The results of the experiments using the 11 data sets and 5 model selection methods are given in Table 1. MML, MDL, CAICF, SRM and SC do converge into reasonably simple models. However, there are two interesting phenomena worth mentioning.

First, amongst the five methods, SRM consistently underfits the data by converging into the simplest models with the longest message length and the worst predictive performance in all of the data sets. On the other hand, SC consistently converges to the most complex models. The suspicion that SC has overfitted the data sets can however not easily be justified. Although in all of the data sets, the models have the longest message length, they consistently show superior predictive power on independent test data (i.e. which is not used in model development) than all of the other models. On the other hand, it performs much worse than the other methods on the set that uses data from consecutive years. This suggests that SC might be more sensitive to the presence of anomalous data items.

Second, the methods selected different final models from one another on each data set. Although there are a few variables consistently selected by the five methods on all of the hurricane data sets considered (shown in Table 2), there are also variables chosen by only one or some of the methods. This demonstrates how selection bias introduced by using a non-exhaustive search strategy plays a part in determining which path in the search space chosen in the search process. One way to find out whether or not the methods can eventually home into a more uniform model if the selection bias has been minimized is by performing an exhaustive search on the variables that are chosen by at least one of the methods. This research direction is being investigated.

The predictive performance of the models trained using the hurricane data from consecutive years is inferior to that of the models trained using the data sets built using random sampling method. This suggests that in order to build models with good predictive performance for a problem domain that changes overtime, it is important to make sure that the training and test data come from the same probability distribution. One way to achieve this is by using random sampling to build the different training and test data sets.

Table 2 shows some of the regressors found in the models selected by MML, MDL, CAICF, SRM and SC in Table 5. It is shown that regressor 10 (maximum potential cyclone intensity) and 6 (intensity change during the previous 12 hours) are found in all of the models selected, hence should be concluded as the two most influential variables to the target variable. It is interesting to note that while the inclusion of variable (28,5) and 32 to the model with variables 10 6 (36,36) results in a better model, the inclusion of variable (28,5) alone results in a worse one. Hence, the model with variables 10 6 (36,36) (28,5) 32 will never be found even using the more exhaustive type of greedy search strategy implemented in this paper, since it still has no capability to jump out of a bad local minimum. This suggests that for the hurricane data sets, the implementation of adaptive search strategies like simulated annealing or tabu search is worth considering. Note that, the fact the costs shown by SC keeps decreasing as the model gets more complex is not suprising since as shown in Table 1, SC always prefers much more complex model on all of the data sets.

Table 1: Models selected for Atlantic Hurricane intensity change forecasting. SHIFOR and SHIFOR94 are the original benchmark models. SHIFOR' and SHIFOR94' are models with the same variables as those of the original models but with coefficients recalculated to fit the training data of each data set. The last set has training data from the year 1950 to 1987 and test data from the year 1988 to 1994.

Data set

Method

Total Reg

Msg Length

Training

Data

Test

Data

RMSE

R^2

RMSE

R^2

1

MML

14

3568.36

21.53

0.45

21.94

0.46

MDL

22

3571.48

21

0.47

21.72

0.47

CAICF

14

3567.96

21.53

0.45

21.94

0.46

SRM

7

3624.96

22.42

0.4

22.75

0.41

SC

57

3612.07

19.25

0.56

20.95

0.52

SHIFOR'

9

4146.16

26.37

0.17

27.1

0.17

SHIFOR94'

9

3665.14

22.74

0.38

23.19

0.39

SHIFOR

9

n/a

24.64

n/a

25.08

n/a

SHIFOR94

9

n/a

22.5

n/a

22.97

n/a

2

MML

17

3470.35

21.13

0.49

22.1

0.4

MDL

17

3493.82

21.2

0.48

22.22

0.39

CAICF

17

3493.82

21.2

0.48

22.22

0.39

SRM

16

3494.96

21.29

0.48

22.54

0.37

SC

57

3550.43

19.28

0.58

21.11

0.47

SHIFOR'

9

4121.89

26.69

0.18

26.3

0.14

SHIFOR94'

