Skip to content

Feat/tgan#85

Open
marcell-mate wants to merge 64 commits intodevfrom
feat/tgan
Open

Feat/tgan#85
marcell-mate wants to merge 64 commits intodevfrom
feat/tgan

Conversation

@marcell-mate
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

TimeGan implementation to develop a generator capable of providing us with good synthetic training data.
Article here; github here; bitbucket here;

danielhomola and others added 30 commits December 23, 2020 12:19
… gaussian. still getting tensor shape mismatch errors..
…irichlet concentrations in what we pass to the network along with the state
…ake it work unless I reengineer everything, see #65
s_cols = pd.Series(list(cols))
ohlc_cols = s_cols[s_cols.str.contains("open|high|low|close")]
non_ohlc_cols = list(s_cols[~s_cols.str.contains("open|high|low|close")])
vol_cols = list(
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

AFAIK, in contracts to the OHLC cols, volume cols are always the same for each instrument. OHLC cols can be suffixed with fd_whatever, hence the finicky way of fishing them out, but here we could just simply do

        vol_cols = [NBarVars.volume, NBarVars.cum_volume_buy, NBarVars.cum_volume_sell]
        vol_quote_cols = [
            NBarVars.cum_volume_quote,
            NBarVars.cum_volume_quote_buy,
            NBarVars.cum_volume_quote_sell,
        ]

which is admittedly less sexy but reads better.. what do you reckon?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that's true, i thought in case any of these aren't modelled than this version might fall over in _preprocess_train_dfs(), but why wouldn't we include these - I'll change it , thanks!

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

of course you're totally right! this exact same scenario just happened to me :D sorry for my stupid comment! I think your original version is the robust one!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants