Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upon the evidence that infinite‐order vector autoregression setting is more realistic in time series models, we propose new model selection procedures for producing efficient multistep forecasts. They consist of order selection criteria involving the sample analog of the asymptotic approximation of theh‐step‐ahead forecast mean squared error matrix, wherehis the forecast horizon. These criteria are minimized over a truncation ordernTunder the assumption that an infinite‐order vector autoregression can be approximated, under suitable conditions, with a sequence of truncated models, wherenTis increasing with sample size. Using finite‐order vector autoregressive models with various persistent levels and realistic sample sizes, Monte Carlo simulations show that, overall, our criteria outperform conventional competitors. Specifically, they tend to yield better small‐sample distribution of the lag‐order estimates around the true value, while estimating it with relatively satisfactory probabilities. They also produce more efficient multistep (and even stepwise) forecasts since they yield the lowesth‐step‐ahead forecast mean squared errors for the individual components of the holding pseudo‐data to forecast. Thus estimating the actual autoregressive order as well as the best forecasting model can be achieved with the same selection procedure. Such results stand in sharp contrast to the belief that parsimony is a virtue in itself, and state that the relative accuracy of strongly consistent criteria such as the Schwarz information criterion, as claimed in the literature, is overstated. Our criteria are new tools extending those previously existing in the literature and hence can suitably be used for various practical situations when necessary. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".