Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.
The key to successful backtesting is to ensure that you only use the data that were available at the time of the prediction. No “future” data can be included in the model training set, otherwise the model will suffer from look-ahead bias (having unrealistic access to future data).
One way to avoid look-ahead bias is to iterate over the data, repeatedly fitting and forecasting, while ensuring that the model is only ever fit to historical data. This can be laborious and error-prone. With the {rugarch}
package a better option is to use the ugarchroll()
function which will “roll” along the data, fitting and predicting as it goes.
Moving Window
A moving (or rolling) window of fixed length moves along the data, fitting and testing the model as it goes. You need not refit the model at each time step.
specification <- ugarchspec( mean.model = list(armaOrder = c(0, 0)), variance.model = list(model = "sGARCH"), distribution.model = "sstd" ) rolling <- ugarchroll( specification, data = TATASTEEL, n.start = 500, refit.every = 50, refit.window = "moving" )
The new parameters required to get this working are: n.start
, refit.window
and refit.every
. What do these parameters mean?
n.start
— number of time steps in window;refit.window
— type of window ("moving"
,"recursive"
or"expanding"
);refit.every
— number of time steps between refitting the model.
The refit frequency should be determined by how dynamic your data is. If the nature of the data often changes then you’ll want to refit more frequently (smaller refit.every
).
Let’s take a look at the results of the rolling fit.
rolling *-------------------------------------* * GARCH Roll * *-------------------------------------* No.Refits : 20 Refit Horizon : 50 No.Forecasts : 984 GARCH Model : sGARCH(1,1) Distribution : sstd Forecast Density: Mu Sigma Skew Shape Shape(GIG) Realized 2018-01-10 0.0023 0.0138 1.1313 4.9884 0 0.0042 2018-01-11 0.0023 0.0137 1.1313 4.9884 0 -0.0062 2018-01-12 0.0023 0.0136 1.1313 4.9884 0 -0.0012 2018-01-15 0.0023 0.0136 1.1313 4.9884 0 0.0150 2018-01-16 0.0023 0.0135 1.1313 4.9884 0 -0.0165 2018-01-17 0.0023 0.0136 1.1313 4.9884 0 0.0108 .......................... Mu Sigma Skew Shape Shape(GIG) Realized 2021-12-24 0.0035 0.0268 1.0265 5.0376 0 -0.0084 2021-12-27 0.0035 0.0263 1.0265 5.0376 0 0.0067 2021-12-28 0.0035 0.0257 1.0265 5.0376 0 0.0022 2021-12-29 0.0035 0.0251 1.0265 5.0376 0 -0.0100 2021-12-30 0.0035 0.0248 1.0265 5.0376 0 -0.0125 2021-12-31 0.0035 0.0246 1.0265 5.0376 0 0.0095 Elapsed: 11.95184 secs
Where does the number of refits come from? It’s determined by the parameters listed above. We can check:
(nrow(TATASTEEL) - 500) %/% 50 [1] 19
And, of course, you need to add 1 to that for the initial fit.
Plots
The resulting object has a specialised plot()
method that allows you to access various views via the which
parameter. Let’s start by comparing the predicted and realised returns.
The agreement is not terribly good. However, for a GARCH model the focus is more on modelling the volatility than the returns themselves. So let’s compare the predicted and realised volatilities.
A Value at Risk (VaR) plot shows how the estimated risk associated with this asset changes over time. Exceedances (indicated by red diamonds) indicate days when the actual (negative) return is worse than that predicted by the model.
Finally, since we are refitting the model periodically the model coefficients also change with time.
Reports
Now let’s generate a VaR report using the backtest data.
report(rolling, type="VaR", VaR.alpha = 0.01, conf.level = 0.95) VaR Backtest Report =========================================== Model: sGARCH-sstd Backtest Length: 984 Data: ========================================== alpha: 1% Expected Exceed: 9.8 Actual VaR Exceed: 19 Actual %: 1.9% Unconditional Coverage (Kupiec) Null-Hypothesis: Correct Exceedances LR.uc Statistic: 6.77 LR.uc Critical: 3.841 LR.uc p-value: 0.009 Reject Null: YES Conditional Coverage (Christoffersen) Null-Hypothesis: Correct Exceedances and Independence of Failures LR.cc Statistic: 7.552 LR.cc Critical: 5.991 LR.cc p-value: 0.023 Reject Null: YES
The VaR.alpha
parameter is the tail probability and the conf.level
parameter specifies the confidence level for the conditional coverage test.
The report presents results for two tests:
- Kupiec Test — Checks whether the number of exceedances is consistent with the confidence level of the VaR model.
