MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114205141 · doi:10.1111/1467-9892.00182

Bayesian Prediction Mean Squared Error for State Space Models with Estimated Parameters

2000· article· en· W2114205141 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Time Series Analysis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsMean squared errorFrequentist inferenceBayesian probabilityStatisticsState spaceApplied mathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)Approximation errorAlgorithmBayesian inference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hamilton (A standard error for the estimated state vector of a state‐space model. J. Economet. 33 (1986), 387–97) and Ansley and Kohn (Prediction mean squared error for state space models with estimated parameters. Biometrika 73 (1986), 467–73) have both proposed corrections to the naive approximation (obtained via substitution of the maximum likelihood estimates for the unknown parameters) of the Bayesian prediction mean squared error (MSE) for state space models, when the model's parameters are estimated from the data. Our work extends theirs in that we propose enhancements by identifying missing terms of the same order as that in their corrections. Because the approximations to the MSE are often subject to a frequentist interpretation, we compare our proposed enhancements with their original versions and with the naive approximation through a simulation study. For simplicity, we use the random walk plus noise model to develop the theory and to get our empirical results in the main body of the text. We also illustrate the differences between the various approximations with the Purse Snatching in Chicago series. Our empirical results show that (i) as expected, the underestimation in the naive approximation decreases as the sample size increases; (ii) the improved Ansley–Kohn approximation is the best compromise considering theoretical exactness, bias, precision and computational requirements, though the original Ansley–Kohn method performs quite well; finally, (iii) both the original and the improved Hamilton methods marginally improve the naive approximation. These conclusions also hold true with the Purse Snatching series.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it