Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

Find a Community

- Home
- /
- Analytics
- /
- Forecasting
- /
- Out-of-Sample Forecasting with Unobserved Componen...

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

04-10-2016 02:06 AM

I have a data set of 54 data points. my objective is to (1) decompose my data into trend and cycles using UCM and (2) to forecast. My question is that as I only have 54 data points is it necessary for me to HOLD some sample points for out-of-sample forecasting? It is right if I first estimate my model using all the data points and then use the entire sample to forecast.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

04-11-2016 10:47 AM - edited 04-11-2016 10:50 AM

It is generally preferable to utilize a hold out (or "test") sample, but of course, you don't always have as many historical data points as you'd like.

Rob Hyndman provides useful guidance on sizing your "training" and "test" data sets in the article "Measuring Forecast Accuracy" that appears in the new book Business Forecasting: Practical Problems and Solutions (Wiley, 2015). You can also check out his online text at www.otexts.org/fpp/2/5.

Per Hyndman, test data is typically about 20% of the total sample, and ideally is at least as large as the maximum forecast horizon required. So if you have monthly data and need to forecast out one year, you have plenty of observations to include 42 points in your training data and the most recent 12 points in your test data. This should work fine for monthly data since you have over 3 full year cycles in the training data

If you have weekly or daily data, you might want to use the method of time series cross-validation, that is described in the article (and also discussed in this blog post: http://blogs.sas.com/content/forecasting/2016/03/18/rob-hyndman-measuring-forecast-accuracy/

Time series cross-validation is a good method when you don't have enough historical data, and can't afford to split off an adequately sized test set. Udo Sglavo wrote about implementing time series cross-validation in SAS in this series of blog posts:

- http://blogs.sas.com/content/forecasting/2011/09/01/come-on-irene-cross-validation-using-sas-forecas...
- http://blogs.sas.com/content/forecasting/2011/09/02/guest-blogger-udo-sglavo-on-cross-validation-usi...
- http://blogs.sas.com/content/forecasting/2011/09/06/guest-blogger-udo-sglavo-on-cross-validation-usi...

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

04-11-2016 12:01 PM

Hi:

The typical practice, followed for example by Forecast Server, is to estimate the model first with in-sample data, select a model, then reestimate the model parameters using all data.

Usually, you want a hold-out period that is at least as long as your forecasting horizon, and you want to leave enough data in your sample to estimate your parameters accurately. Exactly what that means depends a lot on your data. If you have weekly data and want to forecast one year head, obviously 54 data points is not even enough for a model with a weekly cycle, let alone a hold-out sample. If you have yearly data with low noise, no cycles, and a clearly defined trend, you most likely can use a hold-out sample of 20% of your data without impunity.

AIC has been often used for model selection when out-of-sample analysis is not practical because it is asymptotically equivalent to minimizing the one-step ahead MSE. You need to use some caution for comparing models using AIC but if you are limiting yourself to the class of UCM models you should be OK.

For more details about the use of AIC in time series forecasting you can look at these comments by Rob Hyndman .

http://robjhyndman.com/hyndsight/aic/

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

04-12-2016 11:07 AM - edited 04-12-2016 11:10 AM

Thank you for the replies. The blog was helpful. My data is annual time series from **1958 to 2012** and I want to forecast till **2020**. This is what I understood.

- I should use data points 1958 to 2004 to estimate my model (I am using
**UNOBSERVED COMPONENTS MODEL**) - Then I should use the same model to forecast from 2005 to 2012 and compare the actual and the forecasted value.
- Then based in the best performing model I should make forecasts from 2012 to 2020 using the same model (estimated using data points 1958 to 2004)

**Is this procedure right? **

**However my data shows extreme values from 2004 till 2009. I am attaching my data and the Graph**.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

04-12-2016 01:57 PM - edited 04-12-2016 01:58 PM

Using holdout when there is a disturbance at the end of the series is always a tricky business. Especially if that represents a structural break. In that case, the model you estimate with your training data is of little use for forecasting the data after the break. Does your series behaves differently after the 2008 recession? You probably need to answer that question before you consider using a hold-out sample.

My collegue suggests the following models to detect if there is a level shift.

```
data check;
input y @@;
date = intnx('year', '01jan1958'd, _n_-1);
format date date.;
shift08 = year(date) >= 2008;
datalines;
3230.238004
3880.27782
5514.404608
5444.358113
5185.454737
5743.991179
5414.308928
5707.274559
5815.515973
6530.864179
6510.614764
7558.541769
6675.955715
5896.869334
5386.803788
8433.694569
7131.877172
6904.044902
6871.351978
8244.785764
8291.976594
10396.47307
7443.580244
7583.28
7229.149372
8471.909654
8260.934809
7634.038233
7825.882353
7361.713167
7915.309201
7616.26382
7909.621007
7357.098918
10272.38638
9232.976
9744.024933
8976.652994
8796.254019
9133.507813
9086.751497
9902.849854
10982.60692
10724.79418
9961.156651
10127.82939
10175
12464.84375
13182.99445
12721.34039
7407.807309
9458.164094
10289.00846
9612.903226
9535.010197
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;
proc sgplot data=check;
series x=date y=y;
run;
*Detects a level shift starting from 2008;
*simple y = smooth trend + cycle + error model;
*the model seems OK based on residual plots;
proc ucm data=check;
id date interval=year;
model y;
irregular plot=smooth;
level variance=0 noest checkbreak ;
slope;
cycle plot=smooth;
estimate plot=panel;
forecast plot=decomp;
run;
*simple y = shift08 + smooth trend + cycle + error model;
* because of the dummy shift08, very few residuals to do
residual diagnostics. However, information criteria seem
to say that the model does improve on the previous one;
proc ucm data=check;
id date interval=year;
model y = shift08;
irregular plot=smooth;
level variance=0 noest checkbreak ;
slope;
cycle plot=smooth;
estimate plot=panel;
forecast plot=decomp;
run;
```

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

04-12-2016 02:47 PM

Thank you very much for your reply. My data has two breaks detected in 1973 and in 1992. I include step intervention variables for them and run the model

```
proc ucm data = metals;
id year interval = year;
model AL=BREAK1973 BREAK1992;
irregular;
level variance=0 noest Plot=smooth;
slope;
cycle;
cycle;
estimate plot=all;
run;
```

However I am stuck about the forecasting. i am not sure if i should hold out sample points (my data pertains to commodity markets and since mid 2000 markets have been volatile).

Can I estimate my model using the whole sample (1958 to 2012) and then forecast from 2008 till 2020 (Using the command given below) ? **Is there any other option that i can use??**

```
proc ucm data = metals;
id year interval = year;
model AL=BREAK1973 BREAK1992;
irregular;
level variance=0 noest Plot=smooth;
slope;
cycle;
cycle;
estimate plot=all;
forecast back=5 lead=13 plot=decomp;
run;
```

**Thank you**