Real world pattern recognition, model-based clustering, and many related problems are difficult because patterns vary and they occur in context, surrounded or partially occluded by other patterns. In simple cases, virtually any pattern recognition algorithm or neural network will give the same solution. In complex cases, all well known algorithms and neural network lead to combinatorial explosion (astronomical and worse numbers of training samples, or numbers of matches between pattern parametric models and data, etc.) Dynamic logic and neural modeling fields overcome this difficulty, reduce complexity to manageable size, and therefore are scalable to complex problems. Results usually reach information-theoretic performance limits (Cramer-Rao Bounds). Patterns can be found in noise and clutter, when signal-to-noise ratio is hundreds of times lower than when using other algorithms. Some recent publications:
See Program Management, Semantic Web
R. Deming, S. Higbee, D. Dwyer, M. Welser, L.
Deming, R.W.
and
Perlovsky, L.I. (2007). Neural Networks for Improved Tracking, IEEE Trans. Neural Netowrks. In print
Deming, R.W. and
Kozma R., Linnehan R., Schindler J., and
Perlovsky, L.I. (2007). Radar Imaging through Walls. IJCNN,
Tikhanoff, V.,
Fontanari, J.F., Cangelosi A.,
Fontanari, J.F.
and
Cramer-Rao Bounds (CRB) makes possible to estimate limits on system performance as a function of its parameters, independent of any specific algorithm. We use CRB to optimize system design.
Robert Linnehan, David Brady,
John Schindler, Leonid
I am affiliated with Ascent Capital Management, a company that uses dynamic logic and neural modeling fields for financial market prediction. Below is a recent weekly investment advise letter along with predicted portfolio performances.
on 2004 Dec 31, average annual cumulative performance, of the recommended SP500-portf. vs S&P500 market portfolio
5 year average |
18.91% |
-5.17% |
3 year average |
3.47% |
1.85% |
| 1 year average | 10.19% | 8.68% |
total cumulative
portfolio gain since inception on Aug 1998 to Dec 2005
73.6% (vs.
S&P500 8.5%)
Annual
results for 2005
recommended SP500-portf. = 0.5% gain (vs.market S&P500 = 3.0% gain)
recommended NQ100-portf. = -2.5% loss (vs.market NQ 100 = 1.5% gain)
Maximum draw down: recommended 3.3%,
7.6%; (vs. market 5.7%, 13.1%)
Average exposure: recommended-portf.= 48%, 53%, vs. mkt-portf.= 100%
The 2005 annual performance of the recommended
portfolios is a little worse than the market, with significantly lower risk
Annual
results for 2006
recommended SP500-portf. = 12.3% gain (vs.market S&P500 = 13.6% gain)
recommended NQ100-portf. = 10.5% gain (vs.market NQ 100 = 6.8%
gain)
Risk measures:
gain/st.dev.
= 3.6, 1.9 (vs. mkts 1.3, 0.4)
Maximum draw down: recommended 1.3%, 3.1%;(vs. market 7.2%, 17.9%)
Average exposure: recommended-portf.= 26%, 24%; (vs. mkt-portf.= 100%)
(Assumption: part of portfolio not invested in
futures is invested in 90-day T-Bills at 5% rate)
CURRENT PREDICTION
2007/02/09
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
!!! Model
recommendations for close of 2007/02/16
S&P500 confidence level, PBS = -50%
NASDAQ confidence level, PBS = -20%
Short, low
certainty
*********************************************************************
low abs(PBS) indicates (1) low certainty of our predictions and
(2) high volatility vs.
directionality of the market.
Long or short positions proportional to PBS are
advised.
Credits to Val Petrov and Ilya Perlovsky for contributions to model development and market analysis.
