Forecasting MiM Exercises Part3
Forecasting MiM Exercises Part3
Forecasting MiM Exercises Part3
Each of the first two exercises is worth a quarter of the total grade, while the third exercise is worth half of the
total grade. Have fun!
Exercise 3.1. (Ambiguity). We simulate a process as Yt = 0.9Yt−1 +Wt −0.9Wt−1 , where (Wt ) are i.i.d. N (0, 1) and
Y1 = 2.193, for T = 1, 000 steps. Figure 3.1 shows the series, the autocorrelogram and the partial autocorrelogram
of the series. Furthermore, when we try to estimate the parameters by running arima(y, order = c(1,0,1)) in
R, we get:
C a l l : arima ( x = y , o r d e r = c ( 1 , 0 , 1 ) )
Coefficients :
ar1 ma1 intercept
0.5765 −0.5190 0.0048
s.e. 0.2046 0.2132 0.0363
sigma ^2 e s t i m a t e d a s 1 . 0 2 4 : l o g l i k e l i h o o d = −1430.6 , aic = 2869.2
Series y Series y
1.0
0.8
2
0.6
Partial ACF
ACF
y
0.4
−0.02
0.2
−2
0.0
−0.06
Figure 3.1: Traceplot, autocorrelogram and partial autocorrelogram of (Yt ) in Exercise 3.1.
Exercise 3.2. (State space representation). Consider a four-dimensional process (Xt ). At each time t, the variable
Xt is a column vector with four entries, denoted by Xt,1 , Xt,2 , Xt,3 , Xt,4 . Consider the state equation relating Xt
to Xt−1 :
η1 1 0
0 t
η2
Xt−1 + ξ1 t ,
0 1 0
Xt =
ξ2 t
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 ξ 3 t
1
i.i.d.
where η1 , η2 , ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 are values in R, and (t ) ∼ N 0, σ 2 . We consider a univariate process (Yt ), which relates
to (Xt ) through the observation equation
Yt = 1 0 0 0 Xt .
Prove that the above state space model is equivalent to an ARMA(p,q) model for (Yt ), for which you will specify
p and q, and express the autoregressive and moving average parameters in terms of η1 , η2 , ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 .
Exercise 3.3. (Experts, laypeople and COVID-19). For this exercise, you must first read an article which you can
find on Moodle or here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250935,
entitled How well did experts and laypeople forecast the size of the COVID-19 pandemic?, by Gabriel Recchia,
Alexandra L. J. Freeman and David Spiegelhalter. Answer the following questions (briefly!) based on your under-
standing of the article.
1. According to the article, are experts’ predictions more accurate than non-experts’ predictions?
3. The authors describe how they turn each of the intervals, say (a, b), into a probability distribution. Denote
by X a random variable following the distribution constructed from the interval (a, b). What is the value of
the probability P(X ∈ (a, b))?
4. The authors write that “probability distributions of different individuals were combined with simple averaging
of the probabilities (i.e. ‘vertical’ combination)” to create the consensus distributions shown in Figures 1.(a)-
(b)-(c)-(d). Why are there spikes in the consensus distributions, particularly apparent in Figure 1.(a)?
• Overconfidence is influenced by the feedback that individuals receive about their predictions.
• Accountability might help to incentivize good calibration among forecasters.
• There is evidence that overconfident experts are invited more often to advise policy-makers and to give
interviews in the media.