A Comparison of Autometrics and Penalization Techniques under Various Error Distributions: Evidence from Monte Carlo Simulation
This work compares Autometrics with dual penalization techniques such as minimax concave penalty (MCP) and smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD) under asymmetric error distributions such as exponential, gamma, and Frechet with varying sample sizes as well as predictors. Comprehensive simulation...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | Complexity |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/9223763 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832551629299122176 |
|---|---|
| author | Faridoon Khan Amena Urooj Kalim Ullah Badr Alnssyan Zahra Almaspoor |
| author_facet | Faridoon Khan Amena Urooj Kalim Ullah Badr Alnssyan Zahra Almaspoor |
| author_sort | Faridoon Khan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This work compares Autometrics with dual penalization techniques such as minimax concave penalty (MCP) and smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD) under asymmetric error distributions such as exponential, gamma, and Frechet with varying sample sizes as well as predictors. Comprehensive simulations, based on a wide variety of scenarios, reveal that the methods considered show improved performance for increased sample size. In the case of low multicollinearity, these methods show good performance in terms of potency, but in gauge, shrinkage methods collapse, and higher gauge leads to overspecification of the models. High levels of multicollinearity adversely affect the performance of Autometrics. In contrast, shrinkage methods are robust in presence of high multicollinearity in terms of potency, but they tend to select a massive set of irrelevant variables. Moreover, we find that expanding the data mitigates the adverse impact of high multicollinearity on Autometrics rapidly and gradually corrects the gauge of shrinkage methods. For empirical application, we take the gold prices data spanning from 1981 to 2020. While comparing the forecasting performance of all selected methods, we divide the data into two parts: data over 1981–2010 are taken as training data, and those over 2011–2020 are used as testing data. All methods are trained for the training data and then are assessed for performance through the testing data. Based on a root-mean-square error and mean absolute error, Autometrics remain the best in capturing the gold prices trend and producing better forecasts than MCP and SCAD. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-c15beacc8c69438bba258680bff9261f |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1099-0526 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Complexity |
| spelling | doaj-art-c15beacc8c69438bba258680bff9261f2025-02-03T06:01:00ZengWileyComplexity1099-05262021-01-01202110.1155/2021/9223763A Comparison of Autometrics and Penalization Techniques under Various Error Distributions: Evidence from Monte Carlo SimulationFaridoon Khan0Amena Urooj1Kalim Ullah2Badr Alnssyan3Zahra Almaspoor4PIDE School of EconomicsPIDE School of EconomicsFoundation University Medical CollegeDepartment of Administrative Sciences and HumanitiesDepartment of StatisticsThis work compares Autometrics with dual penalization techniques such as minimax concave penalty (MCP) and smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD) under asymmetric error distributions such as exponential, gamma, and Frechet with varying sample sizes as well as predictors. Comprehensive simulations, based on a wide variety of scenarios, reveal that the methods considered show improved performance for increased sample size. In the case of low multicollinearity, these methods show good performance in terms of potency, but in gauge, shrinkage methods collapse, and higher gauge leads to overspecification of the models. High levels of multicollinearity adversely affect the performance of Autometrics. In contrast, shrinkage methods are robust in presence of high multicollinearity in terms of potency, but they tend to select a massive set of irrelevant variables. Moreover, we find that expanding the data mitigates the adverse impact of high multicollinearity on Autometrics rapidly and gradually corrects the gauge of shrinkage methods. For empirical application, we take the gold prices data spanning from 1981 to 2020. While comparing the forecasting performance of all selected methods, we divide the data into two parts: data over 1981–2010 are taken as training data, and those over 2011–2020 are used as testing data. All methods are trained for the training data and then are assessed for performance through the testing data. Based on a root-mean-square error and mean absolute error, Autometrics remain the best in capturing the gold prices trend and producing better forecasts than MCP and SCAD.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/9223763 |
| spellingShingle | Faridoon Khan Amena Urooj Kalim Ullah Badr Alnssyan Zahra Almaspoor A Comparison of Autometrics and Penalization Techniques under Various Error Distributions: Evidence from Monte Carlo Simulation Complexity |
| title | A Comparison of Autometrics and Penalization Techniques under Various Error Distributions: Evidence from Monte Carlo Simulation |
| title_full | A Comparison of Autometrics and Penalization Techniques under Various Error Distributions: Evidence from Monte Carlo Simulation |
| title_fullStr | A Comparison of Autometrics and Penalization Techniques under Various Error Distributions: Evidence from Monte Carlo Simulation |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Autometrics and Penalization Techniques under Various Error Distributions: Evidence from Monte Carlo Simulation |
| title_short | A Comparison of Autometrics and Penalization Techniques under Various Error Distributions: Evidence from Monte Carlo Simulation |
| title_sort | comparison of autometrics and penalization techniques under various error distributions evidence from monte carlo simulation |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/9223763 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT faridoonkhan acomparisonofautometricsandpenalizationtechniquesundervariouserrordistributionsevidencefrommontecarlosimulation AT amenaurooj acomparisonofautometricsandpenalizationtechniquesundervariouserrordistributionsevidencefrommontecarlosimulation AT kalimullah acomparisonofautometricsandpenalizationtechniquesundervariouserrordistributionsevidencefrommontecarlosimulation AT badralnssyan acomparisonofautometricsandpenalizationtechniquesundervariouserrordistributionsevidencefrommontecarlosimulation AT zahraalmaspoor acomparisonofautometricsandpenalizationtechniquesundervariouserrordistributionsevidencefrommontecarlosimulation AT faridoonkhan comparisonofautometricsandpenalizationtechniquesundervariouserrordistributionsevidencefrommontecarlosimulation AT amenaurooj comparisonofautometricsandpenalizationtechniquesundervariouserrordistributionsevidencefrommontecarlosimulation AT kalimullah comparisonofautometricsandpenalizationtechniquesundervariouserrordistributionsevidencefrommontecarlosimulation AT badralnssyan comparisonofautometricsandpenalizationtechniquesundervariouserrordistributionsevidencefrommontecarlosimulation AT zahraalmaspoor comparisonofautometricsandpenalizationtechniquesundervariouserrordistributionsevidencefrommontecarlosimulation |