IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The choice of a forecasting model

Listed author(s):
  • Fildes, Robert
  • Lusk, Edward J
Registered author(s):

    The major purpose of studies of forecasting accuracy is to help forecasters select the 'best' forecasting method. This paper examines accuracy studies in particular that of Makridakis et al. [20] with a view to establishing how they contribute to model choice. It is concluded that they affect the screening that most forecasters go through in selecting a range of methods to analyze--in Bayesian terms they are a major determinant of 'prior knowledge'. This general conclusion is illustrated in the specific case of the Makridakis Competition (M-Competition). A survey of expert forecasters was made in both the UK and US. The respondents were asked about their familiarity with eight methods of univariate time series forecasting, and their perceived accuracy in three different forecasting situations. The results, similar for both the UK and US, were that the forecasters were relatively familiar with all the techniques included except Holt-Winters and Bayesian. For short horizons Box-Jenkins was seen as most accurate while trend curves was perceived as most suitable for the long horizons. These results are contrasted with those of the M-Competition, and conclusions drawn on how the results of the M-Competition should influence model screening and model choice.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Omega.

    Volume (Year): 12 (1984)
    Issue (Month): 5 ()
    Pages: 427-435

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:12:y:1984:i:5:p:427-435
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:12:y:1984:i:5:p:427-435. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.