Category Archives: principal component models and forecasts

data reduction, data science, data shrinkage methods, many predictors, principal component models and forecasts

Dimension Reduction With Principal Components

May 23, 2014 Clive Jones

The method of principal components regression has achieved new prominence in machine learning, data reduction, and forecasting over the last decade.

It’s highly relevant in the era of Big Data, because it facilitates analyzing “fat” or wide databases. Fat databases have more predictors than observations. So you might have ten years of monthly data on sales, but 1000 potential predictors, meaning your database would be 120 by 1001 – obeying here the convention of stating row depth first and the number of columns second.

After a brief discussion of these Big Data applications and some elements of principal components, I illustrate dimension reduction with a violent crime database from the UC Irvine Machine Learning Repository.

Dynamic Factor Models

In terms of forecasting, a lot of research over the past decade has focused on “many predictors” and reducing the dimensionality of “fat” databases. Key names are James Stock and Mark Watson (see also) and Bai.

Stock and Watson have a white paper that has been updated several times, which can be found in PDF format at this link

stock watson generalized shrinkage June _2012.pdf

They write in the June 2012 update,

We find that, for most macroeconomic time series, among linear estimators the DFM forecasts make efficient use of the information in the many predictors by using only a small number of estimated factors. These series include measures of real economic activity and some other central macroeconomic series, including some interest rates and monetary variables. For these series, the shrinkage methods with estimated parameters fail to provide mean squared error improvements over the DFM. For a small number of series, the shrinkage forecasts improve upon DFM forecasts, at least at some horizons and by some measures, and for these few series, the DFM might not be an adequate approximation. Finally, none of the methods considered here help much for series that are notoriously difficult to forecast, such as exchange rates, stock prices, or price inflation.

Here DFM refers to dynamic factor models, essentially principal components models which utilize PC’s for lagged data.

Note also that this type of autoregressive or classical time series approach does not work well, in Stock and Watson’s judgment, for “series that are notoriously difficult to forecast, such as exchange rates, stock prices, or price inflation.”

Presumably, these series are closer to being random walks in some configuration.

Intermediate Level Concepts

Essentially, you can take any bundle of data and compute the principal components. If you mean-center and (in most cases) standardize the data, the principal components divide up the variance of this data, based on the size of their associated eigenvalues. The associated eigenvectors can be used to transform the data into an equivalent and same size set of orthogonal vectors. Really, the principal components operate to change the basis of the data, transforming it into an equivalent representation, but one in which all the variables have zero correlation with each other.

The Wikipaedia article on principal components is useful, but there is no getting around the fact that principal components can only really be understood with matrix algebra.

Often you see a diagram, such as the one below, showing a cloud of points distributed around a line passing through the origin of a coordinate system, but at an acute angle to those coordinates.

This illustrates dimensionality reduction with principal components. If we express all these points in terms of this rotated set of coordinates, one of these coordinates – the signal – captures most of the variation in the data. Projections of the datapoints onto the second principal component, therefore, account for much less variance.

Principal component regression characteristically specifies only the first few principal components in the regression equation, knowing that, typically, these explain the largest portion of the variance in the data.

An Application to Crime Data

Looking for some non-macroeconomic data to illustrate principal components (PC) regression, I found the Communities and Crime Data Set in the University of California at Irving Machine Learning Repository.

The data do not illustrate “many predictors” in the sense of more predictors than observations.

Here, the crime and other data comprise 128 variables, including a violent crime variable, which are collated for 1994 cities. That is, there are more observations than predictors.

The variables included in the dataset involve the community, such as the percent of the population considered urban, and the median family income, and involving law enforcement, such as per capita number of police officers, and percent of officers assigned to drug units. The per capita violent crimes variable was calculated using population and the sum of crime variables considered violent crimes in the United States: murder, rape, robbery, and assault.

I standardize the data, dropping variables with a lot of missing values. That leaves me 100 variables, including the violent crime metric.

