# White’s reality check for data snooping in R

With this post, I try to provide an easy to understand, step-by-step, practical implementation of White’s reality check as presented in A reality check for data snooping. I’m using R for the implementation. The point of this post however is to help you understand how the method and math behind the bootstrap test work rather than provide production ready code. There are packages for that.

# Data snooping

Data snooping is one of the many tools of self-deceit traders use in the process of developing a trading strategy. Appropriately named, White’s reality check tries to reduce the level of self-deceit and provides a fairly simple but powerful method of separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of data mined trading strategies/models/patterns/whatever.

Quoting Halbert White,

data snooping occurs when a given set of data is used more than once for purposes of inference or model selection. When such data reuse occurs, there is always the possibility that any satisfactory results obtained may simply be due to chance rather than to any merit inherent in the method yielding the results.

In other words, if you’re going to data mine for profitable strategies, you better not bet the ranch on every profitable strategy you run across. It’s still quite possible that at least some of your results were simply due to luck. Before you bet anything, submit your models to a reality check and see what comes out on the other side.

# Bootstrap Reality Check

## Step 1 – the benchmark

Before we can evaluate, well, pretty much anything, we must first have a benchmark or standard to refer the tested object to. When measuring the performance of trading strategies this benchmark is rather easy to determine. I wrote more about it in my other post, The evaluation of trading strategies, but to put it bluntly, if we’ve measured our performance on detrended data, a good benchmark for any trading strategy is zero. The expected return of a random strategy on data having mean zero (detrended) is zero no matter what. If we can make more than zero on detrended data then we’re probably doing something right.

Using White’s notation (page 13), we’re going to set the benchmark model \(\hat h_0\) to

\[ \hat h_{0, t+1} = 0, (t = R, ..., T) \]

where the \(R\) to \(T\) interval is our observed history containing \(n\) values.

## Step 2 – the models (strategies)

The word “model” is what the paper uses and this is as it should be but in our case I find it rather inappropriate. We’re not trying to measure the difference between a model’s predicted price and the benchmark price. Rather, we’re trying to compare the returns on the benchmark (zero) to the returns on our strategies. So instead of declaring a generic model as an example, as White does (still on page 13), we’re simply going to define the relevant values for our strategies as

\[\hat h_{x, t+1} = \ln(\frac{eq_{t+1}}{eq_t}), (t = R, ..., T), (x = 1, ..., s) \]

where \(eq_{t}\) is equity at time \(t\), and \(\hat h_{x, t+1}\) the collection of daily log returns for each strategy, where each strategy has an index \(x\) going from \(1\) to \(s\) – that is, we’re testing \(s\) strategies. This example assumes of course we’re working with daily data. However, this doesn’t have to be the case. We could be talking about \(n\) trades, weeks, whatever, it does not make a difference.

## Step 3 – performance measure

We have our daily log returns and we have our benchmark. It’s time to measure how well each strategy has done in testing. For each strategy \(x\) where \(x = (1, …, s)\) we have the collection of excess daily returns given by

\[\hat f_{x, t+1} = \hat h_{x, t+1} - \hat h_{0,t+1}, (t = R, ..., T), (x = 1, ..., s) \]

This might seem a bit silly given that \(\hat h_{0,t+1}\) is zero for all values of \(t\) but I’m going through the motions here to try and maintain a parallel to the original paper. We’re using a benchmark equal to zero here so obviously \(\hat f_{x, t+1}\) above is merely the same thing as \(\hat h_{x, t+1}\), the collection of daily log returns, but if the benchmark was different than zero this step would’ve made a big difference.

Before moving on, we must also calculate the mean of \(\hat f_{x,t+1}\) above, that is, the mean daily log excess returns. This we declare as

\[\bar f_{x} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{t=R}^T \hat f_{x,t+1}, (x = 1, ..., s) \]

## Step 4 – the bootstrap

We’re almost there. All we need to do is learn how to run a bootstrap and from there on is a straight line to results. In math language, we’re looking for the collection of mean excess log returns of the bootstrapped samples. Each bootstrapped sample has index \(i\) and goes from \(1\) to \(N = 500\).

\[\bar f_{x,i}^* = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{t=R}^T \hat f_{x, \theta_i(t)+1}, (x = 1, ..., s), (i = 1, ..., N)\]

This might look a bit complicated in math language but it’s rather easy to implement in code. All we’re doing is resampling with replacement each daily log returns series \(x\) a number of \(N\) times and then calculating the mean for each resampled series.

Let’s put that in R code. First, let’s calculate the \(N\) sets of random observation indexes of length \(n\), \(\{\theta_i(t), t = R, …, T\},i = 1, …, N\). There are a few methods for doing this and which one you should use depends mainly on the structure of the data you’re working with. If the data points you’re working with are i.i.d. using a stationary bootstrap of fixed block length 1 would be fine. If the data points are not independent (as it is the case with time series, most of the time) you should use a bootstrap method which produces blocks of random length having geometric mean length equal to \(1/q\) where \(q\) is between \(0\) and \(1\). The original paper uses \(q = 1\) for the simplified example and \(q = 0.5\) for the practical application. There are various methods even for determining an appropriate value of \(q\) but we’ll keep those out of this post.

Anyways, let’s look at the code. First, a method using \(q = 1\), that is, a fixed block length equal to \(1\).

n <- 1000 #number of daily observations (distance from R to T) N <- 500 #number of resamples theta <- matrix(nrow = N, ncol = n) #theta indexes, N indexes of length n for(i in 1:N){ # generate theta_i indexes theta[i,] <- sample(n,n,replace=TRUE) #index i, length n #each row is a theta #index collection }

This works fairly well for data such as the one we're working with as daily log return points are fairly independent. However, you can also use an R package and do a proper time series bootstrap for random block lengths having geometric mean \(1/q\). Let's say \(q = 0.5\) and \(1/q = 2\). In R:

library(boot) #boot package for ts bootstrap x <- rnorm(n) #random vector of length n y <- tsboot(x, mean, R=N, l=2, sim="geom") #N resamples, geom mean len = 2 theta <- matrix(nrow = N, ncol=n) theta <- boot.array(y) #returns 500 index collections of length n. #each row is a theta index #collection

Using these indexes to calculate \(\bar f_{x,i}^*\) above is now a piece of cake.

s <- 100 #number of models f <- matrix(nrow = s, ncol = n) #matrix holding n daily log returns #for each strategy x f.mean.boot <- matrix(nrow=s, ncol=N) #N bootstrapped resample means #for each x strategy for(x in 1:s){ #go through each model for(i in 1:N){ #resample N times f.mean.boot[x,i] = mean(f[x,theta[i,]]) #mean of resampled f[x,] #using theta[i,] } }

f.mean.boot[x,i] above is our \(\bar f_{x,i}^*\). This we'll be using in the next step.

## Step 5 - the magic vees

At last, we get to see some actual results - the magic vees, as I like to call them. I'm talking about, of course, the two vees, \(V_x\) and \(\bar V_{x,i}^*\). Let's start with \(x=1\). We have

\[\bar V_1 = n^{1/2} \bar f_1\]

\[\bar V_{1,i}^* = n^{1/2} (\bar f_{1,i}^* - \bar f_1)\]

If we're only testing one strategy, that is, \(s=1\), we don't need anything beyond these first two vees. All we have to do is compare the sample value of \(\bar V_1\) to the percentiles of \(\bar V_{1,i}^*\) and see if our trading strategy is any good at a significance level \(\alpha\) of our choosing. This is basically what I was doing in my other post, The evaluation of trading strategies.

