I have historical data for a particular metric for each month for the last 3 years for different categories. The metric is a percentage and its heavily skewed towards 1 with more than 75% of values being above 0.9 but some values as low as 0.3

My idea was to create some form of time series forecast but one which I can simulate thousands of times to get the probability the metric for a month in the future might be higher than 0.95 for example.

I tried a linear model but that doesn't work at all

  • $\begingroup$ Why don't you post an example of one of your time series and I will try and help you as it is important to create probability distributions for each forecast period NOT just a forecast and a set of symmetric limits based upon a normality assumption of the errors.Given that your coefficients are statistically significant and your model's errors have passed multiple "model specification tests" then I would obtain confidence limits by re-sampling the $\endgroup$ – IrishStat Jun 10 '19 at 20:11

It seems that you are strugling with an adequate assumption about the distribution of the response variable. Classical linear regression and classical ARMA-models assume that the response variable, has support on all the real numbers $(-\infty, \infty)$. Often the response is also assumed to be normally distributed. This is clearly not the case in your application.

I would first try to disregard the (potential) time interdependence of the data and fit a Beta-regression. The Beta-regression is a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) assuming the response variable follows a Beta-distribution, when conditioning on co-variates. The Beta-distribution is a very flexible continuous distribution on the unit interval, $(0,1)$. This answer has some good references: Regression for an outcome (ratio or fraction) between 0 and 1.

If you find that there is significant serial correlation in your response variable that the co-variates cannot account for, I would look into Beta-ARMA models of Rocha & Cribari-Neto (2009) or Guolo and Cristiano Varin (2014). Guolo and Cristiano Varin (2014) is probabely the easiest one to get started with since they have a nice example in R where they fit a Beta-ARMA model to illness percentage over time.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Often the response is also assumed to be normally distributed." There are no assumptions necessary about the distribution of the response ... all distributional assumptions deal with the error process... $\endgroup$ – IrishStat Jun 10 '19 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ True, it's often stated regarding the errors, but it's equivalent (for the most part) to having a normal response. If you for example assume $Y\sim N(X^{\prime}\beta, \sigma^2)$, which is the GLM with a normal assumption, it is equivalent to assume normal errors. In the stationary ARMA-case having normal errors is equivalent to $(Y_1, \ldots, Y_T)$ being jointly normal, which implies marginal nomality as well. This is of course a special characteristic of the normal distribution and is not generally true. $\endgroup$ – Duffau Jun 10 '19 at 22:38
  • $\begingroup$ I disagree if you have a time series say of 100 values where the first 50 are normally distributed about mean 1 and the most recent set of 50 values have a normal distribution around mean2 the 100 values together will have a non-normal distribution. Now the residuals from a useful model that has a level shift predictor at time period 51 will have a normal distribution thus parametric test apply. $\endgroup$ – IrishStat Jun 11 '19 at 1:37
  • $\begingroup$ But what your are describing is not a stationary ARMA-process. $\endgroup$ – Duffau Jun 11 '19 at 6:41
  • $\begingroup$ I agree ... so then your comments about distributional equivalence is appropriate for stationary ARMA processes but not in general. $\endgroup$ – IrishStat Jun 11 '19 at 7:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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