MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On modelling and diagnostic checking of vector periodic autoregressive time series models

2008· article· en· W2148127438 on OpenAlexaff
Eugen Ursu, Pierre Duchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Time Series Analysis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutocovarianceAutoregressive modelMathematicsApplied mathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)ResidualAsymptotic distributionEstimatorAutocorrelationAutoregressive–moving-average modelBivariate analysisStatisticsEconometricsAlgorithmMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Vector periodic autoregressive time series models (PVAR) form an important class of time series for modelling data derived from climatology, hydrology, economics and electrical engineering, among others. In this article, we derive the asymptotic distributions of the least squares estimators of the model parameters in PVAR models, allowing the parameters in a given season to satisfy linear constraints. Residual autocorrelations from classical vector autoregressive and moving‐average models have been found useful for checking the adequacy of a particular model. In view of this, we obtain the asymptotic distribution of the residual autocovariance matrices in the class of PVAR models, and the asymptotic distribution of the residual autocorrelation matrices is given as a corollary. Portmanteau test statistics designed for diagnosing the adequacy of PVAR models are introduced and we study their asymptotic distributions. The proposed test statistics are illustrated in a small simulation study, and an application with bivariate quarterly West German data is presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.195
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.195
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Time Series AnalysisSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207