IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bes/jnlbes/v25y2007p177-190.html

Comparing Density Forecasts via Weighted Likelihood Ratio Tests

Author

Listed:
  • Amisano, Gianni
  • Giacomini, Raffaella

Abstract

We propose a test for comparing the out-of-sample accuracy of competing density forecasts of a variable. The test is valid under general conditions: the data can be heterogeneous and the forecasts can be based on (nested or non-nested) parametric models or produced by semi- parametric, non-parametric or Bayesian estimation techniques. The evaluation is based on scoring rules, which are loss functions de?ned over the density forecast and the realizations of the variable. We restrict attention to the logarithmic scoring rule and propose an out-of-sample weighted likelihood ratio test that compares weighted averages of the scores for the competing forecasts. The user-defined weights are a way to focus attention on di¤erent regions of the distribution of the variable. For a uniform weight function, the test can be interpreted as an extension of Vuong (1989)'s likelihood ratio test to time series data and to an out-of-sample testing framework. We apply the tests to evaluate density forecasts of US inflation produced by linear and Markov Switching Phillips curve models estimated by either maximum likelihood or Bayesian methods. We conclude that a Markov Switching Phillips curve estimated by maximum likelihood produces the best density forecasts of inflation.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Amisano, Gianni & Giacomini, Raffaella, 2007. "Comparing Density Forecasts via Weighted Likelihood Ratio Tests," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 25, pages 177-190, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bes:jnlbes:v:25:y:2007:p:177-190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asa/jbes/2007/00000025/00000002/art00009
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bes:jnlbes:v:25:y:2007:p:177-190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.amstat.org/publications/jbes/index.cfm?fuseaction=main .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.