Tidbits & Reminders [3]

In the previous post I mentioned how the process of removing problematic variables was itself incomplete as I removed them from all models as opposed to just the subset of models for which they give strange fitting results. I have since made the requisite changes to the previous series of posts. Removing problematic funds becomes :

 

#Removing problemtic funds for specific models only
problemRemove <- function(list.element){
	problems <- which(is.na(list.element==0) | list.element<0)
	return(list.element[-problems,])
}

model.list <- lapply(model.list,problemRemove)
subfund.names <- as.matrix(unlist(lapply(model.list,rownames)))
temp <- apply(do.call(rbind,model.list),2,unlist)

l

What counts as problematic in my case is when there are fitting problems or when the selection criteria are negative. It should be noted that there is nothing wrong with a negative AIC or SBC,I just designated negative values as problematic in this example.

 

Applying the plotting functions yields :

bnn

 

 

Let’s compare this to the case where we delete the problematic variables from all models :

bnh

 

In the latter case we deleted 4 funds across ALL models because they had model fitting issues across SOME models. In the former case we retained all funds even though some had problems in the fitting process (gaps in facetted barcharts). This evidently changes the percentage of times a particular model is the best performer.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: