Empirical Limits for Time Series Econometric Models
时间序列计量模型的实证极限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:摘要直接研究平稳与非平稳时间序列的建模极限,并进一步比较可行预测器与最优预测器,支持时间序列及预测两个方向。
时间序列计量模型的实证极限AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
This paper characterizes empirically achievable limits for time series econometric modeling and forecasting. The approach involves the concept of minimal information loss in time series regression and the paper shows how to derive bounds that delimit the proximity of empirical measures to the true probability measure (the DGP) in models that are of econometric interest. The approach utilizes joint probability measures over the combined space of parameters and observables and the results apply for models with stationary, integrated, and cointegrated data. A theorem due to Rissanen is extended so that it applies directly to probabilities about the relative likelihood (rather than averages), a new way of proving results of the Rissanen type is demonstrated, and the Rissanen theory is extended to nonstationary time series with unit roots, near unit roots, and cointegration of unknown order. The corresponding bound for the minimal information loss in empirical work is shown not to be a constant, in general, but to be proportional to the logarithm of the determinant of the (possibility stochastic) Fisher–information matrix. In fact, the bound that determines proximity to the DGP is generally path dependent, and it depends specifically on the type as well as the number of regressors. For practical purposes, the proximity bound has the asymptotic form (K/2)log n, where K is a new dimensionality factor that depends on the nature of the data as well as the number of parameters in the model. When ‘good’ model selection principles are employed in modeling time series data, we are able to show that our proximity bound quantifies empirical limits even in situations where the models may be incorrectly specified. One of the main implications of the new result is that time trends are more costly than stochastic trends, which are more costly in turn than stationary regressors in achieving proximity to the true density. Thus, in a very real sense and quantifiable manner, the DGP is more elusive when there is nonstationarity in the data. The implications for prediction are explored and a second proximity theorem is given, which provides a bound that measures how close feasible predictors can come to the optimal predictor. Again, the bound has the asymptotic form (K/2)log n, showing that forecasting trends is fundamentally more difficult than forecasting stationary time series, even when the correct form of the model for the trends is known.