Search

This paper investigates the focused information criterion and plug-in average for vector autoregressive models with local-to-zero misspecification. These methods have the advantage of focusing on a quantity of interest rather than aiming at overall model fit. Any (sufficiently regular) function of the parameters can be used as a quantity of interest. We determine the asymptotic properties and elaborate on the role of the locally misspecified parameters. In particular, we show that the inability to consistently estimate locally misspecified parameters translates into suboptimal selection and averaging. We apply this framework to impulse response analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation study supports our claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cox's proportional hazards regression model is the standard method for modelling censored life-time data with covariates. In its standard form, this method relies on a semiparametric proportional hazards structure, leaving the baseline unspecified. Naturally, specifying a parametric model also for the baseline hazard, leading to fully parametric Cox models, will be more efficient when the parametric model is correct, or close to correct. The aim of this paper is two-fold. (a) We compare parametric and semiparametric models in terms of their asymptotic relative efficiencies when estimating different quantities. We find that for some quantities the gain of restricting the model space is substantial, while it is negligible for others. (b) To deal with such selection in practice we develop certain focused and averaged focused information criteria (FIC and AFIC). These aim at selecting the most appropriate proportional hazards models for given purposes. Our methodology applies also to the simpler case without covariates, when comparing Kaplan-Meier and Nelson-Aalen estimators to parametric counterparts. Applications to real data are also provided, along with analyses of theoretical behavioural aspects of our methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When using the Focused Information Criterion (FIC) for assessing and ranking candidate models with respect to how well they do for a given estimation task, it is customary to produce a so-called FIC plot. This plot has the different point estimates along the y-axis and the root-FIC scores on the x-axis, these being the estimated root-mean-square scores. In this paper we address the estimation uncertainty involved in each of the points of such a FIC plot. This needs careful assessment of each of the estimators from the candidate models, taking also modelling bias into account, along with the relative precision of the associated estimated mean squared error quantities. We use confidence distributions for these tasks. This leads to fruitful CD–FIC plots, helping the statistician to judge to what extent the seemingly best models really are better than other models, etc. These efforts also lead to two further developments. The first is a new tool for model selection, which we call the quantile-FIC, which helps overcome certain difficulties associated with the usual FIC procedures, related to somewhat arbitrary schemes for handling estimated squared biases. A particular case is the median-FIC. The second development is to form model averaged estimators with weights determined by the relative sizes of the median- and quantile-FIC scores.

This paper is concerned with the issues of modeling and projecting the dynamics of volatility when a group of potentially useful predetermined variables is available. We predict realized volatility and value at risk (VaR) with a nested set of multiplicative error models for realized volatility. We make use of recently proposed focused model selection/combination strategies as well as the classic AIC/BIC. Focused strategies consist of choosing the model that minimizes the estimated MSE of a given function of the parameters of interest to the forecaster. Results show that VaR forecasts can significantly be improved upon using focused prediction strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is concerned with variable selection methods for the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Including excessive covariates causes extra variability and inflated confidence intervals for regression parameters; thus regimes for discarding the less informative ones are needed. Our framework has p covariates designated as "protected," while variables from a further set of q covariates are examined for possible inclusion or exclusion. We develop a focused information criterion (FIC) that for given interest parameter finds the best subset of covariates. Thus the FIC might find that the best model for predicting median survival time is different than the best model for estimating survival probabilities, and the best overall model for analyzing men's survival might not be the same as the best overall model for analyzing women's survival. Methodology is also developed for model averaging, wherein the final estimate of a quantity is a weighted average of estimates computed for a range of submodels. Our methods are illustrated in simulations and for a survival study of Danish skin cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When using the Focused Information Criterion (FIC) for assessing and ranking candidate models with respect to how well they do for a given estimation task, it is customary to produce a so-called FIC plot. This plot has the different point estimates along the y-axis and the root-FIC scores on the x-axis, these being the estimated root-mean-square scores. In this paper we address the estimation uncertainty involved in each of the points of such a FIC plot. This needs careful assessment of each of the estimators from the candidate models, taking also modelling bias into account, along with the relative precision of the associated estimated mean squared error quantities. We use confidence distributions for these tasks. This leads to fruitful CD–FIC plots, helping the statistician to judge to what extent the seemingly best models really are better than other models, etc. These efforts also lead to two further developments. The first is a new tool for model selection, which we call the quantile-FIC, which helps overcome certain difficulties associated with the usual FIC procedures, related to somewhat arbitrary schemes for handling estimated squared biases. A particular case is the median-FIC. The second development is to form model averaged estimators with weights determined by the relative sizes of the median- and quantile-FIC scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]