Maximum-Subsampling Test of Equal Predictive Ability
预测能力相等的最大子抽样检验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:摘要核心是预测能力比较,并明确分析预测损失差的平稳性、自协方差与序列依赖。
预测能力相等的最大子抽样检验AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
In comparing the accuracy of any two competing forecasts, under the assumption that the loss differentials are covariance stationary, Diebold and Mariano (DM) proposed a test statistic that is asymptotically normal. This test is further studied by Giacomini and White (GW). However, under the DM-GW framework, the estimator of the variance of the DM test can be inaccurate in small samples, which yields size distortions; see, for example, Coroneo and Iacone (CI). To alleviate this challenge, we propose a maximum-subsampling (MS) test that does not require estimating the long-run variance induced by a number of autocovariances. Accordingly, the MS test is applicable for comparing the predictive ability between two competing forecasts even when the loss differentials are serially correlated with arbitrary autocovariance structures. We demonstrate that the MS test converges to the type I extreme value distribution under the DM-GW null hypothesis with proper conditions. In addition, under a set of alternative hypotheses, we show the MS test is consistent. We further compare the MS test with the DM test and two CI tests via five simulation settings, which are either modified or adapted from McCracken and Coroneo and Iacone. Simulation results show that the MS test performs satisfactorily.