ArticleThe British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology2026
An investigation into in-sample and out-of-sample model selection for nonstationary autoregressive models.
Article in The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An investigation into in-sample and out-of-sample model selection for nonstationary autoregressive models.The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology · 2026Article
- Modeling qualitative between-person heterogeneity in time series using latent class vector autoregressive models.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The stationary autoregressive model forms an important base of time-series analysis in today's psychology research. Diverse nonstationary extensions of this model are developed to capture different types of changing temporal dynamics. However, researchers do not always have a solid theoretical base to rely on for deciding a-priori which of these nonstationary models is the most appropriate for a given time-series. In this case, correct model selection becomes a crucial step to ensure an accurate understanding of the temporal dynamics. This study consists of two main parts. First, with a simulation study, we investigated the performance of in-sample (information criteria) and out-of-sample (cross-validation, out-of-sample prediction) model selection techniques in identifying six different univariate nonstationary processes. We found that the Bayesian information criteria (BIC) has an overall optimal performance whereas other techniques' performance depends largely on the time-series' length. Then, we re-analysed a 239-day-long time-series of positive and negative affect to illustrate the model selection process. Combining the simulation results and practical considerations from the empirical analysis, we argue that model selection for nonstationary time-series should not completely rely on data-driven approaches. Instead, more theory-driven approaches where researchers actively integrate their qualitative understanding will inform the data-driven approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.