IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aistmt/v74y2022i3d10.1007_s10463-021-00808-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterizing the optimal solutions to the isotonic regression problem for identifiable functionals

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander I. Jordan

    (Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies)

  • Anja Mühlemann

    (University of Bern)

  • Johanna F. Ziegel

    (University of Bern)

Abstract

In general, the solution to a regression problem is the minimizer of a given loss criterion and depends on the specified loss function. The nonparametric isotonic regression problem is special, in that optimal solutions can be found by solely specifying a functional. These solutions will then be minimizers under all loss functions simultaneously as long as the loss functions have the requested functional as the Bayes act. For the functional, the only requirement is that it can be defined via an identification function, with examples including the expectation, quantile, and expectile functionals. Generalizing classical results, we characterize the optimal solutions to the isotonic regression problem for identifiable functionals by rigorously treating these functionals as set-valued. The results hold in the case of totally or partially ordered explanatory variables. For total orders, we show that any solution resulting from the pool-adjacent-violators algorithm is optimal.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander I. Jordan & Anja Mühlemann & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2022. "Characterizing the optimal solutions to the isotonic regression problem for identifiable functionals," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 74(3), pages 489-514, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aistmt:v:74:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10463-021-00808-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10463-021-00808-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10463-021-00808-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10463-021-00808-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    2. Werner Ehm & Tilmann Gneiting & Alexander Jordan & Fabian Krüger, 2016. "Of quantiles and expectiles: consistent scoring functions, Choquet representations and forecast rankings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 505-562, June.
    3. Sysoev, O. & Burdakov, O. & Grimvall, A., 2011. "A segmentation-based algorithm for large-scale partially ordered monotonic regression," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(8), pages 2463-2476, August.
    4. Andrew J. Patton, 2020. "Comparing Possibly Misspecified Forecasts," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 796-809, October.
    5. Groeneboom,Piet & Jongbloed,Geurt, 2014. "Nonparametric Estimation under Shape Constraints," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521864015, September.
    6. Patton, Andrew J., 2011. "Volatility forecast comparison using imperfect volatility proxies," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 160(1), pages 246-256, January.
    7. Newey, Whitney K & Powell, James L, 1987. "Asymmetric Least Squares Estimation and Testing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 819-847, July.
    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. Yen, Yu-Min & Yen, Tso-Jung, 2021. "Testing forecast accuracy of expectiles and quantiles with the extremal consistent loss functions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 733-758.
    2. Mucahit Aygun & Fabio Bellini & Roger J. A. Laeven, 2023. "Elicitability of Return Risk Measures," Papers 2302.13070, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    3. Fissler Tobias & Ziegel Johanna F., 2021. "On the elicitability of range value at risk," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 38(1-2), pages 25-46, January.
    4. James Ming Chen, 2018. "On Exactitude in Financial Regulation: Value-at-Risk, Expected Shortfall, and Expectiles," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-28, June.
    5. Patrick Schmidt & Matthias Katzfuss & Tilmann Gneiting, 2021. "Interpretation of point forecasts with unknown directive," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(6), pages 728-743, September.
    6. Tobias Fissler & Jana Hlavinová & Birgit Rudloff, 2021. "Elicitability and identifiability of set-valued measures of systemic risk," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 133-165, January.
    7. Alexander Henzi & Johanna F. Ziegel & Tilmann Gneiting, 2021. "Isotonic distributional regression," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(5), pages 963-993, November.
    8. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    9. Qinyu Wu & Fan Yang & Ping Zhang, 2023. "Conditional generalized quantiles based on expected utility model and equivalent characterization of properties," Papers 2301.12420, arXiv.org.
    10. Denuit, Michel & Trufin, Julien, 2022. "Autocalibration by balance correction in nonlife insurance pricing," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2022041, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    11. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2019. "Evaluating Range Value at Risk Forecasts," Papers 1902.04489, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2020.
    12. Werner Ehm & Tilmann Gneiting & Alexander Jordan & Fabian Krüger, 2016. "Of quantiles and expectiles: consistent scoring functions, Choquet representations and forecast rankings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 505-562, June.
    13. Klaus Herrmann & Marius Hofert & Melina Mailhot, 2017. "Multivariate Geometric Expectiles," Papers 1704.01503, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2018.
    14. Patton, Andrew J. & Ziegel, Johanna F. & Chen, Rui, 2019. "Dynamic semiparametric models for expected shortfall (and Value-at-Risk)," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 388-413.
    15. Taylor, James W., 2020. "Forecast combinations for value at risk and expected shortfall," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 428-441.
    16. Xenxo Vidal-Llana & Carlos Salort Sánchez & Vincenzo Coia & Montserrat Guillen, 2022. ""Non-Crossing Dual Neural Network: Joint Value at Risk and Conditional Tail Expectation estimations with non-crossing conditions"," IREA Working Papers 202215, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Oct 2022.
    17. Alexander Henzi & Johanna F Ziegel, 2022. "Valid sequential inference on probability forecast performance [A comparison of the ECMWF, MSC, and NCEP global ensemble prediction systems]," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 109(3), pages 647-663.
    18. Fabio Bellini & Ilia Negri & Mariya Pyatkova, 2019. "Backtesting VaR and expectiles with realized scores," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 28(1), pages 119-142, March.
    19. Mohammedi, Mustapha & Bouzebda, Salim & Laksaci, Ali, 2021. "The consistency and asymptotic normality of the kernel type expectile regression estimator for functional data," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    20. Tobias Fissler & Yannick Hoga, 2021. "Backtesting Systemic Risk Forecasts using Multi-Objective Elicitability," Papers 2104.10673, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.

    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:spr:aistmt:v:74:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10463-021-00808-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.