Vetting the Extrapolation Caution of Tamhane & Dunlop: A Time Series Forecasting Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.1211.17837Keywords:
Forecasting Model Development, Extrapolation JeopardyAbstract
Context In forecasting there are only two classes of Projections: Extrapolations or Interpolations. Interestingly, Interpolations usually, all but guarantee, that the theoretical expectations that rationalize the veracity of the forecasting profiles are the likely State of Nature. Simply: The [1-a]% Forecasting Prediction Interval [FPI] provides the expected-intel with a frequency of [1-a]%. However, for Extrapolations, [T&D] [8 p. 363] offer the following “Forecasting Bump in the Road” T&D Conjecture: “- - -extrapolation beyond the range of the data is a risky business should be avoided.” If T&D are correct that: Forecasting Extrapolations somehow compromise the linkages of the Projection of the Past into a Relevant Future, Then, indeed, Extrapolations should be avoided. T&D’s theoretical and experientially based caution has garnered very little vetting interest—Voilà: The motivation for our research report. Research Elements Initially, we offer a detailed analysis of the mathematical nature of an Extrapolation as it affects the Precision of the 95% Time Series [TS] Forecasting Prediction Interval [95%TSFPIs]. This is critical as, interestingly, T&D offer no detailed support for their risky business musing. For the inferential testing stage, we will use as the Y-Response Variate: The Capture Rate of the 95%TSFPIs. As we are using a DOE-Inferential Model, we are opting for two-Category Covariates: Extrapolations—[As they are the focus of our inquiry.] & Panel-Variation—measured as the Coefficient of Determination [CoD]—[As variation is the bane of forecasting.]. For DOE: testing, we have selected a random sample of 202 Panels from the S&P500; for each Panel there are Three TS-Extrapolations and also Three [CoD-screens]. Results We found clear inferential evidence that as the Extrapolations move away from the mean of the TS time-index & The CoD increases that certain DOE-{Ext & CoD} Tukey-Kramer HSD-interaction-profiles suggest a failure to realizes the theoretical expectations of the Capture Rate of the 95%TSFPIs. We offer, for the first time, a deconstruction of these very interesting inferential DOE-results that rationalize T&D’s risky business musing.
References
Adya, M. and E. Lusk, Time series complexity: The development and validation of a Rule-Based complexity scoring technique. Decision Support Systems, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.12.009
Armstrong, J.S. and F. Collopy, the selection of error measures for generalizing about forecasting methods: empirical comparisons. International Journal of Forecasting, 1992. 8: p. 69–80.
Box, G. and D. Cox, D, An analysis of transformations. J. Roy. Statist. Soc:B, 1964. 26: p. 211–252
Carvalho, M., Mean, what do you mean? The American Statistician, 2016. 70: p. 270-274.
Collopy, F. and J.S. Armstrong, Rule-based forecasting: Development and validation of an expert systems approach to combining time series extrapolations. Management Science, 1992. 38: p. 1394–1414. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.38.10.1394
Makridakis, S., et al., The accuracy of extrapolation (time series) methods: Results of a forecasting competition. Journal of Forecasting, 1982. 1: p. 111–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/for.3980010202
Wang, H. and S.C. Chow, Sample size calculation for comparing proportions. Test for equality. Wiley Encyclopedia of Clinical Trials, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780471462422.eoct005
Tamhane, A. and D. Dunlop, Statistics and data analysis, 2000. Prentice-Hall: ISBN 0-13-744426-5.
Theil, H., Economic Forecasts and Policy, 1958. North Holland Press, Amsterdam.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Moncef Belhadjali, Edward J. Lusk

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.