I am trying to implement the ARIMA model using statsmodels. I get really unusual results for my predictions, and was hoping for advice on fixing this.
arima = tsa.ARIMA(train[endogenous], exog=train.drop(endogenous,axis=1), order=(2,2,0),freq='B')
results = arima.fit()
prediction = results.predict(start=1,end=len(x)-1,exog=x.drop(endogenous,axis=1))
My actual dataset is this
2012-01-05 659.010
2012-01-06 650.020
2012-01-09 622.940
...
2013-11-08 1016.03
2013-11-11 1010.59
2013-11-12 1011.78
2013-11-13 1032.47
Prediction gives me this
2012-01-05 -10.551134
2012-01-06 -8.937889
2012-01-09 -27.941221
...
2013-11-08 14.739148
2013-11-11 22.567270
2013-11-12 1.844993
2013-11-13 -42.794671
It's unusual how even on examples that I trained on, the predictions aren't even in the same ballpark.
You have asked for an ARIMA(2,2,0) model. So, your model fit will be done on twice-differenced data. I believe the predicted values are predictions of the twice-differenced data, not the original data.
Related
I am trying to create a model that predicts if it will rain in the next 5 days (multi-step) or not, so I dont need the precipitation value, just a "yes" or "no". I've been testing with some different tools/algorithms and I guess the big challenge here is dealing with the zero skewed data.
The dataset consists of hourly data that has columns such as precipitation, temperature, pressure, wind speed, humidity. It has around 1 milion rows. There is no requisite to use a multivariate approach.
Rain occurs mostly on months 1,2,3,11 and 12.
So I tried using a univariate LSTM on the data, and with hourly sample I had the best results. I used the following architecture:
model=Sequential()
model.add(LSTM(150,return_sequences=True,input_shape=(1,look_back)))
model.add(LSTM(50,return_sequences=True))
model.add(LSTM(50))
model.add(Dense(1))
model.compile(loss='mean_squared_error', optimizer='adam')
history = model.fit(trainX, trainY, epochs=15, batch_size=4096, validation_data=(testX, testY), shuffle=False)
I'm using a lookback value of 24*60, which should mean 2 months.
Train/Validation Loss:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/CjDbR.png
Final result:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/p6SnD.png
So I read that this train/validation loss means the model is underfitting, is it? What could I do to prevent this?
Before using LSTM I tried using Prophet, which rendered really bad results and tried used autoarima, but it couldn't handle a yearly seasonality (365 days).
In case of underfitting what you can do is icreasing the learning rate, increasing training duration and number of training data.
It is also worth having some external metric such as the F1 score because loss isn't a good metrics for human evaluation.
Just looking at your example I would start with experimenting a bit with the loss function, it seems like your data is binary so it would be wiser to use a binary loss instead of a regression loss
In pytorch, I want to save the output in every epoch for late caculation. But it leads to OUT OF MEMORY ERROR after several epochs. The code is like below:
L=[]
optimizer.zero_grad()
for i, (input, target) in enumerate(train_loader):
output = model(input)
L.append(output)
*** updata my model to minimize a loss function. List L will be used here.
I know the reason is because pytorch save all computation graphs from every epoch.
But the loss function can only be calculated after obtaining all of the prediction results
Is there a way I can train my model?
are you training on a GPU?
If so, you could move it main memory like
L.append(output.detach().cpu())
I'm very new to deep learning models, and trying to train a multiple time series model using LSTM with Keras Sequential. There are 25 observations per year for 50 years = 1250 samples, so not sure if this is even possible to use LSTM for such small data. However, I have thousands of feature variables, not including time lags. I'm trying to predict a sequence of the next 25 time steps of data. The data is normalized between 0 and 1. My problem is that, despite trying many obvious adjustments, I cannot get the LSTM validation loss anywhere close to the training loss (overfitting dramatically, I think).
I have tried adjusting number of nodes per hidden layer (25-375), number of hidden layers (1-3), dropout (0.2-0.8), batch_size (25-375), and train/ test split (90%:10% - 50%-50%). Nothing really makes much of a difference on the validation loss/ training loss disparity.
