a row holds its sign
# across windows, and how far its worst window falls.
#
# The `pct_positive` column in the table is the blunt version of the same question. A
# family that is positive in most windows has something that survives regime change; a
# family that is positive in half of them is describing a coin flip however large its
# mean, because with ten folds a fifty-fifty split is exactly what no signal looks
# like.

# %% [markdown]
# ## 4. Stability Over Time
#
# The mean IC and the fold-level record can disagree, and when they do the fold-level
# record is the one that predicts what a deployed strategy would have felt. A family
# whose average is carried by two exceptional windows spends the other eight
# disappointing whoever is trading it.

# %% [markdown]
# ### Figure 3: Fold Performance Distribution by Model Family

# %%
plot_fold_boxplot(fold_ic)

# %% tags=["results"]
stability = (
    fold_ic.group_by("model_label")
    .agg(
        pl.col("ic_mean").median().alias("median_fold_ic"),
        (pl.col("ic_mean") > 0).sum().alias("folds_positive"),
        pl.col("ic_mean").count().alias("folds"),
        pl.col("ic_mean").min().alias("worst_fold_ic"),
    )
    .with_columns(majority_positive=pl.col("folds_positive") * 2 > pl.col("folds"))
    .sort("median_fold_ic", descending=True)
)
print(f"families with a positive median fold IC: {(stability['median_fold_ic'] > 0).sum()}")
print(f"families positive in a majority of folds: {stability['majority_positive'].sum()}")
stability

# %% [markdown]
# The box plot and the table answer different halves of the stability question. The box
# shows the spread, which is what a position-sizing rule has to absorb; the table shows
# how often the sign was right, which is what a decision to trade the signal at all
# rests on.
#
# A wide box with a positive median is a signal you would size down but still take. A
# narrow box centred on zero is not a signal at all, however tidy it looks. And a
# family whose worst fold is far below every other family's worst fold has a tail that
# a backtest over a different decade would have found, which is the argument for
# reading `worst_fold_ic` next to the median rather than after it.

# %% [markdown]
# ## 5. What Are the Models Learning?
#
# Aggregate IC says a ranking is better than chance. It does not say whether the
# ranking is usable. Two further diagnostics decide that:
#
# 1. **Monotonicity.** Sorting names into deciles by predicted score, does realised
#    return rise across the deciles? A long-short decile portfolio only works if it
#    does, and the size of the gap between the top and bottom decile is what has to
#    cover trading costs.
# 2. **Diversity.** Do the families rank the cross-section differently, or do they
#    agree? Two models that produce nearly the same ordering are one model for the
#    purpose of combining them.

# %%
bucket_results = {}
for row in best_per_family.iter_rows(named=True):
    family = row["family"]
    config = row["config_name"]
    checkpoint = row.get("checkpoint_value")

    mask = (pl.col("family") == family) & (pl.col("config_name") == config)
    if checkpoint is not None:
        mask = mask & (pl.col("checkpoint_value") == checkpoint)

    model_preds = best_preds.filter(mask)
    if model_preds.height == 0:
        continue

    buckets = prediction_bucket_monotonicity(model_preds, N_BUCKETS, DATE_COL)
    if buckets.height > 0:
        bucket_results[family] = buckets

# %% [markdown]
# ### Figure 4: Prediction Bucket Monotonicity

# %%
unconditional_mean = float(best_preds["y_true"].mean())
plot_bucket_monotonicity(
    bucket_results, N_BUCKETS, unconditional_mean=unconditional_mean, cost_range=cost_range
)

# %% tags=["results"]
round_trip_lo, round_trip_hi = 2 * cost_range[0], 2 * cost_range[1]
spread_rows = []
for family, buckets in bucket_results.items():
    top = buckets.filter(pl.col("bucket") == N_BUCKETS)["mean_return"]
    bottom = buckets.filter(pl.col("bucket") == 1)["mean_return"]
    if top.len() == 0 or bottom.len() == 0:
        continue
    spread_bps = (top[0] - bottom[0]) * 10_000
    spread_rows.append(
        {
            "family": family,
            "top_decile_bps": top[0] * 10_000,
            "bottom_decile_bps": bottom[0] * 10_000,
            "spread_bps": spread_bps,
            "clears_low_cost": spread_bps > round_trip_lo,
            "clears_high_cost": spread_bps > round_trip_hi,
        }
    )