This table gives you a flavor of the variables included – you have to interpret the abbreviations

I developed a comparison of OLS regression with principal components regression, finding that principal component regression can outperform OLS in out-of-sample predictions of violent crimes per capita.

The Matlab program to carry out this analysis is as follows:

So I used a training set of 1800 cities, and developed OLS and PC regressions to predict violent crime per capita in the remaining 194 cities. I calculate the principal components (coeff) from a training set (xtrain) comprised of the first 1800 cities. Then, I select the first twenty pc’s and translate them back to weightings on all 99 variables for application to the test set (xtest). I also calculate OLS regression coefficients on xtrain.

The mean square prediction error (mse1) of the OLS regression was 0.35 and the mean square prediction error (mse2) of the PC regression was 0.34 – really a marginal difference but large enough to make the point.

What’s really interesting is that I had to use the first twenty (20) principal components to achieve this improvement. Thus, this violent crime database has a quite diverse characteristic, compared with many socioeconomic datasets I have seen, where, as noted above, the first few principal components explain most of the variation in the data.

This method – PC regression – is especially good when there are predictors which are closely correlated (“multicollinearity”) as often is the case with market research surveys of consumer attitudes and income and wealth variables.

The bottom line here is that principal compoments can facilitate data reduction or regression regularization. Quite often, this can improve the prediction capabilities of a regression, when compared with an OLS regression using all the variables. The PC regression assigns higher weights to the most important predictors, in effect performing a kind of variable selection – although the coefficients or pc’s may not zero out variables per se.

I am continuing to work on this data with an eye to implementing k-fold cross-validation as a way of estimating the optimal number of principal components which should be used in the PC regressions.

accuracy of forecasts, data shrinkage methods, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, predictive analytics, principal component models and forecasts

Selecting Predictors

May 18, 2014 Clive Jones

In a recent post on logistic regression, I mentioned research which developed diagnostic tools for breast cancer based on true Big Data parameters – notably 62,219 consecutive mammography records from 48,744 studies in 18,270 patients reported using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon and the National Mammography Database format between April 5, 1999 and February 9, 2004.

This research built a logistic regression model with 36 predictors, selected from the following information residing in the National Mammography Database (click to enlarge).

The question arises – are all these 36 predictors significant? Or what is the optimal model? How does one select the subset of the available predictor variables which really count?

This is the problem of selecting predictors in multivariate analysis – my focus for several posts coming up.

So we have a target variable y and set of potential predictors x={x1,x2,….,xn}. We are interested in discovering a predictive relationship, y=F(x^*) where x^* is some possibly proper subset of x. Furthermore, we have data comprising m observations on y and x, which in due time we will label with subscripts.

There are a range of solutions to this very real, very practical modeling problem.

Here is my short list.

Forward Selection. Begin with no candidate variables in the model. Select the variable that boosts some goodness-of-fit or predictive metric the most. Traditionally, this has been R-Squared for an in-sample fit. At each step, select the candidate variable that increases the metric the most. Stop adding variables when none of the remaining variables are significant. Note that once a variable enters the model, it cannot be deleted.
Backward Selection. This starts with the superset of potential predictors and eliminates variables which have the lowest score by some metric – traditionally, the t-statistic.
Stepwise regression. This combines backward and forward selection of regressors.
Regularization and Selection by means of the LASSO. Here is the classic article and here is a post, and here is a post in this blog on the LASSO.
Information criteria applied to all possible regressions – pick the best specification by applying the Aikaike Information Criterion (AIC) or Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) to all possible combinations of regressors. Clearly, this is only possible with a limited number of potential predictors.
Cross-validation or other out-of-sample criteria applied to all possible regressions – Typically, the error metrics on the out-of-sample data cuts are averaged, and the lowest average error model is selected out of all possible combinations of predictors.
Dimension reduction or data shrinkage with principal components. This is a many predictors formulation, whereby it is possible to reduce a large number of predictors to a few principal components which explain most of the variation in the data matrix.
Dimension reduction or data shrinkage with partial least squares. This is similar to the PC approach, but employs a reduction to information from both the set of potential predictors and the dependent or target variable.

There certainly are other candidate techniques, but this is a good list to start with.

Wonderful topic, incidentally. Dives right into the inner sanctum of the mysteries of statistical science as practiced in the real world.

Let me give you the flavor of how hard it is to satisfy the classical criterion for variable selection, arriving at unbiased or consistent estimates of effects of a set of predictors.

And, really, the paradigmatic model is ordinary least squares (OLS) regression in which the predictive function F(.) is linear.

The Specification Problem

The problem few analysts understand is called specification error.

So assume that there is a true model – some linear expression in variables multiplied by their coefficients, possibly with a constant term added.

Then, we have some data to estimate this model.

Now the specification problem is that when predictors are not orthogonal, i.e. when they are correlated, leaving out a variable from the “true” specification imparts a bias to the estimates of coefficients of variables included in the regression.

This complications sequential methods of selecting predictors for the regression.

So in any case I will have comments forthcoming on methods of selecting predictors.

accuracy of forecasts, asset bubbles, Big Data, data reduction, financial forecasting, forecasting turning points, multivariate modeling, principal component models and forecasts, real estate forecasts

Forecasting Housing Markets – 3

April 22, 2014 Clive Jones

Maybe I jumped to conclusions yesterday. Maybe, in fact, a retrospective analysis of the collapse in US housing prices in the recent 2008-2010 recession has been accomplished – but by major metropolitan area.

The Yarui Li and David Leatham paper Forecasting Housing Prices: Dynamic Factor Model versus LBVAR Model focuses on out-of-sample forecasts for house price indices for 42 metropolitan areas. Forecast models are built with data from 1980:01 to 2007:12. These models – dynamic factor and Large-scale Bayesian Vector Autoregressive (LBVAR) models – are used to generate forecasts of the one- to twelve- months ahead price growth 2008:01 to 2010:12.

Judging from the graphics and other information, the dynamic factor model (DFM) produces impressive results.

For example, here are out-of-sample forecasts of the monthly growth of housing prices (click to enlarge).

The house price indices for the 42 metropolitan areas are from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFEO). The data for macroeconomic indicators in the dynamic factor and VAR models are from the DRI/McGraw Hill Basic Economics Database provided by IHS Global Insight.

I have seen forecasting models using Internet search activity which purportedly capture turning points in housing price series, but this is something different.

The claim here is that calculating dynamic or generalized principal components of some 141 macroeconomic time series can lead to forecasting models which accurately capture fluctuations in cumulative growth rates of metropolitan house price indices over a forecasting horizon of up to 12 months.

That’s pretty startling, and I for one would like to see further output of such models by city.

But where is the publication of the final paper? The PDF file linked above was presented at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2011 Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July, 2011. A search under both authors does not turn up a final publication in a refereed journal, but does indicate there is great interest in this research. The presentation paper thus is available from quite a number of different sources which obligingly archive it.

Currently, the lead author, Yarui Li, Is a Decision Tech Analyst at JPMorgan Chase, according to LinkedIn, having received her PhD from Texas A&M University in 2013. The second author is Professor at Texas A&M, most recently publishing on VAR models applied to business failure in the US.

Dynamic Principal Components

It may be that dynamic principal components are the new ingredient accounting for an uncanny capability to identify turning points in these dynamic factor model forecasts.

The key research is associated with Forni and others, who originally documented dynamic factor models in the Review of Economics and Statistics in 2000. Subsequently, there have been two further publications by Forni on this topic:

Do financial variables help forecasting inflation and real activity in the euro area?

The Generalized Dynamic Factor Model, One Sided Estimation and Forecasting

Forni and associates present this method of dynamic prinicipal componets as an alternative to the Stock and Watson factor models based on many predictors – an alternative with superior forecasting performance.

