Fitting Time Series Models by Minimizing Multistep-ahead Errors: A Frequency Domain Approach
Abstract
Summary This paper brings together two topics in the estimation of time series forecasting models: the use of the multistep-ahead error sum of squares as a criterion to be minimized and frequency domain methods for carrying out this minimization. The methods are developed for the wide class of time series models having a spectrum which is linear in unknown coefficients. This includes the IMA(1, 1) model for which the common exponentially weigh-ted moving average predictor is optimal, besides more general structural models for series exhibiting trends and seasonality. The method is extended to include the Box–Jenkins ‘air line' model. The value of the multistep criterion is that it provides protection against using an incorrectly specified model. The value of frequency domain estimation is that the iteratively reweighted least squares scheme for fitting generalized linear models is readily extended to construct the parameter estimates and their standard errors. It also yields insight into the loss of efficiency when the model is correct and the robustness of the criterion against an incorrect model. A simple example is used to illustrate the method, and a real example demonstrates the extension to seasonal models. The discussion considers a diagnostic test statistic for indicating an incorrect model.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Likelihood can conflict with the objective of producing good medium- and long-term forecasts in time series.
“There, likelihood, which can be shown to be inextricably linked with one-step-ahead forecasting, may con¯ict with the objective of producing good medium-and long-term forecasts.”
From Bayesian Analysis of Agricultural Field Experiments (1999) · cites this paper as Haywood and Tunniclie Wilson (1997)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bayesian Analysis of Agricultural Field Experiments
Besag, J., & Higdon, D. (1999) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00201 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
- Authors
- Haywood, J., & Tunnicliffe Wilson, G.
- Affiliations
- Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
- Lancaster University , UK
- ORCID
- Haywood, J.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-01-01
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 237-254
- ISSN
- 1369-7412 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9868
- OpenAlex
- W2053375504
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Statistical and numerical algorithms
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Time Series Analysis and Forecasting
- Keywords
- frequency-domain estimation, time series forecasting, iteratively reweighted least squares, generalized linear models, model misspecification, trend and seasonality, seasonal models, efficiency loss
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