When there is a need to select the most appropriate forecasting model or method for the data, the forecasters usually split the available sample into two parts: in-sample (aka “training set”) and holdout sample (or out-sample, or “test set”). The model is then estimated on in-sample and its forecasting performance is evaluated using some error measure on the holdout sample.
If such a procedure done only once, then this is called “fixed origin” evaluation. However, the time series might contain outliers or level shifts and a poor model might perform better than the more appropriate one only because of that. In order to robustify the evaluation of models, something called “rolling origin” is used.
Rolling origin is an evaluation technique according to which the forecasting origin is updated successively and the forecasts are produced from each origin (Tashman 2000). This technique allows obtaining several forecast errors for time series, which gives a better understanding of how the models perform. There are different options of how this can be done.
The figure below (from (Svetunkov and Petropoulos 2018)) depicts the basic idea of rolling origin. White cells correspond to the in-sample data, while the light grey cells correspond to the three-steps-ahead forecasts. Time series has 25 observations in that figure, and the forecasts are produced from 8 origins, starting from the origin 15. The model is re-estimated on each iteration, and the forecasts are produced. After that a new observation is added at the end of the series and the procedure continues. The process stops when there is no more data to add. This could be considered as a rolling origin with a constant holdout sample size. As a result of this procedure 8 one to three steps ahead forecasts are produced. Based on them we can calculate the preferred error measures and choose the best performing model.
Another option of producing forecasts from 8 origins would be to start from the origin 17 instead of 15 (see Figure below). In this case the procedure continues until origin 22, when the last three-steps-ahead forecast is produced, and then continues with the decreasing forecasting horizon. So the two-steps-ahead forecast is produced from the origin 23 and only one-step-ahead forecast is produced from the origin 24. As a result we obtain 8 one-step-ahead forecasts, 7 two-steps-ahead forecasts and 6 three-steps-ahead forecasts. This can be considered as a rolling origin with a non-constant holdout sample size. This can be useful in cases of small samples, when we don’t have any observations to spare.
Finally, in both of the cases above we had the increasing in-sample size. However for some research purposes we might need a constant in-sample. The figure below demonstrates such a situation. In this case on each iteration we add an observation at the end of the series and remove one from the beginning of the series (dark grey cells).
The function ro()
from greybox
package
(written by Yves Sagaert and Ivan Svetunkov in 2016 on the way to the
International Symposium on Forecasting) implements the rolling origin
evaluation for any function you like with a predefined call
and returns the desired value
. It heavily relies on the two
variables: call
and value
- so it is quite
important to understand how to formulate them in order to get the
desired results. Overall, ro()
is a very flexible function,
but, as a result, it is not very simple. Let’s see how it works.
We start with a simple example, generating series from normal distribution:
<- rnorm(100,100,10) x
We use ARIMA(0,1,1) for this example:
<- "predict(arima(x=data,order=c(0,1,1)),n.ahead=h)" ourCall
The call that we specify includes two important elements:
data
and h
. data
specifies where
the in-sample values are located in the function that we want to use,
and it needs to be called “data” in the call. h
will tell
our function, where the forecasting horizon is specified in the selected
function. Note that in this example we use
arima(x=data,order=c(0,1,1))
, which produces a desired
ARIMA(0,1,1) model and then we use predict(...,n.ahead=h)
,
which produces a forecast from that model. The part
arima(x=data,order=c(0,1,1))
can also be simplified to
arima(data,order=c(0,1,1))
according to the general rules
of R.
Having the call, we need also to specify what the function should
return. This can be the conditional mean (point forecasts), prediction
intervals, the parameters of a model, or, in fact, anything that the
model returns (e.g. name of the fitted model and its likelihood).
However, there are some differences in what the ro()
returns depending on what the function you use returns. If it is a
vector, then ro()
will produce a matrix (with values for
each origin in columns). If it is a matrix, then an array is returned.
Finally, if it is a list, then a list of lists is returned.
In order not to overcomplicate things, let’s start with collecting
the conditional mean from the predict()
function:
<- "pred" ourValue
NOTE: If you do not specify the value to return, the
function will try to return everything, but it might fail, especially if
a lot of values are returned. So, in order to be on the safe side,
always provide the value
, when
possible.
