COMBINING FORECASTING PROCEDURES: SOME THEORETICAL RESULTS
预测方法组合的若干理论结果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:摘要直接研究利用外部信息与过去观测的预测方法组合及平方误差风险界。
预测方法组合的若干理论结果AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
We study some methods of combining procedures for forecasting a continuous random variable. Statistical risk bounds under the square error loss are obtained under distributional assumptions on the future given the current outside information and the past observations. The risk bounds show that the combined forecast automatically achieves the best performance among the candidate procedures up to a constant factor and an additive penalty term. In terms of the rate of convergence, the combined forecast performs as well as if the best candidate forecasting procedure were known in advance.Empirical studies suggest that combining procedures can sometimes improve forecasting accuracy over the original procedures. Risk bounds are derived to theoretically quantify the potential gain and price of linearly combining forecasts for improvement. The result supports the empirical finding that it is not automatically a good idea to combine forecasts. Indiscriminate combining can degrade performance dramatically as a result of the large variability in estimating the best combining weights. An automated combining method is shown in theory to achieve a balance between the potential gain and the complexity penalty (the price of combining), to take advantage (if any) of sparse combining, and to maintain the best performance (in rate) among the candidate forecasting procedures if linear or sparse combining does not help.This research was supported by U.S. National Security Agency Grant MDA9049910060 and U.S. National Science Foundation CAREER Grant DMS0094323. The author sincerely thanks three reviewers and Poti Giannakouros for their very valuable comments, which led to a substantial improvement of the paper.