跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确比较季度投资模型的预测表现,并使用拟合期与预测期之间的结构变化检验。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Dale W. Jorgenson
Jerald Hunter
M. Ishag Nadiri

季度投资行为计量模型的预测表现

研究问题
季度投资行为的四种计量模型在预测期能否延续拟合期的表现?摘要同时关注模型选择造成的拟合夸大与模型结构变化。
方法与思路
作者比较四种季度投资模型:一是对照预测期与拟合期误差,二是在两个时期分别估计投资函数并检验结构变化。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,在所比较模型中,拟合较好的模型也有较好的预测表现;作者将两种程序视为结构变化检验,并称第二种统计功效更高。
阅读关注点
应核对拟合期与预测期的划分、预测误差指标、两种结构变化检验的设定,以及模型筛选是否影响预测表现的比较。
阅读边界
摘要未交代样本范围、预测方式、误差尺度及检验细节;拟合与预测表现的关系属于作者对该比较的陈述,不能推广为普遍规律。

原文摘要

In this paper four alternative quarterly econometric models of investment behavior are compared with regard to predictive performance. Predictive performance may be assessed in two ways: (i) We compare prediction errors for a period of prediction with errors for a period of fit. (ii) We fit investment functions for both periods and test for structural change. These two procedures may be viewed as alternative tests of the hypothesis of structural change; the second is more powerful from the statistical point of view. Tests of predictive performance supplement the comparisons of alternative models given in our preceding paper [17]. Goodness of fit may be exaggerated by consideration of a wide range of alternatives and selection of the one that fits best. If goodness of fit is exaggerated, a predictive test should produce evidence of structural change between the period of fit and the period of prediction. Of course, the better an econometric model fits the data, the more stringent this criterion for predictive performance. The econometric models included in our study are those of Anderson [1], Eisner [7], Jorgenson and Stephenson [19], and Meyer and Glauber [21]. On the basis of predictive performance the ranking of the alternative models is as follows: (1) Eisner, (2) JorgensonStephenson, (3) Meyer-Glauber, and (4) Anderson. This ranking is similar to that resulting from comparisons based on goodness of fit presented in our preceding paper [17]. For econometric models of quarterly investment behavior, the models that fit the best also have the best predictive performance.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文