I have about 50 datasets that include all trades within a timeframe of 30 days for about 10 pairs on 5 exchanges. All pairs are of the same asset class, meaning they are strongly correlated and expect to have similar properties, but are on different scales. An example of this data would be
set.seed(1)
n <- 1000
dates <- seq(as.POSIXct("2019-08-05 00:00:00", tz="UTC"), as.POSIXct("2019-08-05 23:59:00", tz="UTC"), by="1 min")
x <- data.frame("t" = sort(sample(dates, 1000)),"p" = cumsum(sample(c(-1, 1), n, TRUE)))
Roughly, I need to identify the relevant local minima and maxima, which happen daily. The yellow marks are my points of interest. Unlike this example, there is usually only one such point per day and I consider each day separately. However, it is hard to filter out noise from my actual points of interest.
My actual goal is to find the exact point, at which the pair started to make a jump and the exact point, at which the jump is over. This needs to be as accurate as possible, as I want to observe which asset moved first and which asset followed at which point in time (as said, they are highly correlated).
Between two extreme values, I want to minimize the distance and maximize the relative/absolute change, as my points of interest are usually close to each other and their difference is quite large.
I already looked at other questions like
Finding local maxima and minima and Algorithm to locate local maxima and also this algorithm that has the same goal. However, my dataset is extremely noisy. I already reduced the dataset to 5-minute intervals, however, this has led to omitting the relevant points in the functions to identify local minima & maxima. Therefore, this was a not good solution given my goal.
How can I achieve my goal with a quite accurate algorithm? Manually skimming through all the time-series is not an option, since this would require me to evaluate 50 * 30 time-series manually, which is too time-consuming. I'm really puzzled and trying to find a suitable solution for a week.
If more code snippets are demanded, I'm happy to share, however they didn't give me meaningful results, which would be opposed to the idea of providing a minimum working example, therefore I decided to leave them out for now.
EDIT:
First off, I updated the plot and added timestamps to the dataset to give you an idea (the actual resolution). Ideally, the algorithm would detect both jumps on the left. The inner two dots because they're closer together and jump without interception, and the outer dots because they're more extreme in values. In fact, this maybe answers the question whether the algorithm is allowed to look into the future. Yes, if there's another local extrema in the range of, say, 30 observations (or 30 minutes), then ignore the intermediate local extrema.
In my data, jumps have been from 2% - ~ 15%, such that a jump needs to be at least 2% to be considered. And only if a threshold of 15 (this might be adaptable) consecutive steps in the same direction before / after the peaks and valleys is reached.
A very naive approach was to subset the data around the global minimum and maximum of a day. In most cases, this has denoised data and worked as an indicator. However, this is not robust when the global extrema are not in the range of the jump.
Hope this clarifies why this isn't a statistical question (there are some tests to determine whether a jump has happened, but not for jump arrival time afaik).
In case anyone wants a real example:
this is a corresponding graph, this is the raw data of the relevant period and this is the reduced dataset.
Perhaps as a starting point, look at function streaks
in package PMwR (which I maintain). A streak is
defined as a move of a specified size that is
uninterrupted by a countermove of the same size. The
function works with returns, not differences, so I add
100 to your data.
For instance:
set.seed(1)
n <- 1000
x <- 100 + cumsum(sample(c(-1, 1), n, TRUE))
plot(x, type = "l")
s <- streaks(x, up = 0.12, down = -0.12)
abline(v = s[, 1])
abline(v = s[, 2])
The vertical lines show the starts and ends of streaks.
Perhaps you can then filter the identified streaks by required criteria such as length. Or
you may play around with different thresholds for up
and down moves (though this is not really recommended
in the current implementation, but perhaps the results
are good enough). For instance, up streaks might look as follows. A green vertical shows the start of a streak; a red line shows its end.
plot(x, type = "l")
s <- streaks(x, up = 0.12, down = -0.05)
s <- s[!is.na(s$state) & s$state == "up", ]
abline(v = s[, 1], col = "green")
abline(v = s[, 2], col = "red")
Related
So, I apologise in advance for my poor attempt at explaining myself. I am rather lost.
Summary:
I am working with the eyelinker package in R to analyse pupil size data in a time-series fashion.
I have managed to create a set of intervals where blinks start and end (extendedBlinks, they extend 150 milliseconds each direction (1000Hz).
