Order-selection — the series · Normal Distribution

What each criterion selects, at 50 observations. 700 series from an AR(2) with coefficients 0.6 and -0.3, every order from 0 to 8 fitted to the same 42 responses so the log-likelihoods are comparable. AIC finds the true order 55.1% of the time and lands above it 25.7%; BIC finds it 54.1% and lands above it 4.0%. The closed form for one extra lag is P(χ²₁ > 2) = 15.73% for AIC, which does not depend on n at all, and P(χ²₁ > ln n) = 4.79% for BIC at this size, which falls to zero. Under the true order is the other failure and it is BIC's: 41.9% against 19.1%.

Choosing the order

One criterion is consistent and one is not, which is the whole of what gets said about them. At two hundred observations the consistent one is right 95% of the time and the other 70%; at fifty they are both right 54% of the time and wrong in opposite directions, and consistency has not started to mean anything yet.

part 1 · forecast

What the interval covers once the order is chosen as well. 1200 series of 40 observations from an AR(1) with φ = 0.7, at each horizon, on one set of seeds. The upper line is the interval computed at the true parameters — it covers 95.5% on average, which is the check that σ²Σψ² is the right formula rather than a claim about anything a forecaster can do. The lower line is the same formula fed σ̂² and φ̂: 93.6% at one step and 90.8% at 6. The third line chooses the order by AIC from the same data before computing the interval, which costs a further 0.8 points at h = 6.

The interval after the choice

Estimating the coefficients of a known model costs a 95% forecast interval about two points of coverage. Choosing which coefficients to estimate, from the same forty observations, costs another four and a half — so the step nobody records in the output is the more expensive of the two.

part 2 · forecast

What each rule gives up against an oracle that is arithmetic. Expected squared error of the candidate each rule selects, minus the expected squared error of the best candidate in the table, over 500 draws of 120 rows. Both quantities are closed forms — σ_S²(1 + q/(n − q − 1)) — so the only Monte Carlo here is over which candidate got picked. The hold-out spends half its rows measuring what the criterion computes, and pays 1.8 times as much for it. Schwarz's criterion is worst because it is answering a different question: which candidate contains the truth, rather than which one forecasts best.

A criterion is a prediction of the hold-out

A rolling hold-out spends half the sample measuring what a criterion computes from all of it. Against an oracle that is arithmetic rather than an estimate, the criterion gives up 0.01701 and the hold-out 0.03200 — and the number the hold-out reports for its own winner is optimistic by more than either.

part 3 · proxy

The correction is not a property of the sample. tr(HΩ)/q for each of fifteen candidates, at ρ = 0.7. Two candidates that fit the same number of coefficients need corrections that differ by as much as 1.49, because one of them is fitting the persistent predictors and the other is not — so no single number can be right for both, and the scalar n/n_eff = 5.537 is above every one of them. The four predictors carry persistences 0.9, 0.6, 0.3, 0; at one persistence for every column the whole spread collapses and a scalar looks exactly as good as the trace.

A penalty is a trace

Akaike's 2q is not a count of coefficients. It is the answer a trace collapses to when the rows are independent — and once they are not, the trace is still the right object and is no longer the count.

part 4 · effective

A window with two wrong ends. The regret of a rule whitened by a Bartlett-tapered Ω̂, as the window widens, against three rules that need no window at all. At L = 0 the estimate is the identity and the rule is exactly least squares — 0.08556, the same number to five places. It falls to 0.01754 at L = 20 and rises again by L = 30, because a quarter of the sample's lags are then being estimated from it. The automatic bandwidth a practitioner would reach for, 4(n/100) to the power 2/9, which at this sample size is 4, gives 0.02963 — 69% above the best available window. The rule told the dependence is an AR(1) sits at 0.01440 throughout, which is the price of not knowing the form.

The window that has to be chosen, and the term that was dropped

An estimated covariance has a bandwidth in it, and both ends of the dial are wrong for different reasons. The rule a practitioner would reach for is two thirds worse than the best window there is.

part 5 · banded

The window a whitening wants

Every law here is best whitened by a window several times longer than its own memory, including the one whose memory ends at the fourth lag. The three ways of choosing it from the sample all land in the same place, and it is the wrong one.

part 6 · general

Four sequences, and the rule only ever sees the last one. Under long memory at d = 4/9, four things that are all called the dependence. The law itself is the top line. What a sample of 120 rows reports on average is the second, computed exactly: subtracting a sample mean takes the first lag from 0.800 to 0.538. What a candidate's residuals report is the third, lower again at 0.472, because a fit removes dependence along with signal. The autoregressions are fitted to that third sequence and reproduce it exactly out to their own order — the Yule–Walker equations are solved to make it so — so everything they say past that is extrapolation. At the twentieth lag the law has 0.576, the residuals report 0.006, and an AR(8) extrapolates 0.028.

The order the tail is drawn at

A fitted autoregression reproduces the sample exactly at the lags it was fitted on, so everything it says past them is extrapolation — and the order is the dial that decides how much of it there is.

part 7 · general

One window for the table, or one each. The regret of the same fifteen-candidate table under AR(1) at 0.8 over 150 draws, with the window attached three ways. Chosen once from the fullest candidate's residuals it gives up 0.02518. Chosen from each candidate's own residuals, with the covariance estimate still shared, it gives up 0.02799 — a paired cost of 0.00281 at 2.0 standard errors for the tuning parameter alone. Estimating the covariance per candidate as well costs 0.01087, so the objection already on record is about 3.9 times the size of the one that was not.