Run-of-the-mill standard principal components are, according to Li and Leatham, based on contemporaneous covariances only. So they fail to exploit the potentially crucial information contained in the leading-lagging relations between the elements of the panel.

By contrast, the Forni dynamic component approach is used in this housing price study to

obtain estimates of common and idiosyncratic variance-covariance matrices at all leads and lags as inverse Fourier transforms of the corresponding estimated spectral density matrices, and thus overcome(s)[ing] the limitation of static PCA.

There is no question but that any further discussion of this technique must go into high mathematical dudgeon, so I leave that to another time, when I have had an opportunity to make computations of my own.

However, I will say that my explorations with forecasting principal components last year have led to me to wonder whether, in fact, it may be possible to pull out some turning points from factor models based on large panels of macroeconomic data.

accuracy of forecasts, Big Data, data science, downloadable texts on statistics and forecasting, macroeconomic forecasting, many predictors, partial least squares, predictive analytics, principal component models and forecasts

Partial Least Squares and Principal Components

March 9, 2014 Clive Jones

I’ve run across outstanding summaries of “partial least squares” (PLS) research recently – for example Rosipal and Kramer’s Overview and Recent Advances in Partial Least Squares and the 2010 Handbook of Partial Least Squares.

Partial least squares (PLS) evolved somewhat independently from related statistical techniques, owing to what you might call family connections. The technique was first developed by Swedish statistician Herman Wold and his son, Svante Wold, who applied the method in particular to chemometrics. Rosipal and Kramer suggest that the success of PLS in chemometrics resulted in a lot of applications in other scientific areas including bioinformatics, food research, medicine, [and] pharmacology..

Someday, I want to look into “path modeling” with PLS, but for now, let’s focus on the comparison between PLS regression and principal component (PC) regression. This post develops a comparison with Matlab code and macroeconomics data from Mark Watson’s website at Princeton.

The Basic Idea Behind PC and PLS Regression

Principal component and partial least squares regression share a couple of features.

Both, for example, offer an approach or solution to the problem of “many predictors” and multicollinearity. Also, with both methods, computation is not transparent, in contrast to ordinary least squares (OLS). Both PC and PLS regression are based on iterative or looping algorithms to extract either the principal components or underlying PLS factors and factor loadings.

PC Regression

The first step in PC regression is to calculate the principal components of the data matrix X. This is a set of orthogonal (which is to say completely uncorrelated) vectors which are weighted sums of the predictor variables in X.

This is an iterative process involving transformation of the variance-covariance or correlation matrix to extract the eigenvalues and eigenvectors.

Then, the data matrix X is multiplied by the eigenvectors to obtain the new basis for the data – an orthogonal basis. Typically, the first few (the largest) eigenvalues – which explain the largest proportion of variance in X – and their associated eigenvectors are used to produce one or more principal components which are regressed onto Y. This involves a dimensionality reduction, as well as elimination of potential problems of multicollinearity.

PLS Regression

The basic idea behind PLS regression, on the other hand, is to identify latent factors which explain the variation in both Y and X, then use these factors, which typically are substantially fewer in number than k, to predict Y values.

Clearly, just as in PC regression, the acid test of the model is how it performs on out-of-sample data.

The reason why PLS regression often outperforms PC regression, thus, is that factors which explain the most variation in the data matrix may not, at the same time, explain the most variation in Y. It’s as simple as that.

Matlab example

I grabbed some data from Mark Watson’s website at Princeton — from the links to a recent paper called Generalized Shrinkage Methods for Forecasting Using Many Predictors (with James H. Stock), Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 30:4 (2012), 481-493.Download Paper (.pdf). Download Supplement (.pdf), Download Data and Replication Files (.zip). The data include the following variables, all expressed as year-over-year (yoy) growth rates: The first variable – real GDP – is taken as the forecasting target. The time periods of all other variables are lagged one period (1 quarter) behind the quarterly values of this target variable.

