Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.stat.math.independent

Topic: time series multiple regression
Replies: 6   Last Post: Feb 1, 2012 9:18 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Eric Goodwin

Posts: 11
Registered: 1/15/12
time series multiple regression
Posted: Jan 25, 2012 9:02 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Gday

Maybe you can comment on the validity of my approach.

I've got a multiyear timeseries data set, which I have reduced to
daily resolution by averaging. Data are environmental /
meteorological / oceanographic. I'm hoping to isolate the effects of
various meteorological drivers on oceanographic response(s).

Understanding that consecutive samples are not independent, I was
stumped for some time, avoiding standard linear regression. Is this
alternative approach better? Is it better enough to be acceptable?

I fitted an annual signal to each variable, using GAM from the mgcv
package in R. Where the gam fitted a smooth unimodal signal that
explained a decent amount of the total variation, I took forward the
residuals of that model to use as the "detrended" variable. Both for
the drivers, and the response(s).

I then use standard multiple linear regressions, with detrended
drivers (gam residuals) to predict detrended response (gam residuals).

I achieved R squared values for these detrended linear models of
roughly 0.5 for half a dozen models (predicting oceanographic
properties closest to the sea surface), down to 0.13 (for predictions
at greater depth in the sea). I can increase the R^2 from 0.13 to 0.2
if I allow lags in the time series.

If I then make predictions of the seasonal fluctuation using my gam,
and add these to predictions of the non-seasonal, detrended (residual)
values using the linear models, I get correlations of 0.95 to the
measured data. (Note I did not separate training and test data, and
n= 2191).

Thoughts?

Eric Goodwin








Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.