2004
DOI: 10.1016/s0264-9993(03)00017-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thick modeling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
126
1
2

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 199 publications
(138 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
9
126
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, considering the MAPE indicator in Figure 4, the best performing combination for the least volatile load period 6 and for the peak load period 38 is obtained with the models TVR, MS and ARMAX. This agrees with previous research: it has been argued that, rather than combining the full set of forecasts, it is often advantageous to discard the models with the worst performance (see, for instance, Aiolfi and Favero, 2005;Granger and Jeon, 2004;Marcellino, 2004;Watson, 2001, 2004). However, in our study some exceptions emerge when the worst predictive model is the TVR.…”
Section: Ex Post Analysessupporting
confidence: 91%
“…For example, considering the MAPE indicator in Figure 4, the best performing combination for the least volatile load period 6 and for the peak load period 38 is obtained with the models TVR, MS and ARMAX. This agrees with previous research: it has been argued that, rather than combining the full set of forecasts, it is often advantageous to discard the models with the worst performance (see, for instance, Aiolfi and Favero, 2005;Granger and Jeon, 2004;Marcellino, 2004;Watson, 2001, 2004). However, in our study some exceptions emerge when the worst predictive model is the TVR.…”
Section: Ex Post Analysessupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Finally, although disaggregations are based on different information sets, the forecast errors for different periods do not differ in a relevant way between the two approaches; therefore, the combination of the forecasts derived from both approaches, based on the average of the forecasts following Granger and Jeon (2004), makes sense and yields the best results (see the last column in Table 3), suggesting that both disaggregations matter. Table 4 shows the forecast errors for the year-on-year rates of total HICP derived from the two approaches that take into account the disaggregation by the combined criterion of sectors and countries.…”
Section: Forecasting Inflation In the Euro Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternatively, we use a "thick" modeling approach (Granger and Jeon, 2004;Aiolfi and Favero, 2005;Rapach, et al 2010) to combine the 2 n different forecasts to a single "optimal" forecast. Finally, the TAV model-averaging criterion uses only the forecasts in the interval plus/minus one standard deviation around the mean of the 2 n forecasts to form a forecast.…”
Section: The Real-time Forecasting Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%