Matlab makes calculation of both principal component and partial least squares regressions easy.

The command to extract principal components is

[coeff, score, latent]=princomp(X)

Here X the data matrix, and the entities in the square brackets are vectors or matrices produced by the algorithm. It’s possible to compute a principal components regression with the contents of the matrix score. Generally, the first several principal components are selected for the regression, based on the importance of a component or its associated eigenvalue in latent. The following scree chart illustrates the contribution of the first few principal components to explaining the variance in X.

The relevant command for regression in Matlab is

b=regress(Y,score(:,1:6))

where b is the column vector of estimated coefficients and the first six principal components are used in place of the X predictor variables.

The Matlab command for a partial least square regresssion is

[XL,YL,XS,YS,beta] = plsregress(X,Y,ncomp)

where ncomp is the number of latent variables of components to be utilized in the regression. There are issues of interpreting the matrices and vectors in the square brackets, but I used this code –

data=xlsread(‘stock.xls’); X=data(1:47,2:79); y = data(2:48,1);

[XL,yl,XS,YS,beta] = plsregress(X,y,10); yfit = [ones(size(X,1),1) X]*beta;

lookPLS=[y yfit]; ZZ=data(48:50,2:79);newy=data(49:51,1);

new=[ones(3,1) ZZ]*beta; out=[newy new];

The bottom line is to test the estimates of the response coefficients on out-of-sample data.

The following chart shows that PLS outperforms PC, although the predictions of both are not spectacularly accurate.

Commentary

There are nuances to what I have done which help explain the dominance of PLS in this situation, as well as the weakly predictive capabilities of both approaches.

First, the target variable is quarterly year-over-year growth of real US GDP. The predictor set X contains 78 other macroeconomic variables, all expressed in terms of yoy (year-over-year) percent changes.

Again, note that the time period of all the variables or observations in X are lagged one quarter from the values in Y, or the values or yoy quarterly percent growth of real US GDP.

This means that we are looking for a real, live leading indicator. Furthermore, there are plausibly common factors in the Y series shared with at least some of the X variables. For example, the percent changes of a block of variables contained in real GDP are included in X, and by inspection move very similarly with the target variable.

Other Example Applications

There are at least a couple of interesting applied papers in the Handbook of Partial Least Squares – a downloadable book in the Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics. See –

Chapter 20 A PLS Model to Study Brand Preference: An Application to the Mobile Phone Market

Chapter 22 Modeling the Impact of Corporate Reputation on Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Using Partial Least Squares

Another macroeconomics application from the New York Fed –

“Revisiting Useful Approaches to Data-Rich Macroeconomic Forecasting”

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr327.pdf

Finally, the software company XLStat has a nice, short video on partial least squares regression applied to a marketing example.

ARIMA models, Big Data, macroeconomic forecasting, principal component models and forecasts

Forecasting and Data Analysis – Principal Component Regression

February 26, 2014 Clive Jones

I get excited that principal components offer one solution to the problem of the curse of dimensionality – having fewer observations on the target variable to be predicted, than there are potential drivers or explanatory variables.

It seems we may have to revise the idea that simpler models typically outperform more complex models.

Principal component (PC) regression has seen a renaissance since 2000, in part because of the work of James Stock and Mark Watson (see also) and Bai in macroeconomic forecasting (and also because of applications in image processing and text recognition).

Let me offer some PC basics and explore an example of PC regression and forecasting in the context of macroeconomics with a famous database.

Dynamic Factor Models in Macroeconomics

Stock and Watson have a white paper, updated several times, in PDF format at this link

stock watson generalized shrinkage June _2012.pdf

They write in the June 2012 update,

Here DFM refers to dynamic factor models, essentially principal components models which utilize PC’s for lagged data.

What’s a Principal Component?

The Wikipaedia article on principal components is useful, but there is no getting around the fact that principal components can only really be understood with matrix algebra.