# Built with an explicit schema, because `pl.DataFrame([])` is a frame with no
# columns at all and sorting it raises rather than returning nothing. Every family
# can be skipped above - a registry holding no bucketed predictions for any of them
# is the ordinary state of a fresh one - and a table that cannot be built is a fact
# to report, not an error.
decile_spreads = pl.DataFrame(
    spread_rows,
    schema={
        "family": pl.Utf8,
        "top_decile_bps": pl.Float64,
        "bottom_decile_bps": pl.Float64,
        "spread_bps": pl.Float64,
        "clears_low_cost": pl.Boolean,
        "clears_high_cost": pl.Boolean,
    },
).sort("spread_bps", descending=True)
print(f"round-trip cost assumption: {round_trip_lo} to {round_trip_hi} bps per rebalance")
if decile_spreads.is_empty():
    print("families with a bucketed decile spread: 0")
else:
    print(
        f"families whose spread clears the low-cost end: {decile_spreads['clears_low_cost'].sum()}"
    )
    print(
        f"families whose spread clears the high-cost end: {decile_spreads['clears_high_cost'].sum()}"
    )
decile_spreads

# %% [markdown]
# The spread is a gross number and the cost columns are what turn it into a claim about
# a tradeable strategy. A family that clears the low-cost end but not the high-cost end
# is saying that whether this signal pays depends on which names it trades: liquid
# large caps at the cheap end of the declared range, or the small illiquid names where
# the per-leg assumption doubles.
#
# Monotonicity across the middle deciles is a separate question from the size of the
# gap, and the figure is where to read it. A model that separates the extremes while
# scrambling the middle has learned to spot the tails of the cross-section, which is a
# narrower and more fragile thing than ranking it. The comparison against the
# unconditional mean drawn on the figure is what shows whether the long leg carries the
# spread, the short leg does, or both.

# %%
corr_matrix, corr_labels = prediction_correlation_matrix(
    best_preds, date_col=DATE_COL, entity_col=ENTITY_COL
)

# %% [markdown]
# ### Figure 5: Prediction Correlation Across Models

# %%
plot_correlation_matrix(corr_matrix, corr_labels)

# %% [markdown]
# The correlation matrix is the input to any decision about combining families.
# A pair whose predictions correlate weakly is offering genuinely different views of
# the same month, so averaging them cancels some error without giving up much mean.
# A pair that correlates strongly is offering one view twice, and the more expensive
# member of the pair is paying for something the cheaper one already had.
#
# The reason to expect diversity here is that the families disagree about what shape
# the mapping from characteristics to returns has. A penalised linear model commits to
# one global linear combination. A boosted tree ensemble builds a step function out of
# thresholds on individual characteristics and their interactions. The tabular network
# learns smooth transformations of each feature before mixing them. A latent-factor
# estimator does not model the return directly at all: it fits a small factor structure
# to the panel and scores a name by its exposure. Those are different inductive biases
# applied to identical inputs, so where their predictions agree, they agree because the
# data forced them to.

# %% [markdown]
# ### How Much Does Additional Model Complexity Help?
#
# Families that publish intermediate checkpoints let us watch validation IC as training
# proceeds, which is where the tradeoff between capacity and overfitting becomes
# visible rather than assumed.

# %%
cp_data = all_metrics.filter(pl.col("checkpoint_value").is_not_null())
cp_families = (
    cp_data.group_by("family")
    .agg(pl.col("checkpoint_value").n_unique().alias("n_cp"))
    .filter(pl.col("n_cp") > 1)["family"]
    .to_list()
    if cp_data.height > 0
    else []
)
print(f"families publishing more than one checkpoint: {cp_families}")

# %% [markdown]
# ### Figure 6: Learning Curves

# %%
plot_learning_curves(cp_data, cp_families)

# %% [markdown]
# There are three shapes to look for and they call for different actions.
#
# A curve that rises and then flattens says the extra capacity is being spent on
# nothing: the cheapest checkpoint on the plateau is the one to keep, and training
# longer only costs compute. A curve that rises and then falls says the model has
# started to fit fold-specific noise, and where it turns over is where early stopping
# belongs. A curve that is flat from the first checkpoint says whatever the family was
# going to find, it found immediately, which is the usual shape for estimators fitted
# to a structural objective rather than to validation IC.
#
# The checkpoint axis is not comparable across families. A boosting iteration, a
# training epoch and an alternating-least-squares pass are different units of work, so
# these curves are read one family at a time.

# %% [markdown]
# ### Which Features Drive the Forecasts?
#
# Importance from a single fit is an anecdote. Importance that recurs across ten
# walk-forward folds, each fitted on a different decade of data, is evidence that a
# characteristic carries something durable rather than something local to one regime.
#
# Where booster files are available this is read directly from the trees. Where they
# are not, the fallback below measures the rank correlation between each characteristic
# and the leading family's own score, fold by fold. That is a weaker instrument and it
# is worth being precise about why: it says what the model's ranking co-moves with, not
# what the model uses. A characteristic that is highly correlated with a feature the
# model actually relies on will score just as highly as the feature itself.

