
handle: 11250/2497763 , 10419/209913
AbstractIn this paper, we empirically evaluate competing approaches for combining inflation density forecasts in terms of Kullback–Leibler divergence. In particular, we apply a similar suite of models to four different datasets and aim at identifying combination methods that perform well throughout different series and variations of the model suite. We pool individual densities using linear and logarithmic combination methods. The suite consists of linear forecasting models with moving estimation windows to account for structural change. We find that combining densities is a much better strategy than selecting a particular model ex ante. While combinations do not always perform better than the best individual model, combinations always yield accurate forecasts and, as we show analytically, provide insurance against selecting inappropriate models. Logarithmic combinations can be advantageous, in particular if symmetric densities are preferred. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
VDP::Samfunnsvitenskap: 200::Økonomi: 210::Samfunnsøkonomi: 212, ddc:330, E37, 1803 Management Science and Operations Research, 330 Economics, 10007 Department of Economics, JEL: C53, inflation forecasting, logarithmic combinations, 1706 Computer Science Applications, 1408 Strategy and Management, forecast combination, 1804 Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty, Statistical methods; economic indices and measures, C53, JEL: E37, density forecasts, 2611 Modeling and Simulation
VDP::Samfunnsvitenskap: 200::Økonomi: 210::Samfunnsøkonomi: 212, ddc:330, E37, 1803 Management Science and Operations Research, 330 Economics, 10007 Department of Economics, JEL: C53, inflation forecasting, logarithmic combinations, 1706 Computer Science Applications, 1408 Strategy and Management, forecast combination, 1804 Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty, Statistical methods; economic indices and measures, C53, JEL: E37, density forecasts, 2611 Modeling and Simulation
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 81 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
