Bayesian Shrinkage in High-Dimensional VAR Models: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-dimensional vector autoregressive (VAR) models offer a versatile framework for multivariate time series analysis, yet face critical challenges from over-parameterization and uncertain lag order. In this paper, we systematically compare three Bayesian shrinkage priors (horseshoe, lasso, and normal) and two frequentist regularization approaches (ridge and nonparametric shrinkage) under three carefully crafted simulation scenarios. These scenarios encompass (i) overfitting in a low-dimensional setting, (ii) sparse high-dimensional processes, and (iii) a combined scenario where both large dimension and overfitting complicate inference. We evaluate each method in quality of parameter estimation (root mean squared error, coverage, and interval length) and out-of-sample forecasting (one-step-ahead forecast RMSE). Our findings show that local-global Bayesian methods, particularly the horseshoe, dominate in maintaining accurate coverage and minimizing parameter error, even when the model is heavily over-parameterized. Frequentist ridge often yields competitive point forecasts but underestimates uncertainty, leading to sub-nominal coverage. A real-data application using macroeconomic variables from Canada illustrates how these methods perform in practice, reinforcing the advantages of local-global priors in stabilizing inference when dimension or lag order is inflated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".