Paper detail

Goodness-of-Fit Test for Mismatched Self-Exciting Processes

Recently there have been many research efforts in developing generative models for self-exciting point processes, partly due to their broad applicability for real-world applications. However, rarely can we quantify how well the generative model captures the nature or ground-truth since it is usually unknown. The challenge typically lies in the fact that the generative models typically provide, at most, good approximations to the ground-truth (e.g., through the rich representative power of neural networks), but they cannot be precisely the ground-truth. We thus cannot use the classic goodness-of-fit (GOF) test framework to evaluate their performance. In this paper, we develop a GOF test for generative models of self-exciting processes by making a new connection to this problem with the classical statistical theory of Quasi-maximum-likelihood estimator (QMLE). We present a non-parametric self-normalizing statistic for the GOF test: the Generalized Score (GS) statistics, and explicitly capture the model misspecification when establishing the asymptotic distribution of the GS statistic. Numerical simulation and real-data experiments validate our theory and demonstrate the proposed GS test's good performance.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.