# %%
gbm_importance = load_gbm_feature_importance(CASE_STUDY, label=PRIMARY_LABEL, top_n=TOP_N_FEATURES)
importance_source = "gbm booster gain"

if gbm_importance is None:
    leader = family_leaders.row(0, named=True)
    leader_family, leader_config = leader["family"], leader["config_name"]
    importance_source = f"rank correlation with {leader_family}/{leader_config} scores"
    print(f"No booster files published. Falling back to {importance_source}.")

    features_df = pl.read_parquet(features_path)
    if features_df[DATE_COL].dtype == pl.String:
        features_df = features_df.with_columns(pl.col(DATE_COL).str.to_datetime())
    # The feature parquet and the prediction parquets disagree on both the type and the
    # time unit of the timestamp, and a join across two datetime units raises rather
    # than casting, so pin the feature side to whatever the predictions carry.
    features_df = features_df.with_columns(pl.col(DATE_COL).cast(best_preds[DATE_COL].dtype))

    leader_preds = best_preds.filter(
        (pl.col("family") == leader_family) & (pl.col("config_name") == leader_config)
    )
    merged = leader_preds.join(features_df, on=[DATE_COL, ENTITY_COL], how="inner")

    importance_rows = []
    for fold in sorted(merged["fold_id"].unique().drop_nulls().to_list()):
        fold_data = merged.filter(pl.col("fold_id") == fold)
        for feat in feature_cols:
            vals = fold_data[[feat, "y_score"]].drop_nulls()
            if vals.height > 50:
                corr, _ = spearmanr(vals[feat].to_numpy(), vals["y_score"].to_numpy())
                importance_rows.append(
                    {
                        "config_name": leader_config,
                        "fold_id": int(fold),
                        "feature": feat,
                        "importance": abs(float(corr)),
                    }
                )

    if importance_rows:
        gbm_importance = pl.DataFrame(importance_rows).with_columns(
            (
                pl.col("importance") / pl.col("importance").max().over(["config_name", "fold_id"])
            ).alias("importance_norm")
        )
        top_features = (
            gbm_importance.group_by("feature")
            .agg(pl.col("importance_norm").mean().alias("mean_imp"))
            .sort("mean_imp", descending=True)
            .head(TOP_N_FEATURES)["feature"]
            .to_list()
        )
        gbm_importance = gbm_importance.filter(pl.col("feature").is_in(top_features))

if gbm_importance is not None and gbm_importance.height > 0:
    print(f"importance source: {importance_source}")
    print(
        f"{gbm_importance['feature'].n_unique()} characteristics across "
        f"{gbm_importance['fold_id'].n_unique()} folds"
    )
else:
    print("No feature importance could be computed for this case study.")

# %% [markdown]
# ### Figure 7: Feature Importance Stability Heatmap

# %%
plot_feature_importance_heatmap(gbm_importance, TOP_N_FEATURES)

# %% tags=["results"]
if gbm_importance is not None and gbm_importance.height > 0:
    n_folds_imp = gbm_importance["fold_id"].n_unique()
    top5_per_fold = (
        gbm_importance.sort(["fold_id", "importance_norm"], descending=[False, True])
        .group_by("fold_id", maintain_order=True)
        .head(5)
    )
    persistence = (
        top5_per_fold.group_by("feature")
        .agg(pl.len().alias("folds_in_top5"))
        .with_columns(share_of_folds=pl.col("folds_in_top5") / n_folds_imp)
        .sort("folds_in_top5", descending=True)
    )
    print(
        f"characteristics reaching the top five in at least one of {n_folds_imp} folds: "
        f"{persistence.height}"
    )
    print(
        f"characteristics in the top five in every fold: "
        f"{(persistence['folds_in_top5'] == n_folds_imp).sum()}"
    )
    persistence.head(10)

# %% [markdown]
# A characteristic that reaches the top five in nearly every fold is doing the same
# work across ten different training decades, which is the strongest statement this
# diagnostic can make. One that appears in a single fold is describing that fold.
#
# The count of characteristics that ever reach the top five is itself informative. If
# it is close to five, the same handful drives the ranking everywhere and the rest of
# the feature set is doing little; if it is much larger, importance rotates with the
# regime and no small subset would have served across the whole sample.

# %% [markdown]
# ## 6. Heterogeneity: Labels and Regimes
#
# The same features and folds were used to answer more than one question. The forest
# plot below restricts to the regression labels, because a classification label is
# scored on a different axis and folding an AUC into an IC panel would compare two
# different things on one line.

