Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Note:
1. The computation of E[yt+h|It] depends on the distri- A linear predictor of yt+h|t is a linear function of the
bution of {εt} and may be a very complicated nonlinear variables in It.
function of the history of {εt}. Even if {εt} is an un-
Theorem: The minimum MSE linear forecast (best linear
correlated process (e.g. white noise) it may be the case
predictor) of yt+h based on It is
that
yt+h|t = μ + ψ hεt + ψ h+1εt−1 + · · ·
E[εt+1|It] 6= 0
yt = μ + εt + θεt−1, εt ∼ WN(0, σ 2)
1. E[εt+h|t] = 0
Here
2. εt+h|t is uncorrelated with any element in It ψ 1 = θ, ψ h = 0 for h > 1
Therefore,
3. The form of yt+h|t is closely related to the IRF
yt+1|t = μ + θεt
4. M SE(εt+h|t) = var(εt+h|t) ≤ var(yt) yt+2|t = μ
yt+h|t = μ for h > 1
5. limh→∞ yt+h|t = μ The forecast errors and MSEs are
If {εt} is Gaussian then Let ŷt+h|t denote the BLP with estimated parameters:
var(εt+1|t) = σ 2
Consider the AR(p) model
var(εt+2|t) = σ 2(1 + φ2) = σ 2(1 + ψ 21)
.. φ(L)(yt − μ) = εt, εt ∼ W N (0, σ 2)
2 2 2(h−1) 2 1 − φ2h φ(L) = 1 − φ1L − · · · φpLp
var(εt+h|t) = σ (1 + φ + · · · + φ )=σ 2 1−φ The forecasting algorithm for the AR(p) models is essen-
= σ 2(1 + ψ 21 + · · · + ψ 2h−1) tially the same as that for AR(1) models once we put the
Clearly, AR(p) model in state space form. Let Xt = yt − μ. The
AR(p) in state space form is
lim yt+h|t = μ = E[yt] ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
h→∞
Xt φ1 φ2 · · · φp Xt−1 εt
σ2 ⎜ Xt−1 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ X ⎟ ⎜ 0 ⎟
lim var(εt+h|t) = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 1 0 · · · 0 ⎟ ⎜ t−2 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ .. ⎟=⎜ .. ⎟ ⎜ .. ⎟+⎜ .. ⎟
h→∞ 1 − φ2 ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ... ⎠⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
∞
X Xt−p+1 0 1 0 Xt−p 0
= σ2 ψ 2h = var(yt)
h=0 or
ξt = Fξt−1+wt
var(wt) = Σw
Starting at t and iterating forward h periods gives The forecast errors are given by
var(wt+h|t) = Σw + Fvar(wt+h−1|t)F0
Forecast Evaluation Diebold-Mariano Test for Equal Predictive Accuracy
1
Let {yt} denote the series to be forecast and let yt+h|t
2
and yt+h|t denote two competing forecasts of yt+h based
1
on It. For example, yt+h|t could be computed from an
2
AR(p) model and yt+h|t could be computed from an
ARMA(p, q) model. The forecast errors from the two
models are
{ε1t+h|t}T 2 T
t0 , {εt+h|t}t0
Because the h-step forecasts use overlapping data the
forecast errors in {ε1t+h|t}T 2 T
t0 and {εt+h|t}t0 will be seri-
ally correlated.
The accuracy of each forecast is measured by a particular The Diebold-Mariano test is based on the loss differential
loss function
dt = L(ε1t+h|t) − L(ε2t+h|t)
i
L(yt+h, yt+h|t ) = L(εit+h|t), i = 1, 2 The null of equal predictive accuracy is then
Some popular loss functions are:
H0 : E[dt] = 0
³ ´2
L(εit+h|t) = εit+h|t : squared error loss The Diebold-Mariano test statistic is
¯ ¯
¯ ¯
L(εit+h|t) = ¯εit+h|t¯ : absolute value loss d¯ d¯
S=³ ´1/2 = ³ ´
To determine if one model predicts better than another d d)
avar( ¯ d /T 1/2
LRV d¯
we may test null hypotheses
where
H0 : E[L(ε1t+h|t)] = E[L(ε2t+h|t)] 1 X T
d¯ = dt
against the alternative T0 t=t
0
∞
X
H1 : E[L(ε1t+h|t)] 6= E[L(ε2t+h|t)] LRVd¯ = γ 0 + 2 γ j , γ j = cov(dt, dt−j )
j=1
Note: The long-run variance is used in the statistic be-
cause the sample of loss differentials {dt}T
t0 are serially
correlated for h > 1.
Diebold and Mariano (1995) show that under the null of
equal predictive accuracy
A
S ~ N (0, 1)
So we reject the null of equal predictive accuracy at the
5% level if
|S| > 1.96
One sided tests may also be computed.