- Christoffersen Test — Checks whether the number of exceedances is consistent with the confidence level of the VaR model and if the exceedances are independent.
The report indicates that both of these tests fail at the specified levels (both reject the null hypothesis).
The Forecast Performance Measures report gives another view on the backtest, providing some metrics on the models’ ability to predict the returns. It generates the following statistics:
MSE
— Mean Square Error;MAE
— Mean Absolute Error; andDAC
— Directional Accuracy.
report(rolling, type="fpm") GARCH Roll Mean Forecast Performance Measures --------------------------------------------- Model : sGARCH No.Refits : 20 No.Forecasts: 984 Stats MSE 0.0006922 MAE 0.0194600 DAC 0.4878000
Where do those metrics come from? Here’s how you can calculate the MSE manually:
predictions <- as.data.frame(rolling) error <- predictions$Realized - predictions$Mu mean(error^2) [1] 0.0006921929
Model Coefficients
Since we built multiple models the coefficients are returned in a list, with an element in the list corresponding to each model.
coefficients <- coef(rolling)
How many models were built?
length(coefficients) [1] 20
The coefficients for the first model:
first(coefficients) $index [1] "2018-01-09" $coef Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) mu 2.257771e-03 7.945969e-04 2.841404e+00 4.491535e-03 omega 1.988778e-13 2.393334e-06 8.309653e-08 9.999999e-01 alpha1 7.568099e-03 1.257178e-03 6.019912e+00 1.745115e-09 beta1 9.900562e-01 2.529260e-04 3.914411e+03 0.000000e+00 skew 1.131275e+00 7.216578e-02 1.567605e+01 0.000000e+00 shape 4.988402e+00 1.602756e+00 3.112390e+00 1.855791e-03
The coefficients for the last model:
last(coefficients) $index [1] "2021-11-12" $coef Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) mu 3.535206e-03 1.242210e-03 2.845901 4.428595e-03 omega 4.762838e-05 2.356481e-05 2.021165 4.326267e-02 alpha1 6.263835e-02 3.369429e-02 1.859020 6.302433e-02 beta1 8.833512e-01 4.021345e-02 21.966562 0.000000e+00 skew 1.026492e+00 5.380914e-02 19.076543 0.000000e+00 shape 5.037618e+00 1.157051e+00 4.353844 1.337709e-05
Being able to interrogate each of the individual models is useful because we can see if there are insignificant model coefficients. These data are complimentary to the model coefficient plots above.
Comparing Models
Now we’ll repeat the process for another model, replacing "sstd"
with "std"
and using AR(1) rather than constant mean.
specification <- ugarchspec( mean.model = list(armaOrder = c(1, 0), include.mean = TRUE), variance.model = list(model = "sGARCH"), distribution.model = "std" ) rolling <- ugarchroll( specification, data = TATASTEEL, n.start = 500, refit.every = 50, refit.window = "moving" )
What is the Value at Risk performance?
report(rolling, type="VaR", VaR.alpha = 0.01, conf.level = 0.95) VaR Backtest Report =========================================== Model: sGARCH-std Backtest Length: 984 Data: ========================================== alpha: 1% Expected Exceed: 9.8 Actual VaR Exceed: 15 Actual %: 1.5% Unconditional Coverage (Kupiec) Null-Hypothesis: Correct Exceedances LR.uc Statistic: 2.355 LR.uc Critical: 3.841 LR.uc p-value: 0.125 Reject Null: NO Conditional Coverage (Christoffersen) Null-Hypothesis: Correct Exceedances and Independence of Failures LR.cc Statistic: 3.845 LR.cc Critical: 5.991 LR.cc p-value: 0.146 Reject Null: NO
Looks a bit better! Fewer exceedances and both tests are now passing, meaning that the null hypotheses (exceedances consistent with the specified confidence level) should not be rejected.
Expanding Window
An expanding or recursive window includes _all_previous data.
A moving window is generally a good option because the model is being retrained on the same volume of data each time. However, perhaps you want to train each model on all previous data? In this case use an "expanding"
refit window.
rolling <- ugarchroll( specification, data = TATASTEEL, n.start = 500, refit.window = "expanding", refit.every = 50 )
Alternative Implementation
You can also do backtesting with the {tsgarch}
package.
specification <- garch_modelspec( TATASTEEL, model = "gjrgarch", distribution = "sstd", constant = FALSE, order = c(1, 0) ) backtest <- tsbacktest( specification, start = 500, h = 1, estimate_every = 50, rolling = TRUE )
At present there do not appear to be utilities comparable to those in {rugarch}
for analysing the results of the backtest and this currently needs to be done by hand.
R-bloggers.com offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.