Directional-Shift Dirichlet ARMA Models for Compositional Time Series with Structural Break Intervention
具有结构突变干预的方向位移 Dirichlet ARMA 组成时间序列模型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:摘要同时研究组成时间序列动态、结构突变机制及突变期间和之后的概率预测。
具有结构突变干预的方向位移 Dirichlet ARMA 组成时间序列模型AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Compositional time series frequently exhibit structural breaks due to external shocks, policy changes, or market disruptions. Standard methods either ignore such breaks or handle them through fixed effects that cannot extrapolate beyond the sample, or step-function dummies that impose instantaneous adjustment. We develop a Bayesian Dirichlet ARMA model augmented with a directional-shift intervention mechanism that captures structural breaks through three interpretable parameters: a direction vector specifying which components gain or lose share, an amplitude controlling redistribution magnitude, and a logistic gate governing transition timing and speed. The model preserves compositional constraints by construction, maintains DARMA dynamics for short-run dependence, and produces coherent probabilistic forecasts through and after structural breaks. The intervention trajectory corresponds to geodesic motion on the simplex and is invariant to the choice of ILR basis. A simulation study with 400 fits across 8 scenarios shows near-zero amplitude bias and nominal 80\% credible interval coverage when the shift direction is correctly identified (77.5\% of cases); supplementary studies confirm robustness across extreme transition speeds and non-monotone DGPs. Two empirical applications to COVID-era Airbnb data characterize performance relative to simpler alternatives. Where the break is monotone and ongoing, the intervention model achieves near-nominal calibration (79.6\%) while the fixed effect substantially under-covers (66.1\%). Where post-break dynamics are non-monotone, both models are acceptably calibrated and the fixed effect outperforms on point accuracy. The intervention model's advantages are thus specific to settings with roughly monotone structural transitions.