Properties of point forecast reconciliation approaches
点预测协调方法的性质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。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
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:摘要研究具有线性聚合约束的多条时间序列点预测及其均方误差,直接对应预测与时间序列方法。
点预测协调方法的性质AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Point forecast reconciliation of collection of time series with linear aggregation constraints has evolved substantially over the last decade. A few commonly used methods are GLS (generalized least squares), OLS (ordinary least squares), WLS (weighted least squares), and MinT (minimum trace). GLS and MinT have similar mathematical expressions, but they differ by the covariance matrix used. OLS and WLS can be considered as special cases of MinT where they differ by the assumptions made about the structure of the covariance matrix. All these methods ensure that the reconciled forecasts are unbiased, provided that the base forecasts are unbiased. The ERM (empirical risk minimizer) approach was proposed to relax the assumption of unbiasedness. This paper proves that (a) GLS and MinT reduce to the same solution; (b) on average, a method similar to ERM (which we refer to as MinT-U) can produce better forecasts than MinT (lowest total mean squared error) which is then followed by OLS and then by base; and (c) the mean squared error of each series in the structure for MinT-U is smaller than that for MinT which is then followed by that for either OLS or base forecasts. We show these theoretical results using a set of simulation studies. We also evaluate them using the Australian domestic tourism data set.