# %%
regression_labels = [
    lbl
    for lbl in [setup["labels"]["primary"], *setup["labels"]["variants"]]
    if not lbl.startswith("fwd_class")
]
multi_rows = []
for lbl in regression_labels:
    lbl_metrics = all_labels_metrics.filter(pl.col("label") == lbl)
    for fam in lbl_metrics["family"].unique().to_list():
        fam_data = lbl_metrics.filter(pl.col("family") == fam)
        rank1 = fam_data.sort("ic_mean_daily", descending=True, nulls_last=True).head(1)
        if rank1.height == 0:
            continue
        r = rank1.row(0, named=True)
        if r.get("ic_mean_daily") is None:
            continue
        multi_rows.append(
            {
                "label": lbl,
                "family": fam,
                "config_name": r["config_name"],
                "ic_mean_daily": r["ic_mean_daily"],
                "ic_ci_lo": r.get("ic_ci_lo"),
                "ic_ci_hi": r.get("ic_ci_hi"),
                "ic_t_hac": r.get("ic_t_hac"),
            }
        )

multi_label_df = pl.DataFrame(multi_rows)
multi_label_df

# %%
plot_label_horizon_forest(
    multi_label_df,
    families=sorted(all_labels_metrics["family"].unique().to_list()),
    labels=regression_labels,
    label_display={lbl: lbl for lbl in regression_labels},
    title="Winsorizing the label moves some families across zero",
)

# %% tags=["results"]
label_evidence = (
    multi_label_df.filter(pl.col("ic_ci_lo").is_not_null() & pl.col("ic_ci_hi").is_not_null())
    .with_columns(excludes_zero=(pl.col("ic_ci_lo") > 0) | (pl.col("ic_ci_hi") < 0))
    .sort("ic_mean_daily", descending=True, nulls_last=True)
)
by_label = (
    label_evidence.group_by("label")
    .agg(
        pl.len().alias("families"),
        pl.col("excludes_zero").sum().alias("intervals_excluding_zero"),
    )
    .sort("label")
)
print(f"{label_evidence.height} label-and-family pairs carry an interval")
print(f"{label_evidence['excludes_zero'].sum()} of them exclude zero")
print(by_label)
label_evidence.select(
    "label", "family", "config_name", "ic_mean_daily", "ic_ci_lo", "ic_ci_hi", "excludes_zero"
)

# %% [markdown]
# The comparison to make here is within a family and across labels. Where a family's
# interval excludes zero on one label and covers zero on another, the label is doing
# work the model could not do: winsorizing pulls in the extreme monthly returns that
# dominate a squared-error objective, and a family that was being pulled around by
# those observations gets a cleaner target to fit.
#
# That has a direct consequence for what gets traded. A signal that only clears zero on
# the winsorized label is a signal about the bulk of the cross-section, and the
# strategy that uses it should be the one that trades the bulk. Reading it as evidence
# for the raw-return label would be borrowing credibility from a different question.
#
# Where a family's interval behaves the same way on both labels, the opposite follows:
# whatever robustness winsorizing supplies, that family already had, most often because
# its own loss function was already insensitive to the tails.
#
# ### Regime-Conditional Performance
#
# Cross-sectional predictability is not constant. When stocks move together there is
# little to rank; when they separate, the same model has more to work with. The split
# below measures the dispersion of realised returns within each month and calls the
# months above the sample median high-dispersion. That is a split of this sample rather
# than a regime label a trader could have applied at the time, so it diagnoses where a
# family's signal lives; it does not define a rule for switching between families.

# %%
regime_results = []

for row in best_per_family.iter_rows(named=True):
    family = row["family"]
    config = row["config_name"]
    checkpoint = row.get("checkpoint_value")

    mask = (pl.col("family") == family) & (pl.col("config_name") == config)
    if checkpoint is not None:
        mask = mask & (pl.col("checkpoint_value") == checkpoint)

    model_preds = best_preds.filter(mask)
    if model_preds.height == 0:
        continue

    regime_ic = regime_conditional_ic(model_preds, date_col=DATE_COL)
    if regime_ic.height > 0:
        regime_results.append(regime_ic.with_columns(pl.lit(family).alias("family")))

regime_df = pl.concat(regime_results) if regime_results else pl.DataFrame()

# %% [markdown]
# ### Figure 8: Conditional Performance by Volatility Regime

# %%
plot_regime_bars(regime_df)

# %% [markdown]
# A family whose bars are similar across regimes has a signal that does not depend on
# the market being agitated, which is the more comfortable thing to deploy. A family
# whose signal lives entirely in the high-dispersion bar is telling you that its mean
# IC was earned in a minority of months, and that a strategy built on it will spend
# most of its life flat and occasionally do all its work at once.
#
# The regime split is also a check on the fold record in Section 4. If one family's
# weak folds are exactly the low-dispersion years, then the two diagnostics are
# describing one phenomenon rather than two, and sizing by realised dispersion is the
# natural response.