Now that we have specified ourCall
and
ourValue
, we can produce forecasts from the model using
rolling origin. Let’s say that we want three-steps-ahead forecasts and 8
origins with the default values of all the other parameters:
<- ro(x, h=3, origins=8, call=ourCall, value=ourValue) returnedValues1
The function returns a list with all the values that we asked for plus the actual values from the holdout sample. We can calculate some basic error measure based on those values, for example, scaled Mean Absolute Error (Petropoulos and Kourentzes 2015):
apply(abs(returnedValues1$holdout - returnedValues1$pred),1,mean,na.rm=TRUE) / mean(returnedValues1$actuals)
#> h1 h2 h3
#> 0.10212753 0.09797076 0.09799544
In this example we use apply()
function in order to
distinguish between the different forecasting horizons and have an idea
of how the model performs for each of them. In a similar manner we could
evaluate the performance of some other model and compare the errors with
the ones produced by the first one. These numbers do not tell us much on
their own, but if we compared the performance of this model with another
one, then we could infer if one model is more appropriate to the data
than the other one.
We can also plot the forecasts from the rolling origin, which shows how the selected model behaves:
plot(returnedValues1)
In this example the forecasts from different origins are close to each other. This is because the data is stationary and the model is quite stable.
If we want to change the default parameters of RO, we can ask for example, for non-constant holdout and the constant in-sample:
<- ro(x, h=3, origins=8, call=ourCall, value=ourValue, ci=TRUE, co=FALSE) returnedValues2
Note that the values from the returnedValues2
are not
directly comparable with the ones from returnedValues1
,
because they are produced from the different origins. This becomes more
apparent when we plot things:
plot(returnedValues2)
If you decide to use functions from forecast
package,
the call and returned values can be modified the following way:
<- "forecast(ets(data),h=h,level=95)"
ourCallETS <- c("mean","lower","upper") ourValueETS
Note that we ask here for only one level. If we don’t then the
forecast
function will return matrices for upper and lower
values instead of vectors, and those cannot be adequately transformed
into the desired format, so the ro() will return an error.
As you see, ro()
is a convenient function, when you have
one model and one time series. But what if you need to apply different
models to different time series? We would need a loop, right? Yes. And
there is a simple way to use ro()
in this case. Let’s
continue our example but now introduce several time series:
<- matrix(rnorm(120*3,c(100,50,150),c(10,5,15)), 120, 3, byrow=TRUE) x
We would need an array of the returned values for this example:
<- array(NA,c(3,2,3,8)) ourForecasts
Here we will have 3 time series, 2 models and 3-steps-ahead forecasts from 8 origins. Our models will be saved in a separate lists. We will have ARIMA(0,1,1) and ARIMA(1,1,0) in this example:
<- list(c(0,1,1), c(1,1,0)) ourModels
We will return the same pred
value from the function, as
we did before, but we need to change the call, as now we will have to
take these two different models into account:
<- "predict(arima(data, order=ourModels[[i]]), n.ahead=h)" ourCall
As you see, instead of specifying the model directly, we use the i-th element of the list.
We also want to save the actual values from the holdout in order to be able to calculate the error measures:
<- array(NA,c(3,3,8)) ourHoldoutValues
This array has dimensions for 3 time series and 3-steps-ahead forecast from 8 origins.
Finally, we can write a loop and produce the forecasts:
for(j in 1:3){
for(i in 1:2){
<- x[,j]
ourdata <- ro(data=ourdata, h=3, origins=8, call=ourCall,
ourROReturn value=ourValue, co=TRUE)
<- ourROReturn$pred
ourForecasts[j,i,,]
}<- ourROReturn$holdout
ourHoldoutValues[j,,] }
Although we do not specify i
explicitly anywhere in the
call of ro()
above, it is used in ourCall
and
as a result the different models will be estimated in the inner loop.