9

3605.56

22.75

0.4

23.16

0.33

SHIFOR

9

n/a

25.15

n/a

25.24

n/a

SHIFOR94

9

n/a

22.58

n/a

22.78

n/a

3

MML

16

3501.82

21.3

0.47

21.78

0.43

MDL

22

3525.14

21.01

0.49

21.93

0.42

CAICF

22

3526.38

21.01

0.49

21.99

0.42

SRM

14

3540.89

21.64

0.46

22.17

0.41

SC

59

3590.3

19.32

0.57

20.91

0.49

SHIFOR'

9

4113.04

26.49

0.19

26.73

0.13

SHIFOR94'

9

3630.01

22.83

0.4

22.96

0.36

SHIFOR

9

n/a

24.78

n/a

25.17

n/a

SHIFOR94

9

n/a

22.59

n/a

22.76

n/a

4

MML

15

3544.67

21.55

0.46

21.3

0.46

MDL

22

3526.55

20.95

0.49

21.44

0.45

CAICF

22

3526.55

20.95

0.49

21.44

0.45

SRM

12

3564.92

21.92

0.44

21.76

0.43

SC

47

3550.58

19.63

0.56

20.62

0.51

SHIFOR'

9

4160.53

26.84

0.16

25.98

0.19

SHIFOR94'

9

3669.11

23.06

0.38

22.42

0.4

SHIFOR

9

n/a

24.95

n/a

25.39

n/a

SHIFOR94

9

n/a

22.85

n/a

22.13

n/a

5

MML

16

3517.58

21.09

0.47

22.41

0.43

MDL

22

3525.92

20.71

0.49

22.32

0.44

CAICF

21

3515.23

20.73

0.49

22.25

0.44

SRM

18

3523.83

20.96

0.48

22.53

0.43

SC

70

3640.86

18.79

0.59

20.96

0.52

SHIFOR'

9

4137.05

26.32

0.17

27.11

0.16

SHIFOR94'

9

3644.77

22.62

0.39

23.46

0.38

SHIFOR

9

n/a

24.41

n/a

24.88

n/a

SHIFOR94

9

n/a

22.39

n/a

23.2

n/a

6

MML

19

3541.81

21.16

0.47

21.9

0.45

MDL

22

3550.68

21

0.48

21.99

0.44

CAICF

22

3550.68

21

0.48

21.99

0.44

SRM

16

3559.61

21.42

0.46

22.28

0.43

SC

56

3606.12

19.4

0.56

20.86

0.51

SHIFOR'

9

4144.59

26.53

0.17

26.65

0.17

SHIFOR94'

9

3658.02

22.83

0.38

23

0.38

SHIFOR

9

n/a

25.6

n/a

25.1

n/a

SHIFOR94

9

n/a

22.68

n/a

22.53

n/a

7

MML

16

3550.54

21.42

0.46

21.66

0.46

MDL

20

3555.25

21.15

0.47

21.47

0.47

CAICF

20

3555.25

21.15

0.47

21.47

0.47

SRM

3

3652.41

23.03

0.37

23.12

0.38

SC

51

3616.02

19.71

0.55

20.54

0.53

SHIFOR'

9

4129.82

26.36

0.18

27.08

0.15

SHIFOR94'

9

3664.08

22.84

0.38

22.92

0.39

SHIFOR

9

n/a

25.1

n/a

25.01

n/a

SHIFOR94

9

n/a

22.64

n/a

22.64

n/a

8

MML

16

3547.12

21.45

0.46

21.32

0.47

MDL

18

3556.98

21.34

0.47

21.31

0.47

CAICF

18

3556.98

21.34

0.47

21.31

0.47

SRM

7

3612.95

22.5

0.4

22.38

0.41

SC

65

3649.64

19.23

0.57

20.84

0.51

SHIFOR'

9

4150.87

26.64

0.16

26.38

0.18

SHIFOR94'

9

3670.49

22.97

0.38

22.63

0.4

SHIFOR

9

n/a

25.31

n/a

24.99

n/a

SHIFOR94

9

n/a

22.73

n/a

22.42

n/a

9

MML

17

3516.67

21.36

0.47

21.34

0.44

MDL

22

3521.57

21.05

0.49

21.04

0.46

CAICF

17

3513.46

21.34

0.48

21.25

0.45

SRM

16

3515.91

21.43

0.47

21.43

0.44

SC

34

3558.53

20.54

0.52

20.69

0.48

SHIFOR'