# %% [markdown]
# ## 7. Structural and Causal Evidence
#
# The latent-factor and causal families produce numbers that a table will happily print
# next to an IC and that mean something else. This section reports each on its own
# terms.

# %% [markdown]
# ### Latent Factors
#
# The estimators declared for this panel are printed at the top of the notebook. Each
# fits a small factor structure to the cross-section and then scores a name by its
# exposure to those factors. Two of them, the conditional autoencoder and the
# supervised autoencoder, are neural; IPCA maps characteristics to factor loadings
# linearly; the stochastic discount factor estimator fits a pricing kernel and reports
# its own Sharpe ratio as an internal diagnostic.
#
# Their scores appear in the IC comparison above because they can be scored that way,
# not because that is the objective they were fitted against. An estimator whose
# interval covers zero there has still fitted the factor structure it was asked to fit;
# what it has not done is produce a cross-sectional ranking the panel supports.
#
# The per-fold diagnostics are keyed by training hash, so the config name from the metrics table
# has to be resolved to the hash of the run that produced it.

# %%
lf_runs = (
    all_metrics.filter(pl.col("family") == "latent_factors")
    .sort("ic_mean_daily", descending=True, nulls_last=True)
    .group_by("config_name", maintain_order=True)
    .first()
    .select("config_name", "training_hash", "ic_mean_daily")
    .sort("ic_mean_daily", descending=True, nulls_last=True)
)

lf_extras = {}
for row in lf_runs.iter_rows(named=True):
    extras = load_fold_extras(CASE_STUDY, row["training_hash"])
    if extras:
        lf_extras[row["config_name"]] = extras

print("Latent-factor estimators fitted on this label:")
print(lf_runs)
print(f"\nper-fold diagnostics recovered for: {sorted(lf_extras)}")
missing_extras = sorted(set(lf_runs["config_name"]) - set(lf_extras))
if missing_extras:
    print(f"no fold_extras.json written by: {missing_extras}")

# %% [markdown]
# #### IPCA Characteristic Loadings
#
# IPCA estimates a matrix that maps each characteristic to a loading on each latent
# factor. Reading down a factor's column shows which characteristics that factor is
# built out of, which is the closest thing the latent-factor family offers to the
# feature-importance question asked in Section 5.

# %%
if "ipca" in lf_extras:
    last_fold = lf_extras["ipca"][-1]
    gamma = np.array(last_fold["gamma"])
    n_chars, n_factors = gamma.shape
    print(f"gamma: {n_chars} characteristics x {n_factors} factors, fold {last_fold['fold_id']}")
    print(f"converged: {last_fold['converged']} after {last_fold['iterations']} iterations")

    # The estimator prepends an intercept column to the characteristics before fitting
    # (ml4t.models.latent_factors.ipca._augment_chars), so gamma has one more row than
    # the feature file has columns and every characteristic sits one row lower than its
    # position in the feature list.
    instrument_names = ["intercept", *feature_cols]
    if len(instrument_names) != n_chars:
        raise ValueError(
            f"gamma carries {n_chars} instruments but the feature file plus an intercept "
            f"gives {len(instrument_names)}; the loadings cannot be labelled"
        )

    n_top = min(10, n_chars)
    n_panels = min(3, n_factors)
    fig, axes = plt.subplots(1, n_panels, figsize=(5 * n_panels, 5), layout="tight")
    axes = np.atleast_1d(axes)
    for k, ax in enumerate(axes):
        col = gamma[:, k]
        top_idx = np.argsort(np.abs(col))[-n_top:][::-1]
        names = [instrument_names[i][:25] for i in top_idx]
        vals = col[top_idx]
        ax.barh(
            range(n_top),
            vals,
            color=[COLORS["blue"] if v > 0 else COLORS["negative"] for v in vals],
        )
        ax.set_yticks(range(n_top))
        ax.set_yticklabels(names, fontsize=8)
        ax.set_title(f"Factor {k + 1}")
        ax.invert_yaxis()
    fig.suptitle("No IPCA factor is dominated by a handful of characteristics")
    fig.tight_layout()
else:
    print("IPCA published no fold diagnostics for this label.")

# %% [markdown]
# The loadings describe the factor structure IPCA found; they do not by themselves say
# the structure predicts returns. That question is settled by IPCA's interval in
# Section 3, and the two answers are independent: a factor model can describe the
# covariance of the panel well while ranking next month's returns no better than
# chance.

# %% [markdown]
# #### Autoencoder Training Convergence
#
# The two autoencoder estimators record a training loss per epoch per fold. Ten curves
# that fall and settle in the same place mean the optimisation is doing the same thing
# in every decade of the sample, which is what has to be true before any fold-to-fold
# difference in IC can be attributed to the data rather than to the fit.

