SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2403.07158

Sample Splitting and Assessing Goodness-of-fit of Time Series

Abstract

A fundamental and often final step in time series modeling is to assess the quality of fit of a proposed model to the data. Since the underlying distribution of the innovations that generate a model is often not prescribed, goodness-of-fit tests typically take the form of testing the fitted residuals for serial independence. However, these fitted residuals are inherently dependent since they are based on the same parameter estimates and thus standard tests of serial independence, such as those based on the autocorrelation function (ACF) or distance correlation function (ADCF) of the fitted residuals need to be adjusted. The sample splitting procedure in Pfister et al.~(2018) is one such fix for the case of models for independent data, but fails to work in the dependent setting. In this paper sample splitting is leveraged in the time series setting to perform tests of serial dependence of fitted residuals using the ACF and ADCF. Here the first $f_n$ of the data points are used to estimate the parameters of the model and then using these parameter estimates, the last $l_n$ of the data points are used to compute the estimated residuals. Tests for serial independence are then based on these $l_n$ residuals. As long as the overlap between the $f_n$ and $l_n$ data splits is asymptotically 1/2, the ACF and ADCF tests of serial independence tests often have the same limit distributions as though the underlying residuals are indeed iid. In particular if the first half of the data is used to estimate the parameters and the estimated residuals are computed for the entire data set based on these parameter estimates, then the ACF and ADCF can have the same limit distributions as though the residuals were iid. This procedure ameliorates the need for adjustment in the construction of confidence bounds for both the ACF and ADCF in goodness-of-fit testing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Richard A. Davis, Leon Fernandes. 2024-03-11. Sample Splitting and Assessing Goodness-of-fit of Time Series. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07158

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME