CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 496Forecasting Techniques and ApplicationsStatistical Methods and InferenceMonetary Policy and Economic Impact

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing Predictive Accuracy, Twenty Years Later: A Personal Perspective on the Use and Abuse of Diebold-Mariano Tests

Diebold, Francis X.·2015·Journal of Business & Economic Statistics
DOI 10.1080/07350015.2014.983236
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Diebold–Mariano (DM) test was intended for comparing forecasts; it has been, and remains, useful in that regard. The DM test was not intended for comparing models. Much of the large ensuing literature, however, uses DM-type tests for comparing models, in pseudo-out-of-sample environments. In that case, simpler yet more compelling full-sample model comparison procedures exist; they have been, and should continue to be, widely used. The hunch that pseudo-out-of-sample analysis is somehow the “only,” or “best,” or even necessarily a “good” way to provide insurance against in-sample overfitting in model comparisons proves largely false. On the other hand, pseudo-out-of-sample analysis remains useful for certain tasks, perhaps most notably for providing information about comparative predictive performance during particular historical episodes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07350015.2014.983236

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Durham G., 2013, Journal of Financial Econometrics, 11
  2. Elliott G., 2006, Handbook of Economic Forecasting, 33, 100

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 493

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Diebold, F. X.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Diebold, Francis X.
Venue
Journal of Business & Economic Statistics
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-01-02
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
1-1
ISSN
  • 0735-0015 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2707
DOI
10.1080/07350015.2014.983236
OpenAlex
W2007694684
Cited by
496
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 22
FWCI
46.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Business and Economic Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Monetary Policy and Economic Impact
Keywords
Diebold-Mariano test, forecast evaluation, model comparison, prediction accuracy, forecasting model comparison

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