# Define set of intervals for blinks
Blk <- cbind(df$blinks$stime, df$blinks$etime)
# Extend blinks (100 milliseconds each way)
extendedBlinks <- Intervals(Blk) %>% expand(150, "absolute")
head(extendedBlinks)
output:
Object of class Intervals
6 intervals over R:
[4485724, 4486141]
[4485984, 4486657]
[4486549, 4486853]
[4486595, 4487040]
[4486800, 4489142]
[4498990, 4499339]
In my dataframe, I have PSL (Pupil Size Left), PSR (Pupil Size Right), and time (relative to the eyetracker, and has the same values as the intervals shown above.
So, I want to get the PSL/PSR (for the sake of the example, let's just stick to getting the PSL).
I've tried many things, nothing seems to work for me. I want to replace the given values in y1 with extendedBlinks[1,1] and extendedBlinks[1,2] respectively (and then iterate over the intervals to interpolate the blinks.
# Interpolation
x1 <- c(extendedBlinks[1,1],extendedBlinks[1,2])
y1 <- c(500, 550)
interp <- approx(x1,y1, n = extendedBlinks[1,2]-extendedBlinks[1,1])
plot(interp)
Again, sorry for the poorly worded question. I'll edit as I receive feedback to try and make it clearer.
Any ideas?
Cheers!
I have a series of daily values, y. For each day, di (i.e., each row), I would like to calculate the (graph) area, ai, of the region between the curve and the horizontal line y = yi between di and the most recent previous occurrence of the value yi. Sketch below. Because observations occur at regular, discrete timesteps (daily), the calculated area, ai, is equivalent to the sum of the daily differences between each daily y and yi (black bars in figure). I'm interested only in valleys, so the calculated area, ai, can be set to 0 when y is decreasing (yi - yi-1 <= 0).
Toy data below. Expected result shown in dat$a.
dat$a[6] was calculated from 55 - 50;
dat$a[7] was calculated from (60-55)+(60-50). And so on.
dat = data.frame(d = seq.Date(as_date("2021-01-01"),as_date("2021-01-10"),by = "1 day"),
y = c(100,95,90,70,50,55,60,75,85,90),
a = c(0,0,0,0,0,5,15,65,115,145))
My first thought was to calculate the area between the curve and the horizontal line y = yi between days di and the the most recent previous occurrence of the value yi, using perhaps geiger::area.between.curves(), but I couldn't work out how to identify most recent previous occurrence of the value yi.
[In case the context helps, the actual data are daily values of the area (m2) of a wetland not submerged by water. When the water rises, a portion of the wetland that had been dry for some time becomes wet. Here, I'm trying to calculate the extent of the reflooding in m2-days. A portion of the wetland that has been dry for a long time but becomes reflooded will contribute many m2-days to the sum.]
I'm most comfortable in the tidyverse, and such answers are greatly preferred. I am not familiar with data.table.
Thanks in advance
Update
I was able to able to achieve my desired calculation in Excel, though it's brutally inelegant. Couple hundred rows in an example, linked below. Given that my real data are 180k rows, my poor machine hated the 18 million calculated cells. Though I can move on with my analysis, I am still very interested in an R solution. My implemented approach differs subtly from my imagined R approach in that it's summing 'horizontal rectangles', so to speak, each of the same (small) y-unit height, rather than 'vertical rectangles', each of unit width.
Here's the file.
Since the question is missing complete information we will compute the the area under the curve assuming that a day is one unit. Modify as appropriate for your specific problem.
library(pracma)
nr <- nrow(dat)
dat0 <- dat[c(1, 1:nr, nr), ]
dat0[c(1, nr), "y"] <- 0
with(dat0, abs(polyarea(as.numeric(d), y)))
Using R, I want to estimate two curves using points from two vectors, and then find the x and y coordinates where those estimated curves intersect.
In a strategic setting with players "t" and "p", I am simulating best responses for both players in response to what the other would pick in a strategic setting (game theory). The problem is that I don't have functions or lines, I have two sets of points originating from simulation, with one set of points corresponding to the player's best response to given actions by the other player. The actual math was too difficult for me (or matlab) to solve, which is why I'm using this simulated visual approach. I want to estimate best response functions (i.e. create non-linear curves) using the points, and then take the two estimated curves and find where they intersect in order to identify nash equilibrium (where the best response curves intersect).
