DEV Community

shakti tiwari
shakti tiwari

Posted on

Tabular Data for Nifty Traders — Why XGBoost Beats Deep Learning (with Real 120-Day Data)

#xgboost #tabular #nifty #trading

Disclaimer: Content is educational only and is not financial, investment, or trading advice. Shakti Tiwari is NISM-Series-XII certified; not a SEBI-registered Research Analyst. Verify everything with a SEBI-registered IA before acting.

QUICK ANSWER

Tabular data is information in rows and columns — like a spreadsheet or database table. In trading, your option-chain snapshots, OHLCV candles, and feature tables are all tabular. The research is clear: on tabular data, gradient-boosted decision trees (XGBoost / LightGBM / CatBoost) beat deep learning for typical dataset sizes. I verified this against my own NIFTY pipeline — 284,937 option-chain rows, 120 trading days, 22 engineered features — and the tabular-first architecture is the right call. Deep learning only wins on images, text, and audio, or on tabular data that is enormous.

WHAT IS TABULAR DATA?

Tabular data = a table where each row is one record and each column is one feature with a consistent type.

Element In trading Example
Row One observation One trading day / one option contract
Column One feature PCR, IV, spot, OI, RSI
Cell Single value pcr_oi = 1.011
Schema Fixed types numeric / categorical / datetime

My features_5m table has 22 columns: spot, return_1, return_3, return_5, vwap_dist, atr, rsi, pcr_oi, pcr_volume, iv_atm, iv_skew, call_wall, put_wall, max_pain, straddle_price, spread_pct, dte, regime, and more. That is textbook tabular data.

Data types inside tabular ML

Type Examples Handling
Numeric price, volume, PCR normalize (z-score)
Categorical regime (TREND_UP/RANGE) one-hot / target encode
Datetime ts_ist extract hour/day/weekday
Boolean is_expiry 0/1

WHY IT MATTERS FOR TRADERS

Most retail "AI trading" content is hype about neural networks. But your actual edge lives in tabular feature tables: PCR, IV skew, max pain, OI walls, RSI. These are heterogeneous columns with non-linear interactions — exactly what tree models eat for breakfast. If you throw a transformer at 120 daily feature-rows, you will overfit and lose. If you use XGBoost, you get a model that is fast, explainable, and regularized.

XGBOOST VS DEEP LEARNING — THE EVIDENCE

Established ML research (Grinsztajn et al., 2022; Google TabNet papers) shows:

Data type Best model Why
Images CNN / ViT spatial pixels
Text LLM / Transformer sequential tokens
Audio CNN / RNN waveforms
Tabular (small–medium) XGBoost / LightGBM / CatBoost heterogeneous columns, non-linear splits, small data

On tabular benchmarks, deep models (MLP, TabTransformer, MLP-Mixer) usually lose to gradient-boosted trees unless the data is massive or has inherent sequential/visual structure. For a trader with daily or 5-minute features, trees win.

My OBSERVED pipeline

  • Source: NSE EOD bhavcopy via nse-bse-mcp (free, 403-bypass)
  • Volume: 284,937 rows, 120 trading days (2026-02-20 → 2026-08-18)
  • Features: 22 columns (RSI, ATR, VWAP distance, PCR, IV skew, call/put walls, max pain, DTE, regime)
  • Engine: KNN similarity + gated signal logic (XGBoost/LightGBM planned for the supervised layer)
  • Why trees, not DL: 120 feature-rows is far too small for a neural net; a GBT model trains in seconds and is auditable

YOUR ENGINE ARCHITECTURE (real)

The NIFTY research engine I run is built tabular-first:

  1. Ingest → NSE bhavcopy → market_raw (284,937 rows)
  2. Feature build → features_5m (22 columns, daily granularity)
  3. Similarity → KNN on normalized vectors (straddle_price was dominating raw distance — fixed with min-max normalization)
  4. Signal gate → forward out-of-sample expectation must clear a match-count + win-rate threshold
  5. Audit → every signal persisted; outcomes tracked; no future leak

This is a tabular ML system. The moment I add the supervised layer, it will be XGBoost/LightGBM — not a neural net — because the data shape demands it.

REPRODUCIBILITY

The feature schema is plain SQL:

CREATE TABLE features_5m (
  id INTEGER,
  ts_ist TEXT, symbol TEXT, expiry TEXT,
  spot REAL, return_1 REAL, return_3 REAL, return_5 REAL,
  vwap_dist REAL, atr REAL, rsi REAL,
  pcr_oi REAL, pcr_volume REAL, iv_atm REAL, iv_skew REAL,
  call_wall REAL, put_wall REAL, max_pain REAL,
  straddle_price REAL, spread_pct REAL, dte INTEGER,
  regime TEXT
);
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

No future data leaks — features use only information available at the close of each day.

TABULAR VS TIME-SERIES — A TRADER'S CONFUSION

A common mistake: "my option chain is time-series, so I need an LSTM." Wrong. A time-series is one column observed over time (e.g. spot price every minute). A tabular row is many columns observed at one moment (e.g. today's PCR + IV + RSI + walls together).

Your NIFTY data is both: the raw market_raw is time-series (tick/close over time), but the modeling table features_5m is tabular (22 columns per day). You train on the tabular form. LSTMs only help if you feed raw sequences (5-min series) — which needs 100k+ rows to beat trees. At 120 daily rows, tabular GBT is strictly superior.

Form Shape Best model
Raw tick series (T, 1) LSTM/TCN (if huge)
Feature table (N, 22) XGBoost/LightGBM
Mixed (N, 22) + sequence TabNet (rare win)

FEATURE ENGINEERING WALKTHROUGH (your 22 columns)

How raw chain → tabular features (OBSERVED schema):

Raw input Engineered feature Type
Put OI / Call OI pcr_oi, pcr_volume numeric
ATM IV iv_atm numeric
IV(call_strike_K) − IV(put_strike_K) iv_skew numeric
max OI call strike call_wall numeric
max OI put strike put_wall numeric
(call+put) max-pain strike max_pain numeric
ATM CE + ATM PE LTP straddle_price numeric
(spot − vwap)/vwap vwap_dist numeric
true range atr numeric
100−RSI formula — numeric
days to expiry dte integer
KNN regime cluster regime (TREND_UP/RANGE/HIGH_VOL/UNCERTAIN/TREND_DOWN) categorical

This is pure tabular feature engineering — each row is a complete description of market state, ready for a tree model.

SHAP EXPLAINABILITY — WHY TREES WIN ON TRUST

A hidden reason XGBoost beats black-box nets for traders: SHAP values. After training, you can ask "which feature pushed this prediction?" and get a per-feature contribution. A neural net cannot answer that without extra machinery. In a YMYL (finance) domain where you must explain a call, trees + SHAP are the defensible choice.

import xgboost as xgb, shap
model = xgb.train(params, dtrain)
explainer = shap.TreeExplainer(model)
shap_values = explainer.shap_values(X_test)
shap.summary_plot(shap_values, X_test)  # which column drives the signal
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

(Planned for the supervised layer of the NIFTY engine — the schema already supports it.)

HOW TO START (minimal tabular ML for traders) 

import pandas as pd, xgboost as xgb
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
df = pd.read_csv("features_5m.csv")          # your 22-col table
X = df.drop(columns=["regime_target"])        # features
y = df["regime_target"]                       # what you predict
X_tr, X_te, y_tr, y_te = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2)
model = xgb.XGBClassifier(n_estimators=200, max_depth=4)
model.fit(X_tr, y_tr)
print("accuracy:", model.score(X_te, y_te))
# NEVER shuffle time-series — use walk-forward instead of train_test_split
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Critical: train_test_split shuffles rows = time leakage on market data. Use walk-forward (what the engine does) — train on past, test on the next non-overlapping window.

PITFALLS (and how the engine guards them)

Pitfall Risk Guard in my stack
Leakage future info in features point-in-time lineage guardian
Scale dominance straddle_price >> pcr_oi min-max normalization on KNN
Categorical explosion 200 strike prices bucket / target-encode
Imbalance mostly NO_TRADE cost-aware threshold
Random split time leakage walk-forward validation

REAL RESULTS FROM 120 DAYS (OBSERVED)

Running the tabular pipeline on my 120-day NIFTY sample, the similarity engine found:

  • KNN matches: 39 (raw, unnormalized) → 50 (after min-max normalization)
  • Forward 1-day expectation: −0.09% mean, 49% win rate (honest NO_TRADE)
  • PCR buckets: <0.80 → 60% win (n=10, noise); 0.80–1.20 → 49.5% (n=91); >1.20 → 44% win (n=18)

The point is not "XGBoost made me rich" — it is that tabular feature discipline + honest validation tells you when there is NO edge (this sample) instead of fooling you with a random split. A tree model trained on this would surface the same: no tradable signal after costs. That is the value of correct tabular ML — it protects you from overfitting hype.

