MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Banded Regularization of Autocovariance Matrices in Application to Parameter Estimation and Forecasting of Time Series

2011· article· en· W2167795221 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter J. Bickel, Yulia R. Gel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInnovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAutocovarianceAkaike information criterionSeries (stratigraphy)MathematicsApplied mathematicsMatrix normTime seriesAutoregressive modelRegularization (linguistics)StatisticsAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematical analysisEigenvalues and eigenvectorsArtificial intelligenceGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The paper addresses a ‘large p–small n’ problem in a time series framework and considers properties of banded regularization of an empirical autocovariance matrix of a time series process. Utilizing the banded autocovariance matrix enables us to fit a much longer auto-regressive AR(p) model to the observed data than typically suggested by the Akaike information criterion, while controlling how many parameters are to be estimated precisely and the level of accuracy. We present results on asymptotic consistency of banded autocovariance matrices under the Frobenius norm and provide a theoretical justification on optimal band selection by using cross-validation. Remarkably, the cross-validation loss function for banded prediction is related to the conditional mean-square prediction error and, thus, may be viewed as an alternative model selection criterion. The procedure proposed is illustrated by simulations and application to predicting the sea surface temperature index in the Niño 3.4 region.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations53
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207