As an example, here are two such vectors I am working with:
t=c(10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.1,10.1,10.1,10.1,10.1,10.1,10.1,10.1,10.1,10.1,10.1,10.1,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0,10.0)
p=c(12.3,12.3,12.3,12.3,12.3,12.3,12.4,12.4,12.4,12.5,12.5,12.5,12.6,12.6,12.7,12.7,12.8,12.8,12.9,12.9,13.0,13.1,13.1,13.2,13.3,13.4,13.5,13.4,13.5,13.6,13.6,13.7,13.8,13.8,13.9,13.9,13.9,14.0,14.0,14.0,14.0)
For the first line, the sample is made up of (t,a), and for the second line, the sample is made up of (a,p) where a is a third vector given by
a = seq(10, 14, by = 0.1)
For example, the first point for the sample corresponding to the first vector would be (10.0,10.0) and the second point would be (10.0,10.1). The first point for the sample corresponding to the second vector would be (10.0,12.3) and the second point would be (10.1,12.3).
What I originally tried to do is estimate the lines using polynomials produced by lm models, but those don't seem to always work:
plot(a,t, xlim=c(10,14), ylim=c(10,14), col="purple")
points(p,a, col="red")
fit4p <- lm(a~poly(p,3,raw=TRUE))
fit4t <- lm(t~poly(a,3,raw=TRUE))
lines(a, predict(fit4t, data.frame(x=a)), col="purple", xlim=c(10,14), ylim=c(10,14),type="l",xlab="p",ylab="t")
lines(p, predict(fit4p, data.frame(x=a)), col="green")
fit4pCurve <- function(x) coef(fit4p)[1] +x*coef(fit4p)[2]+x^2*coef(fit4p)[3]+x^3*coef(fit4p)[4]
fit4tCurve <- function(x) coef(fit4t)[1] +x*coef(fit4t)[2]+x^2*coef(fit4t)[3]+x^3*coef(fit4t)[4]
a_opt1 = optimise(f=function(x) abs(fit4pCurve(x)-fit4tCurve(x)), c(10,14))$minimum
b_opt1 = as.numeric(fit4pCurve(a_opt1))
EDIT:
After fixing the type, I get the correct answer, but it doesn't always work if the samples don't come back as cleanly.
So my question can be broken down a few ways. First, is there a better way to accomplish what I'm trying to do. I know what I'm doing isn't perfectly accurate by any means, but it seems like a decent approximation for my purposes. Second, if there isn't a better way, is there a way I could improve on the methodology I have listed above.
Restart your R session, make sure all variables are cleared and copy/paste this code. I found a few mistakes in referenced variables. Also note that R is case sensitive. My suspicion is that you've been overwriting variables.
plot(a,t, xlim=c(10,14), ylim=c(10,14), col="purple")
points(p,a, col="red")
fit4p <- lm(a~poly(p,3,raw=TRUE))
fit4t <- lm(t~poly(a,3,raw=TRUE))
lines(a, predict(fit4t, data.frame(x=a)), col="purple", xlim=c(T,P), ylim=c(10,14),type="l",xlab="p",ylab="t")
lines(p, predict(fit4p, data.frame(x=a)), col="green")
fit4pCurve <- function(x) coef(fit4p)[1] +x*coef(fit4p)[2]+x^2*coef(fit4p)[3]+x^3*coef(fit4p)[4]
fit4tCurve <- function(x) coef(fit4t)[1] +x*coef(fit4t)[2]+x^2*coef(fit4t)[3]+x^3*coef(fit4t)[4]
a_opt = optimise(f=function(x) abs(fit4pCurve(x)-fit4tCurve(x)), c(T,P))$minimum
b_opt = as.numeric(fit4pCurve(a_opt))
As you will see:
> a_opt
[1] 12.24213
> b_opt
[1] 10.03581
I have a series of data that I'm going to use clustering on, and I want to see how this data clusters over time.
So essentially everyone starts in a single group, as they have done nothing, but over time as they do different things they will be put into different groups based on their behavior, and I want to track this.
I've been looking for a way to do this in R (with some preprocessing of data in Python), and represent it graphically. The only way I can currently think of doing this is breaking the time period into say, 3 weeks, and then clustering each of the 3 weeks. The only problem with this is I don't really know how to track movements of people between clusters over those 3 weeks (e.g. to see if someones actions moves them from group A to group B). I could put it in a table, but it would be nice to somehow show it graphically (like red lines between cluster over time or something).
