On Sun, 20 Aug 2017, Sven Schreiber wrote:
Am 17.08.2017 um 21:27 schrieb Allin Cottrell:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Ioannis A. Venetis wrote:
> I agree that "rolling" tends to imply a moving estimation window
> of fixed length, and if "recursive" is the term used by
> forecasters for what gretl does under the --rolling option, we
> should switch. This is now in git (though "--rolling" is still
> accepted as an alias until further notice).
>
> However, I'd like to register a mild objection. To my mind a
> recursive process is one that loops back on itself (e.g. a
> function that calls itself). In that light a "recursive" forecast
> would be one which progressively replaces known values of
> regressors with forecasted values as the horizon is lengthened.
> If I had to choose a single English word to describe what gretl
> does under the rolling or recursive option I guess I'd choose
> "sequential".
I agree, and of course it's all a matter of convention. What you
describe as the "ideal" meaning of recursive is also used in
Diebold's forecasting texts.
Actually you basically paraphrased him, here's a quote from his
book:
"Recursive estimation means beginning with a small sample of data,
estimating a model, adding an observation and reestimating the
model, and continuing in that fashion until the sample is
exhausted.[FN9]"
...and FN9 says:
"Strictly speaking, sequential might be a more descriptive
adjective than recursive. Recursive updating refers to the fact
that an estimate based on t + 1 observations can sometimes be
computed simply by appropriately combining the old estimate based
on t observations with the new observation. (This is possible, for
example, with linear least-squares regression.) Recursive updating
achieves a drastic reduction in computational requirements
relative to complete reestimation of the model each time the
sample is updated, which we might call "brute force updating." For
our purposes, it's inconsequential whether we do recursive
updating or brute force updating (and the speed of modern
computers often makes brute force attractive); we use recursive
estimation as a blanket term for any sequential estimation
procedure, whether the computations are done by recursive or brute
force techniques."
The important thing would be to replace "rolling", but perhaps
it's also a good time to be more accurate and indeed use
"sequential".
Thanks for the reference, Sven. We have now replaced "rolling" (with
"recursive"), but I think it's too late to propose an amendment to
forecasting terminology.
If you google "recursive forecast" all the top hits, including
Eurostat and Eric Zivot's class notes among other authorities,
simply take "recursive" to mean use of an expanding window rather
than a ("rolling") window of fixed size. So be it -- even if this is
not really recursion in the proper sense of the word.
Scanning the Diebold quotation, I think his concern is actually a
little different from mine. His seems to center on the algorithm
used to produce a new forecast as time marches on and the
"recursive" estimation window expands: do you re-estimate the model
from scratch ("brute force"), or employ some clever trick to adjust
the previous parameter estimates given the new data?
I'm sure I've read about such a trick, which I suppose would involve
preserving and augmenting the original X'X. This may well have made
sense "back in the day" of laborious computation but it now seems
kinda old-fashioned: OLS is so fast that that it's hardly worth the
bother of coding a special routine to update a model by one
observation.
Allin