This is how code would look like for just a single strategy:

f.mean <- numeric(s) #vector holding mean daily returns #for each strategy x for(x in 1:s){ #go through each strategy f.mean <- mean(f[x,]) #mean returns for model x } V1 <- n^(1/2)*f.mean[1]; V1.boot <- numeric(N) for(i in 1:N){ V1.boot[i] <- n^(1/2)*(f.mean.boot[1,i] - f.mean[1]) }

V1 in the code above is of course \(\bar V_1\) and V1.boot is \(\bar V_{1,i}^*\). To compare the sample value of \(\bar V_1\) to the percentiles of \(\bar V_{1,i}^*\) all we have to do is write the following code:

p <- length(which(V1.boot > V1))/N #returns p-value for strategy

This counts the values higher than V1 among V1.boot and divides that count by N to return the percentage of all V1.boot values which exceed V1. This is our p-value. If this p-value is then lower than our \(\alpha\) level of significance then the null claiming the model produces returns lower or equal to zero can be rejected.

Moving on to strategy number two, i.e. \(x = 2\), we have the following:

\[\bar V_2 = \text{max}\{ n^{1/2} \bar f_2, \bar V_1 \}\]

\[\bar V_{2,i}^* = \text{max}\{ n^{1/2} (\bar f_{2,i}^* - \bar f_2), \bar V_{1,i}^* \}\]

At this point we're scrapping the first two vees and working with these last ones. These stand for the better of the two models. To test if the best model among the two beats the benchmark, just like before, we simply compare the sample value of \(\bar V_2\) to the percentiles of \(\bar V_{2,i}^*\). In R:

V2 <- max(n^(1/2)*f.mean[2],V1) for(i in 1:N){ V2.boot[i] <- max(n^(1/2)*(f.mean.boot[2,i] - f.mean[2]),V1.boot[i]) }

This process goes on for all strategies \(x = 1, ..., s\). At point \(x = s\) we'd have

\[\bar V_s = \text{max}\{ n^{1/2} \bar f_s, \bar V_{s-1} \}\]

\[\bar V_{s,i}^* = \text{max}\{ n^{1/2} (\bar f_{s,i}^* - \bar f_s), \bar V_{s-1,i}^* \}\]

and just like before we'd compare \(\bar V_s\) to the percentiles of \(\bar V_{s,i}^*\). Specifically, we have to sort the values of \(\bar V_{s,i}^*\), plug \(\bar V_s\) in there, count how many values are higher than \(\bar V_s\), and divide that number by \(N\). If we denote the count of those values higher than \(\bar V_s\) as \(M\) we have a bootstrap reality check p-value

\[p = \frac{M}{N}\]

Note that the paper sets \(M\) as those values smaller than \(\bar V_s\) and then calculates \(p = 1 - \frac{M}{N}\). It's the same thing but I like my version better. It's also how I write it in code.

This is how this iterative process would look like in R if we were to only keep in memory the current and previous V values of interest.

prev.V <- n^(1/2)*f.mean[1] #V1 prev.V.boot <- numeric(N) #V1.boot for(i in 1:N){ prev.V.boot <- n^(1/2)*(f.mean.boot[1,i] - f.mean[1]) } for(x in 2:s){ #start from V2 and go on till Vs current.V <- max(n^(1/2)*f.mean[x],prev.V) for(i in 1:N){ current.V.boot[i] <- max(n^(1/2)*(f.mean.boot[x,i] - f.mean[x]),prev.V.boot[i]) } } p <- length(which(current.V.boot > current.V))/N #returns p-value for best model

The p value at the end is what interests us most. If that p-value is smaller than the \(\alpha\) value we chose for our experiment then the result obtained for the best model among all tested models is indeed statistically significant. This means we can reject the null hypothesis claiming the best model produces zero expected returns with a certain degree of confidence that our best model didn't do so well purely by chance.

# Conclusions

We've gone through a step by step implementation of the bootstrap reality check and arrived at a result which allows us to select the best performing strategy among a series of multiple strategies with a certain degree of confidence that our results are not simply the result of good luck. I hope you found this post useful in understanding the method. For more technical details, proofs, etc, please see the original paper, A reality check for data snooping.

Other good reads on the topic would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_discovery_rate, the paper by Benjiamini and Hochberg (link), and, for an expanded version of the bootstrap reality check, the paper by Romano and Wolf, Stepwise Multiple Testing as Formalized Data Snooping