Any ideas on how to do this would be much appreciated, or if there is a good way to track clusters over time that I've been missing please point me towards it.
I've used the Mfuzz in R for clustering time-course microarray data sets. Mfuzz uses "soft-clustering". Basically, individuals can appear in more than one group. Here is an example with some simulated data:
library(Mfuzz)
tps = 6;cases = 90
d = rnorm(tps*cases, 1) ##Poisson distribution with mean 1
m = matrix(d, ncol=tps, nrow=cases)
##First 30 individuals have increasing trends
m[1:30,] = t(apply(m[1:30,], 1, cumsum))
##Next 30 have decreasing trends
##A bit hacky, sorry
m[31:60,] = t(apply(t(apply(m[31:60,], 1, cumsum)), 1, rev))
##Last 30 individuals have random numbers from a Po(1)
##Create an expressionSet object
tmp_expr = new('ExpressionSet', exprs=m)
##Specify c=3 clusters
cl = mfuzz(tmp_expr, c=3, m=1.25)
mfuzz.plot(tmp_expr,cl=cl, mfrow=c(2, 2))
This gives:
I am trying to plot large amounts of points using some library. The points are ordered by time and their values can be considered unpredictable.
My problem at the moment is that the sheer number of points makes the library take too long to render. Many of the points are redundant (that is - they are "on" the same line as defined by a function y = ax + b). Is there a way to detect and remove redundant points in order to speed rendering ?
Thank you for your time.
The following is a variation on the Ramer-Douglas-Peucker algorithm for 1.5d graphs:
Compute the line equation between first and last point
Check all other points to find what is the most distant from the line
If the worst point is below the tolerance you want then output a single segment
Otherwise call recursively considering two sub-arrays, using the worst point as splitter
In python this could be
def simplify(pts, eps):
if len(pts) < 3:
return pts
x0, y0 = pts[0]
x1, y1 = pts[-1]
m = float(y1 - y0) / float(x1 - x0)
q = y0 - m*x0
worst_err = -1
worst_index = -1
for i in xrange(1, len(pts) - 1):
x, y = pts[i]
err = abs(m*x + q - y)
if err > worst_err:
worst_err = err
worst_index = i
if worst_err < eps:
return [(x0, y0), (x1, y1)]
else:
first = simplify(pts[:worst_index+1], eps)
second = simplify(pts[worst_index:], eps)
return first + second[1:]
print simplify([(0,0), (10,10), (20,20), (30,30), (50,0)], 0.1)
The output is [(0, 0), (30, 30), (50, 0)].
About python syntax for arrays that may be non obvious:
x[a:b] is the part of array from index a up to index b (excluded)
x[n:] is the array made using elements of x from index n to the end
x[:n] is the array made using first n elements of x
a+b when a and b are arrays means concatenation
x[-1] is the last element of an array
An example of the results of running this implementation on a graph with 100,000 points with increasing values of eps can be seen here.
I came across this question after I had this very idea. Skip redundant points on plots. I believe I came up with a far better and simpler solution and I'm happy to share as my first proposed solution on SO. I've coded it and it works well for me. It also takes into account the screen scale. There may be 100 points in value between those plot points, but if the user has a chart sized small, they won't see them.
So, iterating through your data/plot loop, before you draw/add your next data point, look at the next value ahead and calculate the change in screen scale (or value, but I think screen scale for the above-mentioned reason is better). Now do the same for the next value ahead (getting these values is just a matter of peeking ahead in your array/collection/list/etc adding the for next step increment (probably 1/2) to the current for value whilst in the loop). If the 2 values are the same (or perhaps very minor change, per your own preference), you can skip this one point in your chart by simply adding 'continue' in the loop, skipping adding the data point as the point lies exactly on the slope between the point before and after it.
Using this method, I reduce a chart from 963 points to 427 for example, with absolutely zero visual change.
I think you might need to perhaps read this a couple of times to understand, but it's far simpler than the other best solution mentioned here, much lighter weight, and has zero visual effect on your plot.
I would probably apply a "least squares" algorithm to obtain a line of best fit. You can then go through your points and downfilter consecutive points that lie close to the line. You only need to plot the outliers, and the points that take the curve back to the line of best fit.
Edit: You may not need to employ "least squares"; if your input is expected to hover around "y=ax+b" as you say, then that's already your line of best fit and you can just use that. :)