Comparing the performance of the two on the different time series we
have (this is RelMAE from (Davydenko and Fildes
2013)):
exp(mean(log(apply(abs(ourHoldoutValues - ourForecasts[,1,,]),1,mean,na.rm=TRUE) / apply(abs(ourHoldoutValues - ourForecasts[,2,,]),1,mean,na.rm=TRUE))))
#> [1] 0.7360236
So based on these results, it can be concluded, that ARIMA(0,1,1) is on average more accurate than ARIMA(1,1,0) on our three time series.
For our last examples we create the data frame and try fitting linear regression:
<- matrix(rnorm(120*3,c(100,50,150),c(10,5,15)), 120, 3, byrow=TRUE)
xreg <- 0.5*xreg[,1] + 0.2*xreg[,2] + 0.75*xreg[,3] + rnorm(120,0,10)
y <- cbind(y,xreg)
xreg colnames(xreg) <- c("y",paste0("x",c(1:3)))
<- as.data.frame(xreg) xreg
Note that in this example we cheat ro()
function and
make a call, that does not contain either data
or
h
, because the regression implemented in lm()
function relies on data frames and does not use forecasting horizon:
<- "predict(lm(y~x1+x2+x3,xreg[counti,]),newdata=xreg[counto,],interval='p')" ourCall
In this case we just need to make sure that the Global Environment
contains the xreg data frame. counti
variable in the call
is needed for the internal loop - it determines the length of the
in-sample. Similarly counto
specifies the length of the
holdout. Both of them are defined inside the ro()
function.
In addition, we don’t need to specify ourValue
, because
the function predict.lm()
returns a matrix with values (or
a vector if we don’t ask for intervals), not a list.
NOTE: if you use a different function (not
lm()
), then you might need to specify the
value
. The final call to ro()
is as usual
pretty simple:
<- ro(xreg$y, h=3, origins=8, call=ourCall, ci=TRUE, co=TRUE)
ourROReturn #> Warning: You have not specified the 'value' to produce.We will try to return
#> everything, but we cannot promise anything.
In this case, we need to provide the response variable in the
data
parameter of the call, because the function needs to
extract values for the holdout.
Similar thing can be done using alm()
function but with
a proper value
(the function might fail otherwise):
<- "predict(alm(y~x1+x2+x3,xreg[counti,]),newdata=xreg[counto,],interval='p')"
ourCall <- c("mean","lower","upper")
ourValue <- ro(xreg$y, h=3, origins=8, call=ourCall, value=ourValue, ci=TRUE, co=TRUE)
ourROReturn plot(ourROReturn)
As a final example, we consider ARIMAX model for the following data:
<- matrix(rnorm(120*3,c(100,50,150),c(10,5,15)), 120, 3, byrow=TRUE)
xreg <- 0.5*xreg[,1] + 0.2*xreg[,2] + 0.75*xreg[,3] + rnorm(120,0,10)
y colnames(xreg) <- paste0("x",c(1:3))
<- as.data.frame(xreg) xreg
and modify the call accordingly:
<- "predict(arima(x=data, order=c(0,1,1), xreg=xreg[counti,]), n.ahead=h, newxreg=xreg[counto,])" ourCall
Taking that now we deal with ARIMA, we need to specify both
data
and h
. Furthermore, xreg
is
different than in the previous example, as it now should not contain the
response variable.
As usual, we need our function to return the specific predicted values:
<- "pred" ourValue
And then we call for the function and get the results:
<- ro(x, h=3, origins=8, call=ourCall, value=ourValue) ourROReturn
As a side note, if you use smooth
package for R and want
to do rolling origin evaluation, for example, for ETSX model using
es()
function, the call can be simplified to:
<- "es(x=data, xreg=xreg[countf,]), h=h)" ourCall
Here we use countf
variable, which specifies that we
need to use both in-sample and the holdout (the full sample), as the
function es()
does not rely on forecast()
or
predict()
and can produce forecasts internally.
Finally, all of the examples mentioned above can be done in parallel,
which is triggered by parallel
parameter. Note that this
might be useful for cases, when number of origins is very high and the
sample size is large. Otherwise this might be less efficient than the
serial calculation. If you want to do anything in parallel, then you
either need either doMC
(Linux and Mac OS) or
doParallel
(for Windows) package in R. The number of cores
used in this case is equal to the number of cores of your CPU minus
one.