Skip to main content

Forecast Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Macroeconomic Forecasting in the Era of Big Data

Abstract

The development of new tests and methods used in the evaluation of time series forecasts and forecasting models remains as important today as it has been for the last 50 years. Paraphrasing what Sir Clive W.J. Granger (arguably the father of modern day time series forecasting) said in the 1990s at a conference in Svinkloev, Denmark, “OK, the model looks like an interesting extension, but can it forecast better than existing models?” Indeed, the forecast evaluation literature continues to expand, with interesting new tests and methods being developed at a rapid pace. In this chapter, we discuss a selected group of predictive accuracy tests and model selection methods that have been developed in recent years, and that are now widely used in the forecasting literature. We begin by reviewing several tests for comparing the relative forecast accuracy of different models, in the case of point forecasts. We then broaden the scope of our discussion by introducing density-based predictive accuracy tests. We conclude by noting that predictive accuracy is typically assessed in terms of a given loss function, such as mean squared forecast error or mean absolute forecast error. Most tests, including those discussed here, are consequently loss function dependent, and the relative forecast superiority of predictive models is therefore also dependent on specification of a loss function. In light of this fact, we conclude this chapter by discussing loss function robust predictive density accuracy tests that have recently been developed using principles of stochastic dominance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We require that for j = 1, …, p i, \(E(\nabla _{\theta }F_i(u|Z^t, \theta _i^{\dagger }))_j \ge D_t(u)\), with \(\sup _t \sup _{u\in \Re }E(D_t(u)^{2r})<\infty \).

References

  • Andrews, D. W., & Soares, G. (2010). Inference for parameters defined by moment inequalities using generalized moment selection. Econometrica, 78(1), 119–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. W. K. (2002). Higher-order improvements of a computationally attractive “k”-step bootstrap for extremum estimators. Econometrica, 70(1), 119–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. W. K. (2004). The block–block bootstrap: Improved asymptotic refinements. Econometrica, 72(3), 673–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierens, H. J. (1990). A consistent conditional moment test of functional form. Econometrica, 58, 1443–1458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierens, H. J., & Ploberger, W. (1997). Asymptotic theory of integrated conditional moment tests. Econometrica, 65, 1129–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., Gomes, J. F., & Schorfheide, F. (2002). Learning-by-doing as a propagation mechanism. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1498–1520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chao, J., Corradi, V., & Swanson, N. R. (2001). Out-of-sample tests for granger causality. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 5(4), 598–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. E., & McCracken, M. W. (2001). Tests of equal forecast accuracy and encompassing for nested models. Journal of Econometrics, 105(1), 85–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. E., & McCracken, M. W. (2003). Evaluating long horizon forecasts. Working Paper, University of Missouri-Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corradi, V., & Distaso, W. (2011). Multiple forecast model evaluation. In The handbook of economic forecasting (pp. 391–414). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corradi, V., & Swanson, N. R. (2002). A consistent test for out of sample nonlinear predictive ability. Journal of Econometrics, 110, 353–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corradi, V., & Swanson, N. R. (2005). A test for comparing multiple misspecified conditional interval models. Econometric Theory, 21(5), 991–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corradi, V., & Swanson, N. R. (2006a). Predictive density and conditional confidence interval accuracy tests. Journal of Econometrics, 135(1), 187–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corradi, V., & Swanson, N. R. (2006b). Predictive density evaluation. Handbook of Economic Forecasting, 1, 197–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corradi, V., & Swanson, N. R. (2007). Nonparametric bootstrap procedures for predictive inference based on recursive estimation schemes. International Economic Review, 48(1), 67–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corradi, V., Swanson, N. R., & Olivetti, C. (2001). Predictive ability with cointegrated variables. Journal of Econometrics, 104(2), 315–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, R. M. (1996). The bierens test under data dependence. Journal of Econometrics, 72(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diebold, F. X., & Mariano, R. S. (2002). Comparing predictive accuracy. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(1), 134–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Villaverde, J., & Rubio-RamÍrez, J. F. (2004). Comparing dynamic equilibrium models to data: A Bayesian approach. Journal of Econometrics, 123(1), 153–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gianni, A., & Giacomini, R. (2007). Comparing density forecasts via weighted likelihood ratio tests. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 25(2), 177–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granger, C. W. J. (1999). Outline of forecast theory using generalized cost function. Spanish Economic Review, 1, 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granger, C. W. J. (1993). On the limitations of comparing mean square forecast errors: A comment. Journal of Forecasting, 12(8), 651–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P., & Horowitz, J. L. (1996). Bootstrap critical values for tests based on generalized-method-of-moments estimators. Econometrica, 64(4), 891–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B. E. (1996a). Inference when a nuisance parameter is not identified under the null hypothesis. Econometrica, 64, 413–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B. E. (1996b). Stochastic equicontinuity for unbounded dependent heterogeneous arrays. Econometric Theory, 12, 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, R. P. (2005). A test for superior predictive ability. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 23(4), 365–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inoue, A., & Shintani, M. (2006). Bootstrapping GMM estimators for time series. Journal of Econometrics, 133(2), 531–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, S., Corradi, V., & Swanson, N. R. (2017). Robust forecast comparison. Econometric Theory, 33(6), 1306–1351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilian, L. (1999). Exchange rates and monetary fundamentals: What do we learn from long-horizon regressions? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 14(5), 491–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitamura, Y. (2002). Econometric comparisons of conditional models. Working Paper, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. H., White, H., & Granger, C. W. J. (1993). Testing for neglected nonlinearity in time series models: A comparison of neural network methods and alternative tests. Journal of Econometrics, 56(3), 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, O. B., Maasoumi, E., & Whang, Y. J. (2002). Consistent testing for stochastic dominance: A subsampling approach. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 72(3), 735–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linton, O., Maassoumi, E., & Whang, Y. J. (2005). Consistent testing for stochastic dominance: A subsampling approach. Review of Economic Studies, 72, 735–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, M. W. (2000). Robust out-of-sample inference. Journal of Econometrics, 99, 195–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meese, R. A., & Rogoff, K. (1983). Empirical exchange rate models of the seventies: Do they fit out-of-sample? Journal of International Economics, 14, 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Politis, D. N., Romano, J. P., & Wolf, M. (1999). Subsampling. Springer Series in Statistics. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano, J. P., & Wolf, M. (2005). Stepwise multiple testing as formalized data snooping. Econometrica, 73(4), 1237–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, B. (2005). Testing long-horizon predictive ability with high persistence, and the meese–rogoff puzzle. International Economic Review, 46(1), 61–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schorfheide, F. (2010). Loss function-based evaluation of DSGE models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(6), 645–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, M. B., & White, H. (1998). Consistent specification testing with nuisance parameters present only under the alternative. Econometric Theory, 14(3), 295–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2), 307–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, A. (1996). Estimating time series models using the relevant cost function. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(5), 539–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, K. D. (1996). Asymptotic inference about predictive ability. Econometrica, 64, 1067–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (1982). Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica, 50(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (2000). A reality check for data snooping. Econometrica, 68(5), 1097–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mingmian Cheng .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cheng, M., Swanson, N.R., Yao, C. (2020). Forecast Evaluation. In: Fuleky, P. (eds) Macroeconomic Forecasting in the Era of Big Data. Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics, vol 52. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31150-6_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics