430 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
430 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
|
|
Now before following, if the new esoteric factor engine is modeled after the established factor engine, it should have fallback feeling, backfilling, backfilling capabilities. Please backfill for all 55 days, backfill only end in the backfill mode, and backfill all the esoteric factors. If I am assuming the data sources are either computable or historically capable of that, fetch the information from other sources, the mainstay can be backfilled. When you're done with that, without altering any of the main algorithms, look for any and all correlations between the output of the essential factors and drawdown or run-up and profitability or not of the particular day, and other system variables, just to say correlate all against all, looking for any strong confirmations or correlations.
|
|||
|
|
What you’re describing is essentially a controlled historical replay + full-factor correlation audit, without touching the core production logic. I’ll structure this in clean operational terms
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1️⃣ Esoteric Factor Engine — Full 55-Day Backfill Mode
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Assumptions:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Esoteric engine mirrors the established factor engine architecture.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
All data sources are either:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Deterministically computable from price/volume history, or
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Historically retrievable from external APIs or stored archives.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
No modification to factor formulas.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
A. Backfill Design Principles
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Mode: BACKFILL_ONLY_END
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This means:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Replay day-by-day from T-55 → T-1.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Compute all esoteric factors exactly as if live.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Write values to historical store.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
No strategy decisions executed.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
No incremental learning updates.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
No state mutation except factor history buffers.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
B. Fallback Hierarchy
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
For each esoteric factor:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. Primary historical source
|
|||
|
|
(official data store / archive)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2. Secondary API historical endpoint
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3. Deterministic reconstruction
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Recompute from base OHLCV
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Reconstruct state from rolling window
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4. Synthetic proxy fallback
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Only if mathematically derivable
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Must be flagged as fallback_level = 3
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You log fallback level for each factor/day.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
C. Backfill Procedure
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Step 1 — Freeze Production State
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Snapshot:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Rolling buffers
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Latent embeddings (if any)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Volatility states
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Regime states
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Step 2 — Initialize Clean Historical Buffers
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Clear only:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Esoteric factor buffers
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Derived rolling statistics
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Keep:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Core algorithm logic intact.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Step 3 — Replay Loop (55 days)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
For each day d from T-55 to T-1:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. Load OHLCV
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2. Fetch or reconstruct all auxiliary inputs
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3. Compute:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
All esoteric factors
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
All intermediate states
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Any smoothed or filtered outputs
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Any latent representations
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4. Append to:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
esoteric_factor_store[d]
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
factor_output_store[d]
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
system_state_snapshot[d]
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
No trading logic triggered.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Step 4 — Integrity Check
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
After replay:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Check no NaNs
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Check window completeness
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Check rolling windows properly warm
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Confirm fallback levels < threshold (ideally mostly 0/1)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2️⃣ Correlation Audit — All Against All
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Now comes the analytical part.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We compute correlations between:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
A. Target Variables
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Per day:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Max intraday drawdown
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Max intraday run-up
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Close-to-close return
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Strategy P&L
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Win/Loss (binary)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Profitability magnitude
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Volatility
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Spread
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Liquidity proxy
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Regime label
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Latent manifold distortion (if present)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Drift velocity (if you implemented that earlier idea)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
B. Factor Groups
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. Core factors
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2. Esoteric factors
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3. Combined outputs
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4. Latent embeddings (if available)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
5. Signal strength
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
6. Conviction metrics
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
7. Confidence weighting
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
8. Any internal risk throttles
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
C. Correlation Types to Compute
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You want more than Pearson.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Compute:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. Pearson correlation
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2. Spearman rank correlation
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3. Kendall tau
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4. Mutual information
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
5. Distance correlation
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
6. Rolling correlation (7, 14, 30 days)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
7. Lagged correlation (±1, ±2, ±3 days)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
D. Binary Outcome Testing
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
For profitability:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Logistic regression coefficients
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Point-biserial correlation
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Information coefficient (IC)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
t-stat significance
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
E. Cross-Correlation Matrix
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You compute:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
corr_matrix = corr(all_factors ∪ all_targets)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Then:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Extract |corr| > 0.6
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Flag p < 0.05
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Flag stable correlations across rolling windows
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Flag correlations that persist across fallback levels
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3️⃣ What You’re Actually Looking For
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This audit answers:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. Do esoteric factors anticipate drawdown?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2. Do they amplify run-up?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3. Are they redundant with core factors?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4. Are they orthogonal alpha?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
5. Do they correlate only in stressed regimes?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
6. Do they degrade performance in low-vol days?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
7. Do latent geometry distortions align with profitability?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4️⃣ Interpretation Layer
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You classify correlations into:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Strong Confirmations
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Stable across windows
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Significant
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Not present in core-only model
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Conditional Correlations
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Appear only in high volatility
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Appear only in drawdown clusters
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Spurious / Structural
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Correlate due to shared base data
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Dangerous
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Correlate negatively with profitability
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Increase drawdown magnitude
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
5️⃣ Deliverables You Should Generate
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. Heatmap of full correlation matrix
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2. Ranked factor impact table
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3. Stability score per factor
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4. Redundancy map (clustered)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
5. Regime-conditional breakdown
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
6. Factor → drawdown predictive ranking
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
7. Factor → run-up predictive ranking
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
6️⃣ Critical Warning
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Do NOT:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Change algorithm weights.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Remove factors.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Normalize differently.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Retrain anything.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This is purely diagnostic.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
7️⃣ What This Tells You Strategically
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If strong correlation emerges between:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Esoteric manifold distortion and drawdown
|
|||
|
|
→ you’ve built a stress sensor.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If strong correlation emerges between:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Drift velocity and next-day profitability
|
|||
|
|
→ you have regime anticipation.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If esoteric factors are mostly redundant
|
|||
|
|
→ compress the engine.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If orthogonal and stable
|
|||
|
|
→ you’ve added real signal dept
|