10
$\begingroup$

I computed a simple linear regression model from my experiment measures in order to make predictions. I have read that you should not calculate predictions for points that depart too far from the available data. However, I could not find any guidance to help me know how far I can extrapolate. For example, if I calculate the reading speed for a disk size of 50GB, I guess the result will be close to the reality. What about a disk size of 100GB, 500GB? How do I know if my predictions are close to the reality?

The details of my experiment are:

I am measuring the reading speed of a software by using different disk size. So far I have measured it with 5GB to 30GB by increasing the disk size of 5GB between experiments (6 measures in total).

My results are linear and the standard errors are small, in my opinion.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I can't find the exact terms which have been used in the document that I've read. The idea is "too far from my original measures". So I've measure the reading speed with 30 GB disk. If I predict the reading speed for a 100GB disk, is this "too far"? $\endgroup$
    – Flanfl
    Apr 22, 2012 at 17:19
  • $\begingroup$ The answer by gung is sufficient for outlining the issues involved. one additional thing which may help in your specific case is to consider the physical process involved in reading software. What kind of operations need to be carried out? does the software need to organise or sort the disk as part of the reading process? these questions will help provide some foundations for the assumption of linearity $\endgroup$ Apr 23, 2012 at 12:24

2 Answers 2

19
$\begingroup$

The term you're searching for is 'extrapolation'. The problem is that no matter how much data you have, and how many intermediate levels you have between your endpoints on disk size (i.e., between 5 and 30), it is always possible that there is some degree of curvature in the true underlying function, that you simply don't have the power to detect. As a result, when you extrapolate far out from the endpoint, what was a small degree of curvature becomes magnified, in that the true function moves further and further away from your fit line. Another possibility is that the true function really is perfectly straight within the range examined, but that there is perhaps a change-point at some distance from the end point in your study. These sorts of things are impossible to rule out; the question is, how likely are they and how inaccurate would your prediction be if they turn out to be real? I don't know how to provide an analytical answer to those questions. My hunch is that 500 is an awfully long way off when the range under study was [5, 30], but there is no real reason to think my hunches are more worthwhile than yours. Standard formulas for computing prediction intervals will show you an expanding interval as you move away from $\bar{x}$, seeing what that interval looks like might be helpful. Nonetheless, you need to bear in mind that you are making a theoretical assumption that the line really is perfectly straight, and remains such all the way out to the $x$-value you will use for the prediction. The legitimacy of that prediction is contingent on both the data & fit, and that assumption.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Totally agree (+1). The answer to this question cannot be strictly statistical. Talking to a software & computer engineer would be relevant here! $\endgroup$ Apr 22, 2012 at 18:46
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer, it's really helpful. I'm self taught so I'm missing quite a lot of basic knowledge (like knowing the vocabulary). $\endgroup$
    – Flanfl
    Apr 22, 2012 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ Couldn't the inverse of the width of the confidence interval be considered some kind of indicator of "strength" of prediction? Obviously you'd have to chose some arbitrary values to make use of it.. $\endgroup$
    – naught101
    Apr 25, 2012 at 4:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @naught101, if you are willing to assume that the regression line is perfectly straight, then the width of the prediction interval can be considered as a measure of the strength of the prediction, (w/ wider intervals indicating weaker predictions), but it's still contingent on that assumption. $\endgroup$ Apr 25, 2012 at 13:53
8
$\begingroup$

Let me add a few points to @gung's excellent answer:

  • Depending on your field, there may be relevant norms (as in DIN/EN or ISO). This is probably not an issue with predicting hard disk reading speed, but e.g. in analytical chemistry the rule is no extrapolation. Period. If you want to go as far as 500 GB, then go and do some measurements up to including 500 GB.

  • The usual way of setting up a linear model has two important assumptions

    • Obviously, that the function is linear. In practice it is usually not a very good assumption that linearity extends to infinity. E.g. can you expect still to find linearity if you read larger amounts than the hard disk volume?

    • Usually, also homoskedasticity is assumed. This means that the absolute amount of error/noise does not depend on the dependent ($x$) variable, here: the amount of data to be read. I'm not sure about hard disk readings, but I experience (chemistry/chemometrics) usually something between constant absolute and constant relative noise (or more complicated behaviour due to different sources of noise).
      Any deviation from the constant absolute amount of noise regime will mean that the prediction intervals for the extrapolation are grossly wrong -- usually they will be far too narrow.

  • Even if these assumptions are met, consider how big the prediction interval actually is for that kind of extrapolation:

    lm calibration range lm extrapolation

    (I took some real calibration data of a very nice measurement I had and adapted it to your problem).
    Note that the prediction interval at $x$ = 500 is already twice as large as the total difference in $t$ your calibration data spans! If you don't have such an exceedingly nice linear data set, the prediction interval will just "explode".

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1, the homoscedasticity assumption in particular is a nice addition to the discussion here. (Small note, by "Dot.", do you mean Period. as a way of emphasizing the finality of the rule stated in the previous sentence?) $\endgroup$ Feb 10, 2014 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ @gung: If period is the word then that's what I mean :-) thanks. $\endgroup$ Feb 10, 2014 at 18:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Calling a period "dot" is only really used in computer terminology & especially for urls (eg, "stats dot stackexchange dot com"). It is a fairly new usage in English, probably about 20 years old. $\endgroup$ Feb 10, 2014 at 18:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for your additional points. I finished my work a while ago but I hope both answers to this question will help other students! $\endgroup$
    – Flanfl
    Feb 11, 2014 at 8:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.