Comparing Possibly Misspecified Forecasts
比较可能误设的预测AI 解读 ↓
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。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要以预测排序、评价损失函数及模型误设为研究内容,并明确应用于美国通胀调查预测,因此归入宏观预测方向。
比较可能误设的预测AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Recent work has emphasized the importance of evaluating estimates of a statistical functional (such as a conditional mean, quantile, or distribution) using a loss function that is consistent for the functional of interest, of which there is an infinite number. If forecasters all use correctly specified models free from estimation error, and if the information sets of competing forecasters are nested, then the ranking induced by a single consistent loss function is sufficient for the ranking by any consistent loss function. This article shows, via analytical results and realistic simulation-based analyses, that the presence of misspecified models, parameter estimation error, or nonnested information sets, leads generally to sensitivity to the choice of (consistent) loss function. Thus, rather than merely specifying the target functional, which narrows the set of relevant loss functions only to the class of loss functions consistent for that functional, forecast consumers or survey designers should specify the single specific loss function that will be used to evaluate forecasts. An application to survey forecasts of U.S. inflation illustrates the results.