IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecf0/331.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluation Of Forecasts Produced By Genetically Evolved Models

Author

Listed:
  • M. A. Kaboudan

    (Penn State Lehigh Valley)

Abstract

Genetic programming (or GP) is a random search technique that emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. A formal description of the method was introduced in Koza (1992). GP applies to many optimization areas. One of them is modeling time series and using those models in forecasting. Unlike other modeling techniques, GP is a computer program that 'searches' for a specification that replicates the dynamic behavior of observed series. To use GP, one provides operators (such as +, -, *, ?, exp, log, sin, cos, ... etc.) and identifies as many variables thought best to reproduce the dependent variable's dynamics. The program then randomly assembles equations with different specifications by combining some of the provided variables with operators and identifies that specification with the minimum sum of squared errors (or SSE). This process is an iterative evolution of successive generations consisting of thousands of the assembled equations where only the fittest within a generation survive to breed better equations also using random combinations until the best one is found. Clearly from this simple description, the method is based on heuristics and has no theoretical foundation. However, resulting final equations seem to produce reasonably accurate forecasts that compare favorably to forecasts humanly conceived specifications produce. With encouraging results difficult to overlook or ignore, it is important to investigate GP as a forecasting methodology. This paper attempts to evaluate forecasts genetically evolved models (or GEMs) produce for experimental data as well as real world time series.The organization of this paper inot four Sections. Section 1 contains an overview of GEMs. The reader will find lucid explanation of how models are evolved using genetic methodology as well as features found to characterize GEMs as a modeling technique. Section 2 contains descriptions of simulated and real world data and their respective fittest identified GEMs. The MSE and a new alpha-statistic are presented to compare models' performances. Simulated data were chosen to represent processes with different behavioral complexities including linear, linear-stochastic, nonlinear, nonlinear chaotic, and nonlinear-stochastic. Real world data consist of two time series popular in analytical statistics: Canadian lynx data and sunspot numbers. Predictions of historic values of each series (used in generating the fittest model) are also presented there. Forecasts and their evaluations are in Section 3. For each series, single- and multi-step forecasts are evaluated according to the mean squared error, normalized mean squared error, and alpha- statistic. A few concluding remarks are in the discussion in Section 4.

Suggested Citation

  • M. A. Kaboudan, 2000. "Evaluation Of Forecasts Produced By Genetically Evolved Models," Computing in Economics and Finance 2000 331, Society for Computational Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:sce:scecf0:331
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/cef00/papers/paper331.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris Chatfield, 1995. "Model Uncertainty, Data Mining and Statistical Inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 158(3), pages 419-444, May.
    2. M. M. Gabr & T. Subba Rao, 1981. "The Estimation And Prediction Of Subset Bilinear Time Series Models With Applications," Journal of Time Series Analysis, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(3), pages 155-171, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Claudia García-García & Catalina B. García-García & Román Salmerón, 2021. "Confronting collinearity in environmental regression models: evidence from world data," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 30(3), pages 895-926, September.
    2. Chou, Ping & Chuang, Howard Hao-Chun & Chou, Yen-Chun & Liang, Ting-Peng, 2022. "Predictive analytics for customer repurchase: Interdisciplinary integration of buy till you die modeling and machine learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(2), pages 635-651.
    3. Sai Ding & John Knight, 2011. "Why has China Grown So Fast? The Role of Physical and Human Capital Formation," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 73(2), pages 141-174, April.
    4. Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti & Luca Pedini, 2020. "ParMA: Parallelised Bayesian Model Averaging for Generalised Linear Models," Working Papers 2020:28, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    5. Robert Lehmann & Antje Weyh, 2016. "Forecasting Employment in Europe: Are Survey Results Helpful?," Journal of Business Cycle Research, Springer;Centre for International Research on Economic Tendency Surveys (CIRET), vol. 12(1), pages 81-117, September.
    6. Castle Jennifer L. & Doornik Jurgen A & Hendry David F., 2011. "Evaluating Automatic Model Selection," Journal of Time Series Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-33, February.
    7. Lee, Yun Shin & Scholtes, Stefan, 2014. "Empirical prediction intervals revisited," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 217-234.
    8. Johan Verbeeck & Martin Geroldinger & Konstantin Thiel & Andrew Craig Hooker & Sebastian Ueckert & Mats Karlsson & Arne Cornelius Bathke & Johann Wolfgang Bauer & Geert Molenberghs & Georg Zimmermann, 2023. "How to analyze continuous and discrete repeated measures in small‐sample cross‐over trials?," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(4), pages 3998-4011, December.
    9. Francesco Battaglia & Lia Orfei, 2005. "Outlier Detection And Estimation In NonLinear Time Series," Journal of Time Series Analysis, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 107-121, January.
    10. Coleman, Stephen, 2005. "Testing Theories with Qualitative and Quantitative Predictions," MPRA Paper 105171, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Ewout W. Steyerberg, 2005. "Local Applicability of Clinical and Model-Based Probability Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(6), pages 678-680, November.
    12. Mark F. J. Steel, 2020. "Model Averaging and Its Use in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(3), pages 644-719, September.
    13. Brooks, Jeremy S., 2010. "The Buddha mushroom: Conservation behavior and the development of institutions in Bhutan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 779-795, February.
    14. Ebersberger, Bernd & Galia, Fabrice & Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Inbound Open Innovation and Innovation Performance: A Robustness Study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    15. Brian Knaeble & Seth Dutter, 2017. "Reversals of Least-Square Estimates and Model-Invariant Estimation for Directions of Unique Effects," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 71(2), pages 97-105, April.
    16. John Knight & Sai Ding, 2008. "Why has China Grown so Fast? The Role of Structural Change," Economics Series Working Papers 415, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    17. Pritularga, Kandrika F. & Svetunkov, Ivan & Kourentzes, Nikolaos, 2021. "Stochastic coherency in forecast reconciliation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    18. Steven M. Shugan, 2002. "In Search of Data: An Editorial," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 369-377.
    19. Fletcher, David & Dillingham, Peter W., 2011. "Model-averaged confidence intervals for factorial experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(11), pages 3041-3048, November.
    20. Liu, Min & He, Honglin & Ren, Xiaoli & Sun, Xiaomin & Yu, Guirui & Han, Shijie & Wang, Huimin & Zhou, Guoyi, 2015. "The effects of constraining variables on parameter optimization in carbon and water flux modeling over different forest ecosystems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 303(C), pages 30-41.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sce:scecf0:331. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sceeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.