# %%
for model_name in ["cae", "sae"]:
    if model_name not in lf_extras:
        continue
    fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(8, 4), layout="tight")
    plotted = 0
    for fold in lf_extras[model_name]:
        # CAE writes two record shapes into one history: per-epoch training points, and
        # checkpoint records that carry a validation loss and no training loss.
        history = [point for point in (fold.get("train_history") or []) if "train_loss" in point]
        if not history:
            continue
        epochs = [point["epoch"] for point in history]
        losses = [point["train_loss"] for point in history]
        ax.plot(epochs, losses, alpha=0.4, color=COLORS["blue"])
        plotted += 1
    ax.set_xlabel("Epoch")
    ax.set_ylabel("Training loss")
    ax.set_title(f"{model_name.upper()} training loss falls in every fold and none diverges")
    ax.legend([f"{plotted} folds"], loc="upper right")
    fig.tight_layout()

# %% [markdown]
# #### Stochastic Discount Factor Sharpe Ratios

# %%
if "sdf" in lf_extras:
    sharpes = [e["sdf_sharpe"] for e in lf_extras["sdf"] if e.get("sdf_sharpe") is not None]
    if sharpes:
        print(f"SDF in-sample Sharpe across {len(sharpes)} folds:")
        print(f"  mean {np.mean(sharpes):.3f}, std {np.std(sharpes):.3f}")
        print(f"  range {min(sharpes):.3f} to {max(sharpes):.3f}")
else:
    print("SDF published no fold diagnostics for this label.")

# %% [markdown]
# The Sharpe ratio above is the estimator's own objective evaluated on the data it was
# fitted to, not a tradeable result. It belongs here as a convergence check: an
# estimator that reports a stable kernel Sharpe across all ten folds has solved the
# same problem each time. Whether that kernel ranks next month's cross-section is the
# separate question answered by the SDF row in Section 3, and the two can disagree
# without either being wrong.

# %% [markdown]
# ### Causal DML
#
# [`09_causal_dml`](09_causal_dml.ipynb) asks a different question from every other
# notebook in this case study. Rather than ranking stocks, it estimates the effect of
# one declared treatment characteristic on the forward return, after using machine
# learning to partial out a declared set of confounders from both. The output is an
# effect size with a standard error, plus a permutation-based refutation test, and it
# is stored in its own registry table for that reason.
#
# A causal identity covers the row cap and the development window as well as the fold
# and placebo geometry, so re-running under a different cap writes a second row rather
# than replacing the first. Every such row is a real run, and more than one of them can
# carry the same configuration name - the name is not the identity. The table below is
# read as this case study's causal evidence, so it shows the single identity currently
# in force for each label and counts the superseded rows rather than mixing them in.

# %% tags=["results"]
declared_causal = load_configs(CASE_STUDY, PRIMARY_LABEL, "causal_dml")[0]
DECLARED_LABELS = [setup["labels"]["primary"], *setup["labels"].get("variants", [])]

# `causal_runs` is keyed on the causal hash, and that identity covers the row cap, the
# development cutoff, the seed and the fold and placebo geometry - not the config name
# alone. This registry holds six rows for one label under two config names, and four of
# them share the declared name while reporting effects of both signs. Selecting on the
# config name therefore renders superseded runs beside the current one as though a
# reader should weigh them together. `CausalResult.one` resolves the single identity in
# force for a label and tier, which is the run this table is about.
with sqlite3.connect(str(CASE_DIR / "run_log" / "registry.db")) as conn:
    recorded = conn.execute("SELECT count(*) FROM causal_runs").fetchone()[0]
    attempted = {r[0] for r in conn.execute("SELECT DISTINCT label FROM causal_runs")}


# A spec written before the structured schema keeps the estimand flat under `params`,
# and one written after it nests the same three fields under `computation`. Both shapes
# are still in this table, so read each field from whichever the row carries.
def _spec_field(spec, section, name):
    computation = spec.get("computation")
    if computation is not None:
        return computation.get(section, {}).get(name)
    return spec.get("params", {}).get(name, spec.get(name))


causal_rows = []
unresolved = {}
for label in [lbl for lbl in DECLARED_LABELS if lbl in attempted]:
    try:
        result = CausalResult.one(study, label=label, execution_tier=EXECUTION_TIER)
    except ValueError as exc:
        unresolved[label] = str(exc)
        continue
    causal_rows.append(
        {
            "label": label,
            "causal_hash": result.hash[:12],
            "treatment": _spec_field(result.spec, "estimand", "treatment"),
            "n_folds": _spec_field(result.spec, "cv", "n_folds"),
            "max_samples": _spec_field(result.spec, "analysis_population", "max_samples"),
            "n_obs": result.metrics["n_obs"],
            "dml_effect": result.metrics["dml_effect"],
            "dml_se_hac": result.metrics["dml_se_hac"],
            "p_value_hac": result.metrics["p_value_hac"],
            "naive_effect": result.metrics["naive_effect"],
            "confounding_bias_pct": result.metrics["confounding_bias_pct"],
            "refutation_p": result.metrics["refutation_p"],
            "refutation_class": result.metrics["refutation_class"],
        }
    )