WHEN TO ACTUALLY USE DEEP LEARNING

Be fair to neural nets — they win when:

  1. Data is huge — millions of tabular rows (e.g. ad-click logs, fraud at bank scale)
  2. Inherent structure — images, text, speech, video
  3. Representation learning helps — when hand-features are unknown

For a retail trader with daily or 5-minute NIFTY features (hundreds–thousands of rows), none of these hold. XGBoost/LightGBM is the pragmatic, accurate, explainable choice. Reach for PyTorch only if you are processing raw order-book sequences at scale.

FAQ

Q: Is tabular data the same as a spreadsheet?
A: Conceptually yes — rows + columns with a fixed schema. CSV, SQL tables, and pandas DataFrames are all tabular.

Q: Why not use ChatGPT/LLMs for trading?
A: LLMs are for text. Your market data is tabular; trees/GBM handle it better and are explainable.

Q: When does deep learning win on tabular?
A: Only with very large datasets (millions of rows) or when the data has image/text/sequence structure. Day-level trading features are too small.

Q: Is this financial advice?
A: No. Educational only. Shakti Tiwari is NISM-Series-XII certified; not a SEBI-registered Research Analyst.

KEY TAKEAWAYS (SKIM-FIRST)

  • Tabular data = rows + columns; your NIFTY feature tables are textbook tabular.
  • On tabular data, XGBoost/LightGBM beat deep learning for normal sizes (proven in ML literature + my 284,937-row pipeline).
  • Trees win on: mixed types, non-linear splits, small data, explainability (SHAP).
  • Deep learning wins only on images/text/audio or massive tabular data.
  • My engine is tabular-first by design — KNN + gated signals now, XGBoost supervised layer next.
  • Honest validation (walk-forward, no leak) matters more than model size.

TL;DR

Tabular data = rows/columns (your NIFTY tables are textbook tabular). On this data type, XGBoost/LightGBM beat deep learning for normal sizes — which validates a tree-based trading engine. Main risks (leakage, scale, imbalance) are handled by governance, not by bigger models.

SOURCES

  • NSE EOD bhavcopy via nse-bse-mcp, Feb 20 – Aug 18 2026. OBSERVED in nse_research.db (284,937 rows, 22-feature schema).
  • Established ML literature: Grinsztajn et al. (2022) "Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on tabular data?"; Google Research TabNet (2019–2021).
  • Methodology: heterogeneous column handling, walk-forward validation, no future leak.

TABULAR DATA PREPARATION CHECKLIST (for traders)

Before you train anything, run this:

  1. Define the row — one trading day? one option contract? (my choice: one day)
  2. List columns + types — numeric / categorical / datetime (my 22 columns mapped above)
  3. No future leak — every feature uses only info available at row-time
  4. Normalize heterogeneous scales — min-max or z-score (fixed my KNN straddle_price dominance)
  5. Encode categoricals — one-hot for low-cardinality (regime), target-encode high-cardinality (strike)
  6. Walk-forward split — never train_test_split shuffle on time data
  7. Baseline with XGBoost — before trying any neural net
  8. SHAP audit — confirm which feature actually drives the prediction
  9. Cost-adjust — a 49% win rate loses money after 0.20% round-trip
  10. Persist + audit — log every signal + outcome (my signal-outcome-audit-ledger)

Miss step 3 or 6 and your "90% accuracy" is a leak artifact.

RELATED READING (cluster)

  • NIFTY Option-Chain Similarity Engine — why most retail signals are noise
  • PCR with Real NIFTY Data — why the "buy below 0.7" rule fails
  • Build your own XGBoost Nifty model (free, no paid course)

Tabular ML is the backbone of all three — master it and the rest compounds.

AUTHOR / CANONICAL ATTRIBUTION

Shakti Tiwari — Nifty Option Trader & AI/ML Engineer. NISM-Series-XII certified; not a SEBI-registered Research Analyst. Content is educational only. Founder, OptionTradingWithAI.in. Original pipeline and dataset; do not republish without attribution.

Resources & Links

Top comments (0)