ARMA forecasting - forecast error variance

renucrew
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi I've got an ARMA model, and I am struggling to theoretically quantify the benefit of using it to generate forecasts for various lead times, compared to using the mean level of the process. I think the ratio of variance of forecast error using ARMA to variance of forecast error using the mean will give me what i need. I really need help though!

If the process is standard normal then the best estimate of the process without an ARMA model is simply 0, and the variance of the mean square error is var((0-Xt+1)^2) ≈ 2.

The equation given in box and jenkins for the variance of ARMA forecast errors for various lead times, l:

var(e(l)) = (1 + (ψ1)^2 + (ψ2)^2 + ... +ψ(l-1)^2) (σa)^2

is always 1 for lead time 1, irrespective of the parameters or level of correlation of the model so according to my misunderstanding of the B&J all standard normal ARMA processes would result in a 50% decrease in forecast error variance for lead time 1. This can't be correct because surely the variance of the forecast errors would depend on the amount of correlation of the process.

Any tips would be really useful!

many thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
renucrew said:
the mean square error is var((0-Xt+1)^2) ≈ 2.

Is that supposed to be X_{t+1} or X_t + 1 ? If it is the "mean square", why use the notation "var" ?

The equation given in box and jenkins for the variance of ARMA forecast errors for various lead times, l:

var(e(l)) = (1 + (ψ1)^2 + (ψ2)^2 + ... +ψ(l-1)^2) (σa)^2

You shoud explain the quantities that appear in this equation if you expect anyone to interpret it.
 
Hi sorry for the lack of clarity!

Is that supposed to be Xt+1 or Xt+1 ? If it is the "mean square", why use the notation "var" ?

Oops that is just meant to be Xt, and the expression just says that the variance of the E(Xt)=0 (that is using the mean as the best estimate) square forecast errors is around 2 if the process is standard normal.

The var(e(l)) is correct, the expression gives the variance of the forecast error for lead time, l, as a function of the psi weights of the general linear filter form of the ARMA model.

Box and Jenkins use this expression for the variance of forecast errors to derive the confidence intervals of forecasts for a given lead time, since a reduction in the variance of forecast errors represents an increase in forecast precision. But from my understanding of this expression the variance of the lead 1 forecast error is 1 irrespective of the psi weights of the model so i my understanding must be wrong since confidence interval of a lead 1 forecast using an ARMA model must be dependent on the strength of the lag 1 autocorrelation.

Ive kind of glissed over this bit of theory in my dissertation analysis by simply saying that the accuracy of the forecast is dependent on the psi weights and lead time, and by evaluating the forecast accuracy of my model empirically but it would be good to understand the theory properly!
 
renucrew said:
the expression just says that the variance of the E(Xt)=0 (that is using the mean as the best estimate) square forecast errors is around 2 if the process is standard normal.

E(X_t) is the expected value of a random variable. It would be some constant. Thus it would have zero variance.

Are you trying to make a statement about E( (X_t - 0)^2 ) ? If X_t is a normal random variable with mean 0 and variance 1 then E( (X_t - 0)^2) is the variance of X_t, which is 1.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top