A window for every candidate

The window and the order a whitening needs are chosen once, from the fullest candidate, on an argument that was made about an estimated covariance. A tuning parameter is not a covariance, and the two cost different amounts.

part 8 · together

A wider band is always a better fit. The likelihood maximised over the band, at five widths, averaged over 30 samples. A band at L lags is a band at L + 1 with the last entry held at zero, so the families are nested and the maximised likelihood cannot fall — it does not, on any draw. What it does is rise at 0.984 of log-likelihood a lag. A parameter that is doing nothing buys half a unit in expectation and Akaike's criterion charges one, so this is a criterion very nearly indifferent between every width on offer. The dashed line is what a charge of one unit a lag would exactly cancel. Nothing in the fit chooses a width, and what does choose one is a charge somebody has to pick.

Nothing in the fit picks the width

A wider band is always a better fit, and it is better by about one unit of log-likelihood a lag — which is the order of what a criterion charges for a parameter. Three defensible rules choose widths a factor of three apart.

part 9 · family

The number the comparison was missing. What it costs to choose the tuning parameter for every candidate separately rather than once for the table, under AR(1) at 0.8, paired on the draw. The window's figure is the one the earlier field reported; the order's is the one it named and did not make. They are the same size — 0.00401 against 0.00360, at 2.30 and 1.72 paired standard errors — and matching the lists at eight values leaves them the same size again. The prediction that the longer list would make the order's cost the larger of the two is not what happens; what happens is that the two rules cost the same once they are scored by the same criterion, which took a missing term to arrange.

The comparison that was not made

Choosing a whitening's window separately for every candidate costs 0.00401 of regret. The same question about an order was named and left, because the two lists are different lengths. The order's answer is 0.00360, and matching the lists changes almost nothing.

part 10 · lists

What a longer list actually changes. How often the five candidates choose different tuning parameters, at a true null where every one of them contains the truth, so a disagreement is manufactured rather than discovered. The order's list is an interval of integers, and thinning it moves the rate smoothly from 0% at two values to 39% at thirteen. The window's is not an interval — it runs 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 20, 30 — so a thinned window list jumps depending on whether it happens to keep the width the criterion wants, between 0% and 42% with no order to it. So "the same length" was never quite the same thing for the two rules, and it is a smaller effect than the field it was invoked to explain.

A list is not a rule

How often five candidates disagree about a tuning parameter runs from nothing at two values on the list to two draws in five at thirteen. What the disagreement costs does not move at all.

part 11 · lists

A rate times a size

A sweep reported what it costs to let every candidate choose its own tuning parameter and found it flat across the list. It was reporting a product, and the two things multiplied together do not behave the same way at all.

part 12 · apiece

The quarrel that changes the winner

A disagreement about the tuning parameter costs 0.031 when it changes which candidate the table selects and −0.0007 when it does not. The distance between the values disagreed about has nothing to do with it.

part 13 · apiece

The quantity that does not depend on the list. The probability that letting each candidate choose its own tuning parameter changes which candidate the table selects — the product of the two moving shares — against the length of the list, over 1200 draws apiece. It is 14.2%, 11.9%, 12.3%: a spread of 2.2% across a list length that moves the disagreement rate by a factor of 1.52. This is the invariant the whole field turns on. Everything downstream of the winner — the coefficients, the regret, whatever a reader is going to quote — is a function of whether the winner changed, and how often that happens is not something the list controls. A longer list changes how often the candidates quarrel and not how often the quarrel matters.

How often it matters

The disagreement rate rises by half across the list and the share of disagreements that decide anything falls by nearly the same factor. Their product — how often the tuning list changes which candidate wins — sits at an eighth and does not move.

part 14 · apiece

The eighth was not a constant. The probability that a per-candidate tuning list changes which candidate the table selects, at each of 5 separations between the candidates, over 800 draws apiece. The earlier field reports this flat at about an eighth across list length, on a table and a world it never varies. Vary how much the omitted coefficients are worth — one multiplier, with the table, the list, the law and the sample size all held — and it runs from 17.6% to 1.5%, a factor of 11.75. The world in which every candidate is true is the world in which the tuning list decides most; the world in which one candidate dominates is the world in which it decides nothing.

The eighth that was not a constant

How often a per-candidate tuning list changes which candidate wins is reported flat at about an eighth across list length. Vary how far apart the candidates are instead and it runs from 17.6% to 1.5%.

part 15 · turnover

Two factors pointing opposite ways

As the candidates on a table are pulled apart, they quarrel about the tuning parameter three times as often and the quarrel decides the winner thirty times less often. A sweep that reads the first factor has read the one pointing the wrong way.

part 16 · turnover

Flat along a row, apart between them. The probability that a per-candidate tuning list changes the winner, at three list lengths on three candidate tables, over 800 draws in each of the nine cells. Along a row — the reading the earlier field takes — it moves by a factor of at most 1.21, so that field's invariant survives on every table. Down a column it moves by up to 1.98. The list length is the dial that does not move this number and the table is one that does, and the earlier field varied only the first.

A table and a list

A nested ladder of candidates differing by one coefficient was predicted to turn over more often at every list length. It turns over less at every one, and its list changes the winner half as often.

part 17 · turnover

The same dial, on a list that steps by one. The probability that a per-candidate tuning list changes which candidate the table selects, at each of 5 separations, for both tuning parameters at a matched list length of 8. The sieve order runs from 13.1% to 2.6%, a factor of 5.00; the whitening window, from 16.4% to 1.5%, a factor of 11.75. What is held is the number of options, the table, the law, the sample size and the seeds; what cannot be held is the size of a step, since an integer step and a geometric step are different amounts of change. The dial moves both, and it moves them by 2.35 times as much on one as on the other.

A step that is not a ratio

Run the separation sweep on a tuning list of integers rather than a geometric ladder and the two factors still point opposite ways. The invariant does not survive: along a row of integers the probability moves by 2.163 where along the geometric ladder it moves by 1.208.

part 18 · turnover