# SPLIT INTO TRAIN AND TEST SETS
# 25 observations per year; Allocate 5 years (2014-2018) for Testing
n_test = 5 * 25
test = values[:n_test, :]
train = values[n_test:, :]
# split into input and outputs
train_X, train_y = train[:, :-25], train[:, -25:]
test_X, test_y = test[:, :-25], test[:, -25:]
# reshape input to be 3D [samples, timesteps, features]
train_X = train_X.reshape((train_X.shape[0], 5, newdf.shape[1]))
test_X = test_X.reshape((test_X.shape[0], 5, newdf.shape[1]))
print(train_X.shape, train_y.shape, test_X.shape, test_y.shape)
# design network
model = Sequential()
model.add(Masking(mask_value=-99, input_shape=(train_X.shape[1], train_X.shape[2])))
model.add(LSTM(375, return_sequences=True))
model.add(Dropout(0.8))
model.add(LSTM(125, return_sequences=True))
model.add(Dropout(0.8))
model.add(LSTM(25))
model.add(Dense(25))
model.compile(loss='mse', optimizer='adam')
# fit network
history = model.fit(train_X, train_y, epochs=20, batch_size=25, validation_data=(test_X, test_y), verbose=2, shuffle=False)
Epoch 19/20
14s - loss: 0.0512 - val_loss: 188.9568
Epoch 20/20
14s - loss: 0.0510 - val_loss: 188.9537
I assume I must be doing something obvious wrong, but can't realize it since I'm a newbie. I am hoping to either get some useful validation loss achieved (compared to training), or know that my data observations are simply not large enough for useful LSTM modeling. Any help or suggestions is much appreciated, thanks!
Overfitting
In general, if you're seeing much higher validation loss than training loss, then it's a sign that your model is overfitting - it learns "superstitions" i.e. patterns that accidentally happened to be true in your training data but don't have a basis in reality, and thus aren't true in your validation data.
It's generally a sign that you have a "too powerful" model, too many parameters that are capable of memorizing the limited amount of training data. In your particular model you're trying to learn almost a million parameters (try printing model.summary()) from a thousand datapoints - that's not reasonable, learning can extract/compress information from data, not create it out of thin air.
What's the expected result?
The first question you should ask (and answer!) before building a model is about the expected accuracy. You should have a reasonable lower bound (what's a trivial baseline? For time series prediction, e.g. linear regression might be one) and an upper bound (what could an expert human predict given the same input data and nothing else?).
Much depends on the nature of the problem. You really have to ask, is this information sufficient to get a good answer? For many real life time problems with time series prediction, the answer is no - the future state of such a system depends on many variables that can't be determined by simply looking at historical measurements - to reasonably predict the next value, you need to bring in lots of external data other than the historical prices. There's a classic quote by Tukey: "The combination of some data and an aching desire for an answer does not ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted from a given body of data."
I use the following simple IsolationForest algorithm to detect the outliers of given dataset X of 20K samples and 16 features, I run the following
train_X, tesy_X, train_y, test_y = train_test_split(X, y, train_size=.8)
clf = IsolationForest()
clf.fit(X) # Notice I am using the entire dataset X when fitting!!
print (clf.predict(X))
I get the result:
[ 1 1 1 -1 ... 1 1 1 -1 1]
This question is: Is it logically correct to use the entire dataset X when fitting into IsolationForest or only train_X?
Yes, it is logically correct to ultimately train on the entire dataset.
With that in mind, you could measure the test set performance against the training set's performance. This could tell you if the test set is from a similar distribution as your training set.
If the test set scores anomalous as compared to the training set, then you can expect future data to be similar. In this case, I would like more data to have a more complete view of what is 'normal'.
If the test set scores similarly to the training set, I would be more comfortable with the final Isolation Forest trained on all data.
Perhaps you could use sklearn TimeSeriesSplit CV in this fashion to get a sense for how much data is enough for your problem?
Since this is unlabeled data to the anomaly detector, the more data the better when defining 'normal'.
I was trying to data model a Classification Machine Learning algorithm on a data set which has 32 attributes,the last column being Target class.I refined the attributes number in to 6 from 32 ,which I felt would be more useful for my Classification model.
I tried to perform J48 and some incremental classification algorithm.
I expected output structure which consists of confusion matrix,correctlt and incorrectly classified instances,kappa value.
But my result did not give any information on Correctly and Incorrectly classified instances.Also,it did not predict confusion matrix and Kappa value.All I received is like this:
=== Summary ===
Correlation coefficient 0.9482
Mean absolute error 0.2106
Root mean squared error 0.5673
Relative absolute error 13.4077 %
Root relative squared error 31.9157 %
Total Number of Instances 1461
Can anyone tell me why I did not get Confusion matrix,kappa and Correct,Incorrect instances information.
Unfortunately you didnt write your code, or what version of weka do you apply.
BTW, to calculate confusion mtx, kappa etc. you can use methods of Evaluation class, http://weka.sourceforge.net/doc.dev/weka/classifiers/Evaluation.html
for example, after you train your model:
classifier.buildClassifier(train); \\train is an instances
Evaluation eval = new Evaluation(train);
//evaulate your model at 10 fold cross validation manner
eval.crossValidateModel(classifier, train, 10, new Random(1));
System.out.println(classifier);
//print different stats with
System.out.println(eval.toSummaryString());
System.out.println(eval.toMatrixString());
System.out.println(eval.toClassDetailsString());