So I have a time series which I cannot share with you all, but I have a few questions about the proper proceedings to fit the correct ARIMA model for my data.
I have successfully written a loop to determine what degree of differencing needs to be done (parameter d in I(d))
Question:
To determine p and q, I am looking at ACF and PACF plots of my data. However, I am wondering if I should be using a deseasonalized transformation of my time series (trend plus random error, but no seasonality component which could be added back later) or my original time series. I obtained the deseasonal data using the decompose function in R (is stl() significantly better?).
With the original time seriees, my acf plot looks like:
There is some definite seasonality at play here from the ACF plot. Does that mean I need to identify nonzero seasonal parameters in my final model if I need to use this data? How do I choose seasonal P and Q in this case?
With the deseasonalized data, here are what the plots look like:
Not sure how to interpret the deseasonal PACF/ACF plots other than the fact that the spike at lag 6 on the ACF plot indicates p might be 6?
Just learned ARIMA this summer and would appreciate the help from anyone who knows the subject well how to choose the optimal parameters based on what I've shown. Looking forward to a good discourse :)
Related
I have time series data ranging from 0 to 30 million. Its basically web traffic weekly data. I am working on building a forecasting model with this data. I want to understand how can I deal with this range of data. I tried box cox transformation with prophet model. I am not sure about what metrics could I use to evaluate the performance of the model. The data has a lot of 0's. I can't remove them from the dataset. Is there a better way to deal with the 0's other than the Box Cox transformation? I had issues with the inverse transformation but I added a small value (0.1) to the data to avoid negative values.
If your series have lot of periodic zero data,Croston method is a one way.It is a basically forecast strategy for products with intermittent demand.Also you can try exponential smoothing and traditional ARIMA,SARIMA models and clip the negative values in the forecast(this is according to your use case).
you can find croston method in forecast package.
also refer these links as well.
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/8779/analysis-of-time-series-with-many-zero-values/8782
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/373689/forecasting-intermittent-demand-with-zeroes-in-times-series
https://robjhyndman.com/papers/foresight.pdf
I am currently using the Marima package for R invented by Henrik Spliid in order to forecast multivariate time series with ARIMA.
Overview can be found here:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/marima/marima.pdf
http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/123996117/marima.anv.talk.pdf
When using the Marima function, it is required to define both the order of AR(p) and MA(q) first.
My question is, how can I determine appropriate values for p and q?
I know when it comes to univariate ARIMA analysis, that auto.arima gives a good suggestion for p and q. However, when I use auto.arima for every single univariate time series I want to analyze, there are (slightly) different suggestions for each time series. (For example (2,2,1) for the first, (1,1,1) for the second and so on)
Since I want to analyze all of the time series combined in the multivariate ARIMA model and I only can choose one value for each p and q (if I understood it correctly), I wonder how I can choose those values the most accurate way.
Could I just try to run the model a couple times and see what values for p and q work best (e.g. by testing the residuals of the forecast)?
What are your suggestions?
I would appreciate any help!
I'm new to time series and used the monthly ozone concentration data from Rob Hyndman's website to do some forecasting.
After doing a log transformation and differencing by lags 1 and 12 to get rid of the trend and seasonality respectively, I plotted the ACF and PACF shown [in this image][2]. Am I on the right track and how would I interpret this as a SARIMA?
There seems to be a pattern every 11 lags in the PACF plot, which makes me think I should do more differencing (at 11 lags), but doing so gives me a worse plot.
I'd really appreciate any of your help!
EDIT:
I got rid of the differencing at lag 1 and just used lag 12 instead, and this is what I got for the ACF and PACF.
From there, I deduced that: SARIMA(1,0,1)x(1,1,1) (AIC: 520.098)
or SARIMA(1,0,1)x(2,1,1) (AIC: 521.250)
would be a good fit, but auto.arima gave me (3,1,1)x(2,0,0) (AIC: 560.7) normally and (1,1,1)x(2,0,0) (AIC: 558.09) without stepwise and approximation.
I am confused on which model to use, but based on the lowest AIC, SAR(1,0,1)x(1,1,1) would be the best? Also, the thing that concerns me is that none of the models pass the Ljung-Box test. Is there any way I can fix this?