if causal_rows:
    causal_df = pl.DataFrame(causal_rows).sort("label")
    causal_df = causal_df.with_columns(significant_hac=pl.col("p_value_hac") < 0.05)
    print(f"declared causal configuration: {declared_causal['config_name']}")
    print(f"labels carrying a current causal identity: {causal_df.height} of {len(attempted)} run")
    print(f"superseded rows also in the table: {recorded - causal_df.height}")
    print(f"clearing the HAC inference gate: {causal_df['significant_hac'].sum()}")
    # The refutation verdict comes from the shared derivation, which withholds one when
    # the draw count is unknown or too small to have rejected at all. Applying a bare
    # threshold to the p-value here would publish a pass for a run that was underpowered.
    for verdict, n in sorted(causal_df["refutation_class"].value_counts().rows()):
        print(f"clearing the placebo refutation gate - {verdict}: {n}")
    causal_df
else:
    print("No current causal identity for any label the causal stage ran.")
for label, why in unresolved.items():
    print(f"unresolved: {label}: {why}")

# %% [markdown]
# Two gates have to be cleared before a causal claim is made, and they fail in
# different ways.
#
# The first is inference on the estimate itself, with a standard error that allows for
# correlation across firms within a month. The gap between the naive and orthogonalised
# estimates, reported above as a confounding-bias percentage, is what the DML procedure
# bought: it is how much of the raw association was attributable to the declared
# confounders rather than to the treatment. That percentage divides the gap by the
# adjusted estimate, so it grows without bound as the adjusted estimate approaches zero
# and says nothing on its own about how large either effect is. Read it beside the two
# effect sizes in the table above, which are in the same units as each other.
#
# The second is the placebo test, which re-estimates the effect on permuted treatment
# histories and asks where the real run's HAC t-statistic falls among theirs. It compares
# t-statistics and not effects: permuting the treatment frees it from the controls, so its
# residual keeps nearly all its variance, and that variance is the denominator of the
# second-stage effect. Comparing effects divides every placebo by a larger number than the
# observed one and narrows the null toward a pass. A placebo p-value near
# one does not mean the effect is absent; it means the estimate sits at the wrong end
# of the placebo distribution to be read as evidence, and the notebook that produced it
# says so directly. Neither gate is a substitute for the other, and an estimate that
# clears one is not a result.
#
# This is also not an input to the backtest. The predictive families supply the scores
# that get traded; the causal estimate is a statement about one characteristic's effect
# on returns, conditional on a specific set of confounders, and it neither ranks the
# cross-section nor competes for a place in the ranking above.

# %% [markdown]
# ### Calibration: Are Prediction Intervals Honest?
#
# An information coefficient says whether the ordering is right. It says nothing about
# whether a model knows how wrong it is likely to be. The width measured here is the one
# the `conformal_weighted` allocator sizes positions with: calibrated per firm on every
# absolute residual known at `t - h`, falling back to a quantile pooled over every firm
# where one has too few residuals of its own. A decision is covered when its absolute
# residual falls inside that half-width, and `n_uncalibrated` counts the decisions that
# cleared no warm-up.
#
# `h` is the sizing lag, and for this case study it is one step while the label's horizon
# is zero. The two differ here and nowhere else: a row is dated by the month the return was
# earned, so nothing about the outcome reaches forward past its own row - but the position
# that earned it was chosen at the end of the month before, so that row's residual is not
# available to size it.
#
# Two numbers follow. Empirical coverage below nominal means the intervals are too
# narrow and the model is overconfident. Empirical coverage above nominal means the
# opposite, which is safer but wasteful. Width, reported as a multiple of the standard
# deviation of the outcomes it was measured against so families on different scales can
# be compared, is what separates two models that both cover correctly: the one with
# narrower intervals at the same coverage is saying more.
#
# Read it as a diagnostic of residual dispersion rather than a guarantee. Split
# conformal's finite-sample coverage (Vovk and co-authors, 2005; Lei and co-authors,
# 2018) needs the calibration and evaluation residuals to be exchangeable and return
# residuals are not, and nothing in the allocation path reads an interval or a coverage
# level. Each row is the family's highest-IC configuration for the primary label, which
# is a model-level ranking and not the funnel's - every selection stage ranks on
# validation backtest Sharpe - used here because this runs before any backtest exists.

# %%
conformal_df = conformal_coverage_diagnostic(CASE_STUDY, label=PRIMARY_LABEL)
conformal_df

# %% tags=["results"]
if conformal_df.height > 0:
    calibration = (
        conformal_df.with_columns(
            coverage_gap_pp=(pl.col("empirical_coverage") - pl.col("nominal_level")) * 100
        )
        .select(
            "family",
            "config_name",
            "nominal_level",
            "empirical_coverage",
            "coverage_gap_pp",
            "mean_interval_width_frac_std",
        )
        .sort(["nominal_level", "coverage_gap_pp"])
    )
    under = calibration.filter(pl.col("coverage_gap_pp") < 0).height
    print(f"{calibration.height} family-and-level combinations measured")
    print(f"{under} of them cover less often than nominal")
    print(
        "largest shortfall: "
        f"{calibration['coverage_gap_pp'].min():.1f} pp, "
        f"largest excess: {calibration['coverage_gap_pp'].max():.1f} pp"
    )
    calibration

# %% [markdown]
# Read the sign of the gap by family first and by level second. A family that
# under-covers at every level has a residual distribution with heavier tails than the
# calibration quantile assumed, and its intervals should not be used for position
# sizing without a correction. A family that over-covers is paying in width for
# safety it did not need.
#
# The level pattern is separate and says something about the shape of the residuals
# rather than their spread. A family whose gap shrinks as the nominal level rises has
# residuals that are worse behaved near the centre of the distribution than in the far
# tail, which is the usual signature of a return distribution with a sharp peak.
# A family whose gap grows with the level has the opposite problem, and it is the more
# serious one, because the far tail is what a risk limit is set against.

# %% [markdown]
# ## 8. Pre-Backtest Judgment and Handoff
#
# The table below collects the evidence per family into one row each. It deliberately
# stops short of a recommendation column: what advances to a backtest is a decision
# about cost, capacity and mandate as much as about statistics, and the point of
# gathering the evidence in one place is that a reader can make that decision rather
# than read one off.

# %% tags=["results"]
synthesis_rows = []

for row in family_leaders.iter_rows(named=True):
    family, config = row["family"], row["config_name"]
    label_key = f"{family}/{config}"
    fam_folds = fold_ic.filter(pl.col("model_label") == label_key)

    spread = decile_spreads.filter(pl.col("family") == family)["spread_bps"]
    synthesis_rows.append(
        {
            "family": family,
            "config": config,
            "ic": row["ic_mean_daily"],
            "ci_lo": row["ci_lo"],
            "ci_hi": row["ci_hi"],
            "interval_excludes_zero": not row["covers_zero"],
            "folds_positive": int((fam_folds["ic_mean"] > 0).sum()) if fam_folds.height else None,
            "folds": fam_folds.height or None,
            "worst_fold_ic": float(fam_folds["ic_mean"].min()) if fam_folds.height else None,
            "spread_bps": float(spread[0]) if spread.len() else None,
        }
    )

# Same reason as `decile_spreads` above: an empty `family_leaders` gives an empty row
# list, and a frame built from one has no columns to sort on or filter by.
synthesis = pl.DataFrame(
    synthesis_rows,
    schema={
        "family": pl.Utf8,
        "config": pl.Utf8,
        "ic": pl.Float64,
        "ci_lo": pl.Float64,
        "ci_hi": pl.Float64,
        "interval_excludes_zero": pl.Boolean,
        "folds_positive": pl.Int64,
        "folds": pl.Int64,
        "worst_fold_ic": pl.Float64,
        "spread_bps": pl.Float64,
    },
).sort("ic", descending=True)
if synthesis.is_empty():
    print("families with a leader row: 0")
else:
    print(f"families with an interval excluding zero: {synthesis['interval_excludes_zero'].sum()}")
    print(
        "families with an interval excluding zero and a spread above the low-cost round trip: "
        f"{synthesis.filter(pl.col('interval_excludes_zero') & (pl.col('spread_bps') > round_trip_lo)).height}"
    )
synthesis

# %% [markdown]
# ### How to read the synthesis
#
# The columns are in the order the evidence should be weighed.
#
# **`interval_excludes_zero` is the first filter and it is not negotiable.** A family
# that fails it has not shown a cross-sectional signal on this label. It may still be
# worth fitting on another label, and Section 6 is where to look for that, but it does
# not go to a backtest on the strength of a point estimate.
#
# **`folds_positive` and `worst_fold_ic` decide how much of it to believe.** These say
# whether the interval was earned steadily or in bursts, and how bad the bad years
# were. A family that passes the first filter on the back of two extraordinary folds is
# a different proposition from one that was