IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fir/econom/wp2003_04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Flexible Tool for Model Building: the Relevant Transformation of the Inputs Network Approach (RETINA)

Author

Abstract

A new method, called relevant transformation of the inputs network approach (RETINA) is proposed as a tool for model building and selection. It is designed to improve on some of the shortcomings of neural networks. RETINA has the flexibility of neural network models, the concavity of the likelihood in the weights of the usual linear models, and the ability to identify a parsimonious set of attributes that are likely to be relevant for predicting out of sample outcomes. It achieves flexibility by considering transformations of the original inputs; it splits the sample into three disjoint subsamples, sorts the candidate regressors by a saliency feature, chooses the models in subsample 1, uses subsample 2 for parameter estimation, and uses subsample 3 for cross-validation. It is modular, can be used as a data exploratory tool, and is computationally feasible in personal computers. In tests on simulated data, it achieves high rates of successes when the sample size or the R2 are large enough. As our experiments show, it is superior to alternative procedures such as the non-negative garrote and backward stepwise regression.

Suggested Citation

  • Teodosio Perez-Amaral & Giampiero M. Gallo & Halbert L. White, 2003. "A Flexible Tool for Model Building: the Relevant Transformation of the Inputs Network Approach (RETINA)," Econometrics Working Papers Archive wp2003_04, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
  • Handle: RePEc:fir:econom:wp2003_04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://labdisia.disia.unifi.it/ricerca/pubblicazioni/working_papers/2003/wp2003_04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin D. Hoover & Stephen J. Perez, 1999. "Data mining reconsidered: encompassing and the general-to-specific approach to specification search," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 2(2), pages 167-191.
    2. West, Kenneth D, 1996. "Asymptotic Inference about Predictive Ability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(5), pages 1067-1084, September.
    3. Krolzig, Hans-Martin & Hendry, David F., 2001. "Computer automation of general-to-specific model selection procedures," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 25(6-7), pages 831-866, June.
    4. Inoue, Atsushi & Kilian, Lutz, 2006. "On the selection of forecasting models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 273-306, February.
    5. Clive Granger & Allan Timmermann, 1999. "Data mining with local model specification uncertainty: a discussion of Hoover and Perez," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 2(2), pages 220-225.
    6. Granger, Clive W. J. & King, Maxwell L. & White, Halbert, 1995. "Comments on testing economic theories and the use of model selection criteria," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 173-187, May.
    7. Raffaella Giacomini & Halbert White, 2006. "Tests of Conditional Predictive Ability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1545-1578, November.
    8. Sin, Chor-Yiu & White, Halbert, 1996. "Information criteria for selecting possibly misspecified parametric models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1-2), pages 207-225.
    9. Diebold, Francis X & Mariano, Roberto S, 2002. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 134-144, January.
    10. David F. Hendry & Hans-Martin Krolzig, 1999. "Improving on 'Data mining reconsidered' by K.D. Hoover and S.J. Perez," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 2(2), pages 202-219.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Todd E. Clark, 2004. "Can out-of-sample forecast comparisons help prevent overfitting?," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 115-139.
    2. Mogliani, Matteo & Darné, Olivier & Pluyaud, Bertrand, 2017. "The new MIBA model: Real-time nowcasting of French GDP using the Banque de France's monthly business survey," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 26-39.
    3. Marie Bessec, 2010. "Etalonnages du taux de croissance du PIB français sur la base des enquêtes de conjoncture," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(2), pages 77-99.
    4. Hansen, Peter Reinhard & Lunde, Asger, 2006. "Consistent ranking of volatility models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 131(1-2), pages 97-121.
    5. Ahmed, Shamim & Liu, Xiaoquan & Valente, Giorgio, 2016. "Can currency-based risk factors help forecast exchange rates?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 75-97.
    6. Rossi, Barbara, 2013. "Advances in Forecasting under Instability," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1203-1324, Elsevier.
    7. West, Kenneth D., 2006. "Forecast Evaluation," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 3, pages 99-134, Elsevier.
    8. Kirstin Hubrich & Kenneth D. West, 2010. "Forecast evaluation of small nested model sets," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 574-594.
    9. Raffaella Giacomini & Barbara Rossi, 2010. "Forecast comparisons in unstable environments," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 595-620.
    10. Clark, Todd & McCracken, Michael, 2013. "Advances in Forecast Evaluation," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1107-1201, Elsevier.
    11. Costantini, Mauro & Kunst, Robert M., 2021. "On using predictive-ability tests in the selection of time-series prediction models: A Monte Carlo evaluation," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 445-460.
    12. Hubrich, Kirstin, 2005. "Forecasting euro area inflation: Does aggregating forecasts by HICP component improve forecast accuracy?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 119-136.
    13. Todd E. Clark & Michael W. McCracken, 2010. "Reality checks and nested forecast model comparisons," Working Papers 2010-032, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
    14. Calhoun, Gray, 2014. "Out-Of-Sample Comparisons of Overfit Models," Staff General Research Papers Archive 32462, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Filip Staněk, 2023. "Optimal out‐of‐sample forecast evaluation under stationarity," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2249-2279, December.
    16. João C. Claudio & Katja Heinisch & Oliver Holtemöller, 2020. "Nowcasting East German GDP growth: a MIDAS approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 29-54, January.
    17. Cavit Pakel & Neil Shephard & Kevin Sheppard, 2009. "Nuisance parameters, composite likelihoods and a panel of GARCH models," Economics Papers 2009-W12, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    18. Xilong Chen & Eric Ghysels, 2011. "News--Good or Bad--and Its Impact on Volatility Predictions over Multiple Horizons," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 24(1), pages 46-81, October.
    19. Norman R. Swanson & Weiqi Xiong, 2018. "Big data analytics in economics: What have we learned so far, and where should we go from here?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 695-746, August.
    20. Kapetanios, George & Marcellino, Massimiliano & Papailias, Fotis, 2016. "Forecasting inflation and GDP growth using heuristic optimisation of information criteria and variable reduction methods," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 369-382.

    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:fir:econom:wp2003_04. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Fabrizio Cipollini (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dsfirit.html .

    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.