Often you see a diagram, such as the one below, showing a cloud of points distributed around a line passing through the origin of a coordinate system, but at an acute angle to those coordinates.

It’s also noteworthy that some researchers are talking about “targeted” principal components. So the first few principal components account for the largest, the next largest, and so on amount of variance in the data. However, the “data” in this context does not include the information we have on the target variable. Targeted principal components therefore involves first developing the simple correlations between the target variable and all the potential predictors, then ordering these potential predictors from highest to lowest correlation. Then, by one means or another, you establish a cutoff, below which you exclude weak potential predictors from the data matrix you use to compute the principal components. Interesting approach which makes sense. Testing it with a variety of examples seems in order.

PC Regression and Forecasting – A Macroeconomics Example

I downloaded a trial copy of XLSTAT – an Excel add-in with a well-developed set of principal component procedures. In the past, I’ve used SPSS and SAS on corporate networked systems. Now I am using Matlab and GAUSS for this purpose.

The problem is what does it mean to have a time series of principal components? Over the years, there have been relevant discussions – Jolliffe’s key work, for example, and more recent papers.

The problem with time series, apart from the temporal interdependencies, is that you always are calculating the PC’s over different data, as more data comes in. What does this do to the PC’s or factor scores? Do they evolve gradually? Can you utilize the factor scores from a smaller dataset to predict subsequent values of factor scores estimated over an augmented dataset?

Based on a large macroeconomic dataset I downloaded from Mark Watson’s page, I think the answer can be a qualified “yes” to several of these questions. The Mark Watson dataset contains monthly observations on 106 macroeconomic variables for the period 1950 to 2006.

For the variables not bounded within a band, I calculated year-over-year (yoy) growth rates for each monthly observation. Then, I took first differences again over 12 months. These transformations eliminated trends, which mess up the PC computations (basically, if you calculate PC’s with a set of increasing variables, the first PC will represent a common growth factor, and is almost useless for modeling purposes.) The result of my calculations was to center each series at nearly zero, and to make the variability of each series comparable – so I did not standardize.

Anyway, using XLSTAT and Forecast Pro – I find that the factor scores

(a) Evolve slowly as you add more data.

(b) Factor scores for smaller datasets provide insight into subsequent factor scores one to several months ahead.

(c) Amazingly, turning points of the first principal component, which I have studied fairly intensively, are remarkably predictable.

So what are we looking at here (click to enlarge)?

Well, the top chart is the factor score for the first PC, estimated over data to May 1975, with a forecast indicated by the red line at the right of the graph. This forecast produces values which are very close to the factor score values for data estimated to May 1976 – where both datasets begin in 1960. Not only that, but we have here an example of prediction of a turning point bigtime.

Of course this is the magic of Box-Jenkins, since, this factor score series is best estimated, according to Forecast Pro, with an ARIMA model.

I’m encouraged by this exercise to think that it may be possible to go beyond the lagged variable specification in many of these DFM’s to a contemporaneous specification, where the target variable forecasts are based on extrapolations of the relevant PC’s.

In any case, for applied business modeling, if we got something like a medical device new order series (suitably processed data) linked with these macro factor scores, it could be interesting – and we might get something that is not accessible with ordinary methods of exponential smoothing.

Underlying Theory of PC’s

Finally, I don’t think it is possible to do much better than to watch Andrew Ng at Stanford in Lectures 14 and 15. I recommend skipping to 17:09 – seventeen minutes and nine seconds – into Lecture 14, where Ng begins the exposition of principal components. He winds up this Lecture with a fascinating illustration of high dimensionality principal component analysis applied to recognizing or categorizing faces in photographs at the end of this lecture. Lecture 15 also is very useful – especially as it highlights the role of the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) in actually calculating principal components.

Lecture 14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey2PE5xi9-A

Lecture 15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGd06MTRMHs

Business Forecasting