PCA y IPCA para factores latentes en paneles de renta variable
Resumen
Este índice presenta factores latentes como patrones comunes extraídos de la forma en que se mueven conjuntamente los rendimientos de las acciones; la carga de cada acción indica su exposición a un patrón. Contrasta el análisis de componentes principales, que estima factores y cargas de acciones únicamente a partir de los rendimientos, con el análisis de componentes principales instrumentado, que modela las cargas como funciones de características observables de las acciones. Condicionar por características permite incorporar nuevas empresas y atributos empresariales cambiantes, pero supone que la relación entre características y cargas se mantiene estable entre acciones y a lo largo del tiempo.
El notebook no ajusta factores ni realiza comparaciones predictivas. Lee los resultados de validación publicados en ambos notebooks de modelos y presenta sus etiquetas, configuraciones, puntos de control e identidades para que puedas comprobar que los resultados estén completos y se hayan evaluado con el mismo diseño walk-forward. Un análisis posterior compara la ordenación predictiva. El número de factores se fija de antemano en vez de ajustarse; los datos de validación se han examinado repetidamente en el estudio de caso más amplio y los factores extraídos no tienen interpretaciones económicas inherentes. Por diseño, la compresión también omite información específica de cada acción.
Ideas clave
- Los factores latentes resumen movimientos comunes en un panel de rendimientos de acciones, mientras que las cargas describen la exposición de cada acción.
- PCA obtiene las cargas del historial de rendimientos, mientras que IPCA las relaciona con características observables de las acciones.
- Las cargas condicionadas por características pueden adaptarse a acciones cambiantes o a acciones que no aparecían en los datos de entrenamiento, bajo el supuesto de estabilidad.
- El índice comprueba los resultados publicados y las identidades de evaluación, pero no ajusta modelos ni selecciona el número de factores.
- Los factores latentes son direcciones estadísticas; asignarles un significado económico requiere una interpretación que va más allá de este notebook.
Etiquetas
Texto completo
# 13_latent_factors.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]
# # US equities panel: finding the few things three thousand stocks have in common
#
# Every model so far has predicted each stock from that stock's own features. But stocks do not
# move independently - most of what a broad panel does on any day is one thing happening to all of
# it, and a handful of further things happening to overlapping groups of it. A **latent factor**
# is one of those common movements: not a column anybody computed, but a pattern extracted from
# how the returns move together, with each stock carrying a **loading** saying how much of that
# pattern it takes.
#
# Two ways of extracting them are fitted here, and the difference between them is the whole
# lesson:
#
# - [`13a_pca`](13a_pca.ipynb) takes the factors from the return panel alone. Principal component
# analysis asks which combinations of stocks account for the most common variation, and answers
# without being told anything about the stocks. A loading is then a number attached to a stock,
# fitted over the training window and carried forward.
# - [`13b_ipca`](13b_ipca.ipynb) conditions the loadings on what the stocks *are*. Instrumented
# principal components makes a stock's loading a function of its observable characteristics, so
# two stocks with the same characteristics load the same way and a stock whose characteristics
# change has its loading change with them.
#
# **Why the second exists.** A loading attached to a stock says nothing about a stock that has not
# been seen, and cannot move when the stock does. On a panel where names enter and leave and a
# company's size and value change over a decade, that is a real limitation rather than a technical
# one, and conditioning on characteristics is what removes it. What it costs is a stronger
# assumption: that the relation between characteristics and loadings is stable, and is the same
# for every stock.
#
# **This notebook runs nothing.** It is the index over the two that do: it names them, opens what
# they published, and shows that both are complete. Which of the two is worth more is a predictive
# question, and it is answered in [`15_model_analysis`](15_model_analysis.ipynb).
#
# **Learning objectives.** By the end of this notebook you will be able to:
#
# - Say what a latent factor and a loading are, in terms of a panel of returns rather than of an
# algorithm.
# - State the difference between a loading attached to a stock and a loading conditioned on the
# stock's characteristics, and name a situation in which only the second can answer.
# - Say what the conditioned version assumes in exchange, and when that assumption would be
# uncomfortable.
# - Read a table of published latent-factor results and tell a complete one from an incomplete one.
#
# **Book reference**: Chapter 13.
#
# **Prerequisites**: [`13a_pca`](13a_pca.ipynb) and [`13b_ipca`](13b_ipca.ipynb) have published the
# results this index reads.
#
# **What it writes**: nothing. It reads.
# %%
"""Reference index for the latent-factor execution notebooks."""
