Loss of Fitting and Distance Prediction in Fixed vs Updated ARIMA Models

α
Livio Fenga
Livio Fenga
α ISTAT (Italy) - University of California San Diego

Send Message

To: Author

Loss of Fitting and Distance Prediction in Fixed vs Updated ARIMA Models

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

5UNZ5

Loss of Fitting and Distance Prediction in Fixed vs Updated ARIMA Models Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground
  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Amharic
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Azerbaijani
  • Basque
  • Belarusian
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Bulgarian
  • Catalan
  • Cebuano
  • Chichewa
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)
  • Corsican
  • Croatian
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Estonian
  • Filipino
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Frisian
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Gujarati
  • Haitian Creole
  • Hausa
  • Hawaiian
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Igbo
  • Indonesian
  • Irish
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Javanese
  • Kannada
  • Kazakh
  • Khmer
  • Korean
  • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
  • Kyrgyz
  • Lao
  • Latin
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malagasy
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Maltese
  • Maori
  • Marathi
  • Mongolian
  • Myanmar (Burmese)
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian
  • Pashto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Samoan
  • Scots Gaelic
  • Serbian
  • Sesotho
  • Shona
  • Sindhi
  • Sinhala
  • Slovak
  • Slovenian
  • Somali
  • Spanish
  • Sundanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Xhosa
  • Yiddish
  • Yoruba
  • Zulu

Abstract

In many cases, it might be advisable to keep an operational time series model fixed for a given span of time, instead of updating it as a new datum becomes available. One common case, is represented by model-based deseasonalization procedures, whose time series models are updated on a regular basis by National Statistical Offices. In fact, in order to minimize the extent of the revisions and grant a greater stability of the already released figures, the interval in between two updating processes is kept “reasonably” long (e.g. one year). Other cases can be found in many contexts, e.g. in engineering for structural reliability analysis or in all those cases where model re-estimation is not a practical or even a viable options, e.g. due to time constraints or computational issues. Clearly, the inevitable trade-off between a fixed models and its updated counterpart, e.g. in terms of fitting performances, out-of-sample prediction capabilities or dynamics explanation should be always accounted for.

References

17 Cites in Article
  1. Brian David F Findley,Mark Monsell,William Otto,Marian Bell,Pugh (1992). Towards x12 arima.
  2. Victor Gomez,Agustin Maravall (1996). Programs tramo (time series regression with arima noise, missing observations, and outliers) and seats (signal extraction in arima time series).
  3. F David,Catherine Findley,Hood (1999). X-12-arima and its application to some italian indicator series.
  4. Christophe Planas,Raoul Depoutot (2002). Controlling Revisions in Arima‐Model‐Based Seasonal Adjustment.
  5. G Huyot,Kim Chiu,John Higginson,Nazira Gait (1986). Analysis of Revisions in the Seasonal Adjustment of Data Using X-11-Arima Model-Based filters.
  6. Jens Mehrhoff,Deutsche Bundesbank (2008). Sources of revisions of seasonally adjusted real time data.
  7. Charles Scott W Doebling,Michael Farrar,Daniel Prime,Shevitz (1996). Damage identification and health monitoring of structural and mechanical systems from changes in their vibration characteristics: a literature review.
  8. Hoon Sohn,Francois Charles R Farrar,Devin Hemez,Daniel Shunk,Brett Stinemates,Jerry Nadler,Czarnecki (2003). A review of structural health monitoring literature: 1996-2001.
  9. James Mw Brownjohn (1851). Structural health monitoring of civil infrastructure.
  10. Wei-Xin Ren,Guido De Roeck (2002). Structural Damage Identification using Modal Data. II: Test Verification.
  11. Michael I Friswell (2008). Damage identification using inverse methods.
  12. George Ep Box,M Gwilym,Gregory Jenkins,Greta Reinsel,Ljung (2015). Time series analysis: forecasting and control.
  13. Hirotugu Akaike (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification.
  14. Hirotugu Akaike (2011). Akaike’s Information Criterion.
  15. Gustavo Batista,Xiaoyue Wang,Eamonn Keogh (2011). A Complexity-Invariant Distance Measure for Time Series.
  16. Gustavo Batista,Eamonn Keogh,Oben Moses Tataw,Vincius Ma De Souza (2014). Cid: an efficient complexity-invariant distance for time series.
  17. Pongpanod Sankosik (2010). Effective data augmentation techniques for time series classification: an empirical evaluation.

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Livio Fenga. 2017. \u201cLoss of Fitting and Distance Prediction in Fixed vs Updated ARIMA Models\u201d. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research - F: Mathematics & Decision GJSFR-F Volume 17 (GJSFR Volume 17 Issue F1): .

Download Citation

Issue Cover
GJSFR Volume 17 Issue F1
Pg. 19- 29
Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJSFR

Print ISSN 0975-5896

e-ISSN 2249-4626

Keywords
Classification
GJSFR-F Classification: MSC 2010: 97K80
Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

February 26, 2017

Language
en
Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

Article Matrices
Total Views: 3689
Total Downloads: 1840
2026 Trends
Related Research

Published Article

In many cases, it might be advisable to keep an operational time series model fixed for a given span of time, instead of updating it as a new datum becomes available. One common case, is represented by model-based deseasonalization procedures, whose time series models are updated on a regular basis by National Statistical Offices. In fact, in order to minimize the extent of the revisions and grant a greater stability of the already released figures, the interval in between two updating processes is kept “reasonably” long (e.g. one year). Other cases can be found in many contexts, e.g. in engineering for structural reliability analysis or in all those cases where model re-estimation is not a practical or even a viable options, e.g. due to time constraints or computational issues. Clearly, the inevitable trade-off between a fixed models and its updated counterpart, e.g. in terms of fitting performances, out-of-sample prediction capabilities or dynamics explanation should be always accounted for.

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]

Request Access

Please fill out the form below to request access to this research paper. Your request will be reviewed by the editorial or author team.
X

Quote and Order Details

Contact Person

Invoice Address

Notes or Comments

This is the heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

High-quality academic research articles on global topics and journals.

Loss of Fitting and Distance Prediction in Fixed vs Updated ARIMA Models

Livio Fenga
Livio Fenga ISTAT (Italy) - University of California San Diego

Research Journals