Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 392

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the limitations of comparing mean square forecast errors

Clements, Michael P., Hendry, David F.·1993·Journal of Forecasting

Abstract

Linear models are invariant under non‐singular, scale‐preserving linear transformations, whereas mean square forecast errors (MSFEs) are not. Different rankings may result across models or methods from choosing alternative yet isomorphic representations of a process. One approach can dominate others for comparisons in levels, yet lose to another for differences, to a second for cointegrating vectors and to a third for combinations of variables. The potential for switches in ranking is related to criticisms of the inadequacy of MSFE against encompassing criteria, which are invariant under linear transforms and entail MSFE dominance. An invariant evaluation criterion which avoids misleading outcomes is examined in a Monte Carlo study of forecasting methods.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/for.3980120802

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 392

Metadata

Authors
Clements, M. P., & Hendry, D. F.
Venue
Journal of Forecasting
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1993-12
Volume
12
Issue
8
Pages
617-637
ISSN
  • 0277-6693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-131X
OpenAlex
W2144833703
Cited by
392
References
2
FWCI
34.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On the limitations of comparing mean square forecast errors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/for.3980120802
The paper
Clements, M. P., & Hendry, D. F. (1993). On the limitations of comparing mean square forecast errors. Journal of Forecasting. https://doi.org/10.1002/for.3980120802

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.