import os
from pathlib import Path
import polars as pl
from case_studies.research import Study, open_study
# %% tags=["parameters"]
CASE_STUDY_ID = "us_equities_panel"
EXECUTION_TIER = "canonical"
WORKSPACE = "experiments"
# %% [markdown]
# ## What the two notebooks published
#
# One row per label per factor model. Read it for two things.
#
# **Both models present at every label.** A label carrying a PCA row and no IPCA row means the
# second notebook did not finish there, and the comparison in
# [`15_model_analysis`](15_model_analysis.ipynb) would then be measuring a difference between
# labels rather than between factor models.
#
# **`cv_identity` the same across the rows being compared.** It records which walk-forward design
# a result was fitted and scored under. Two rows with different values measured themselves over
# different windows, and ranking them is not a comparison.
#
# Canonical execution reads the released study; preview execution reads an isolated workspace.
# %%
if EXECUTION_TIER == "canonical":
# `Study.open` with no workspace, not `open_study`: this notebook writes nothing, and that is
# the call that opens the released study read-only. `open_study` opens it for regeneration.
study = Study.open(CASE_STUDY_ID)
elif EXECUTION_TIER == "preview":
study = open_study(
CASE_STUDY_ID,
execution_tier=EXECUTION_TIER,
workspace=Path(os.environ.get("ML4T_OUTPUT_DIR") or WORKSPACE),
)
else:
raise ValueError(f"Unsupported execution tier: {EXECUTION_TIER!r}")
latent_results = (
study.predictions.table(include_preview=EXECUTION_TIER == "preview")
.filter(
(pl.col("family") == "latent_factors")
& (pl.col("split") == "validation")
& (pl.col("execution_tier") == EXECUTION_TIER)
& pl.col("complete")
)
.select(
"label",
"config_name",
"checkpoint_kind",
"checkpoint_value",
"cv_identity",
"training_hash",
"prediction_hash",
)
.sort("label", "config_name", "checkpoint_kind", "checkpoint_value")
)
# This notebook indexes what `13a_pca` and `13b_ipca` register and computes nothing of its
# own, so it has to run after them. Nothing else enforces that: the filter returns an empty
# frame rather than raising, the frame is the notebook's only result, and a render whose
# single result cell is blank is indistinguishable from a clean run. Empty is a different
# condition from the partial one the prose below anticipates - "if a row is missing above,
# run the notebook that produces it" expects some rows and got none, which means no
# latent-factor model has been fitted at all.
if latent_results.is_empty():
raise ValueError(
"no latent_factors predictions are registered for this execution tier: run "
"13a_pca and 13b_ipca first. This notebook only indexes what they publish."
)
latent_results
# %% [markdown]
# ## What happens next
#
# If a row is missing above, run the notebook that produces it - the execution notebooks reuse an
# identity that already exists rather than refitting it, so re-running is cheap and safe.
#
# [`15_model_analysis`](15_model_analysis.ipynb) reads these results alongside the other model
# families and asks which ranks the cross-section better.
# [`16_backtest`](16_backtest.ipynb) backtests every one of them. This index chooses nothing, and
# the number of factors is not tuned anywhere in this case study: each model's preset declares one
# and a sweep over that count would be a different experiment.
# %% [markdown]
# ## What to notice
#
# **The two models answer the same question with different information.** PCA sees only how the
# returns moved together; IPCA is additionally told what each stock is. Any difference between
# them is what the characteristics were worth, on this panel, under the assumption that the
# relation between characteristics and loadings holds across stocks and over time.
#
# **A factor model is a compression, and a compression discards.** A handful of factors summarise
# a three-thousand-name panel, so whatever is specific to one stock is by construction not in the
# prediction. That is the trade being made rather than a defect: the models before this one are
# where stock-specific information lives.
#
# **Known limitations.** The factor count is declared, not searched, so nothing here says the
# declared one is right - only what it gives. Both models are fitted on training windows only and
# scored on validation folds that have been read many times over by the time a case study reaches
# this notebook. And a latent factor has no name: it is a direction in the returns, and reading an
# economic story into it is an interpretation this notebook does not support.
```Se muestra íntegramente con atribución según la licencia de la fuente. Licencia: MIT
Este resumen lo redactó el agente de investigación de Stratmill a partir del original; no es una copia de la fuente.