9

4122.91

26.64

0.18

26.44

0.14

SHIFOR94'

9

3641.22

22.97

0.39

22.67

0.37

SHIFOR

9

n/a

25.37

n/a

25.17

n/a

SHIFOR94

9

n/a

22.42

n/a

22.8

n/a

10

MML

14

3545.93

21.72

0.45

21.72

0.43

MDL

18

3542

21.4

0.47

21.31

0.46

CAICF

18

3542

21.4

0.47

21.31

0.46

SRM

4

3617.23

22.9

0.39

22.9

0.37

SC

65

3649.65

19.33

0.57

20.14

0.53

SHIFOR'

9

4155.62

26.82

0.16

26.01

0.18

SHIFOR94'

9

3644

22.89

0.39

22.81

0.37

SHIFOR

9

n/a

25.97

n/a

25.24

n/a

SHIFOR94

9

n/a

22.73

n/a

22.42

n/a

years:

MML

23

4131.98

20.15

0.52

26.65

0.24

1950-87

MDL

26

4127.39

19.94

0.53

27.76

0.17

1988-94

CAICF

26

4127.39

19.94

0.53

27.76

0.17

SRM

22

4132.92

20.17

0.52

27.22

0.2

SC

55

4166.37

18.82

0.58

35.24

0.27

SHIFOR'

9

5036.07

26.65

0.15

26.33

0.24

SHIFOR94'

9

4425.09

22.76

0.38

23.68

0.38

SHIFOR

9

n/a

25.18

n/a

24.64

n/a

SHIFOR94

9

n/a

22.44

n/a

23.74

n/a

Table 2: top:Some subsets of regressors commonly found in the models chosen by the five methods MML, MDL, CAICF, SRM and SC built using all of the 10 randomly sampled data sets (i.e. 5 * 10 = 50 models in total). Model 10 and 11 are the sets of regressors of the benchmark models. bottom: Performance of model selection criteria on the models using all of the available data. The regressor coefficients are calculated using all of the available data.

Model

Commonly chosen regressors in models

Freq.(of 50)

1

10 6

50

2

10 6 (36,36)

46

3

10 6 (36,36) (28,5)

37

4

10 6 (36,36) (28,5) 32

27

5

10 6 (36,36) (28,5) 32 (33,32)

24

6

10 6 (36,36) (28,5) 32 (33,32) 31

18

7

10 6 (36,36) (28,5) 32 (33,32) 31 (6,5)

15

8

10 6 (36,36) (28,5) 32 (33,32) 31 (6,5) (35,29)

9

9

10 6 (36,36) (28,5) 32 (33,32) 31 (6,5) (35,29) 29 (32,11)

7

 

 

 

 

Regressors of benchmark models

Name

10

7 (3,1) (5,1) (6,1) (4,3) (5,3) (7,5) (5,5) (6,5)

SHIFOR

11

10 11 5 16 (16/4) 25 (10,10) (4,5) (6,3)

SHIFOR94

Model

MML

MDL

CAICF

SRM

SC

RMSE

R^2

1

5227.1275

5214.7275

5224.8145

0.6942

17250.3767

23.30

0.36

2

5213.8092

5195.0537

5207.4714

0.6935

17228.0916

23.16

0.37

3

5202.4689

5178.2392

5192.8259

0.6927

17208.5131

23.30

0.36

4

5206.1653

5180.0199

5196.6445

0.6971

17207.3841

23.01

0.38

5

5180.3789

5149.4671

5167.9434

0.6906

17173.7903

22.81

0.39

6

5169.7636

5137.5171

5157.7435

0.6896

17158.6810

22.71

0.39

7

5149.3784

5112.9015

5134.7360

0.6843

17130.7994

22.55

0.40

8

5142.2615

5101.8923

5125.2543

0.6829

17116.4272

22.45

0.41

9

5094.0638

5049.3720

5075.4189

0.6700

17056.9215

22.11

0.42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

5871.9400

5825.7865

5850.8138

0.9528

17840.3214

26.52

0.17

11

5190.5200

5178.1915

5201.7290

0.7073

17192.7263

22.83

0.39