It is quite difficult to manually select a model order that will perform well at forecasting a dataset. This is why Rob has built the 'auto.arima' function in his R forecast package, to figure out the model that may perform best based on certain metrics.
When you see a pacf plot with significantly negative lags that usually means you have over differenced your data. Try removing the 1st order difference and keeping the 12 order difference. Then carry on making your best guess.
I'd recommend trying his auto.arima function and passing it a time series object with frequency = 12. He has a good writeup of seasonal arima models here:
https://www.otexts.org/fpp/8/9
If you would like more insight into manually selecting a SARIMA model order, this is a good read:
https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat510/node/67
In response to your Edit:
I think it would be beneficial to this post if you clarify your objective. Which of the following are you trying to achieve?
Find a model where residuals satisfy Ljung Box Test
Produce the most accurate out of sample forecast
Manually select lag orders such that ACF and PACF plots show no significant lags remaining.
In my opinion, #2 is the most sought after objective so I'll assume that is your goal. From my experience, #3 produces poor results out of sample. In regards to #1, I am usually not concerned about correlations remaining in the residuals. We know we do not have the true model for this time-series, so I do not feel there's any reason to expect an approximate model that performs well out of sample to not have left something behind in the residuals that is more complex perhaps, or nonlinear etc.
To provide you another SARIMA result, I ran this data through some code I've developed and found the following equation produced the minimal error on a cross-validation period.
Final model is:
SARIMA [0,1,1] [1,1,1]12 with a constant using the log normal of the time-series.
The errors in the cross validation period are:
MAPE = 16%
MAE = 0.46
RSQR = 74%
Here is the Partial Autocorrelation plot of the residuals for your information.
This is roughly similar in methodology to selecting an equation based on AICc to my understanding, but is ultimately a different approach. Regardless, if your objective is out of sample accuracy, I'd recommend evaluating equations in terms of their out of sample accuracy versus in-sample fit, tests, or plots.
I did SARIMA model for the first time. While reading articles and examples I didn't get how to examine ACF/PACF plots
After differencing my ts.data two times to get it stationary I saw that PACF plot and how no idea how to interpret it
Will be glad if someone could explain me that plot or/and give a good source to read about it Differenced twice time series, lag is 12
You have to see both the ACF and the PACF at the same time to see if autocorrelation process of the series. Just seeing the PACF i think it might have a MA(1) because the first lag passes through the confidence interval, and then the other are just a pattern. But to be sure have to see the ACF also
I'm using the fourier() and fourierf() functions in Ron Hyndman's excellent forecast package in R. Looking to verify whether the same terms are selected and used in fourier() and fourierf(), I plotted a few of the output terms.
Below is the original data using ts.plot(data). There's a frequency of 364 in the time series, FYI.
Below is the plot of the terms using fourier(data,3). Basically, it looks like mirror images of the existing data.
Looking at just the sin1 term of the output, again, we get some variation that shows similar 364-day seasonality in line with the data above.
However, when I plot the results of the Fourier forecast using fourierf(data,3, 410) I see the below data. It appears far more smooth than the terms provided by the original fourier function.
So, I wonder how the results of fourier() and fourierf() are related. Is it possible to just see one consolidated Fourier result, so that you can see the sin or cosine result moving through existing data and then through the forecasting period? If not, how can I confirm that the terms created by fourierf() fit the in-sample data?
I want to use it in an auto.arima or glm function with other external regressors like this:
trainFourier<-fourier(data,3)
trainFourier<-as.data.frame(trainFourier)
trainFourier$exogenous<-exogenousData
arima.object<-auto.arima(data, xreg=trainFourier)
futureFourier<-fourierf(data,3, 410)
fourierForecast<-forecast(arima.object, xreg=futureFourier, h=410)
and want to be completely sure that the auto.arima has the proper fitting (using the terms from fourier()) to what I'll put in under xreg for forecast (which has terms from a different function, i.e. ffourier()).
Figured out the problem. I was using both the fda and forecast packages. fda, which is for functional data analysis and regression, has its own fourier() function. If I detach fda, my S1 term from fourier(data,3) looks like this:
which lines up nicely with the Fourier forecast if I use ts.plot(c(trainFourier$S1,futureFourier$S1))
Moral of the story -- watch what your packages supress, folks!