Kuldeep Kumar’s contribution to the Discussion of ‘New tools for network time series with an application to COVID-19 hospitalisations’ by Nason et al.

I would like to congratulate the authors for demonstrating an outstanding application of a relatively new tool—Network Time Series—on COVID-19 hospitalisation data. As shown in the paper, the GNAR (1,[1]) model exhibited excellent predictive performance, outperforming standard alternatives such as VAR, sparse VAR, CARar, and AR(1).<br/><br/>However, I am unsure why the authors chose not to use model selection criteria such as AIC or BIC, in line with the principle of parsimony, rather than relying on ACF and PACF plots, which involve a degree of visual subjectivity. Additionally, I am curious about the decision to focus primarily on autoregressive (AR) models instead of ARIMA models, which might be more suitable for data exhibiting integration or differencing requirements. Another point of concern is whether the authors have addressed the issue of “dark data,” particularly given the prevalence of Type I and Type II errors in COVID-19 diagnosis. Accounting for such errors could have significant implications for the reliability of model predictions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society)
Published
2025-09-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jrsssa/qnaf148
Primary Topic
Time Series Analysis and Forecasting
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Kuldeep Kumar’s contribution to the Discussion of ‘New tools for network time series with an application to COVID-19 hospitalisations’ by Nason et al.

Kuldeep Kumar
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society)
Time Series Analysis and Forecasting
article

Kuldeep Kumar’s contribution to the Discussion of ‘New tools for network time series with an application to COVID-19 hospitalisations’ by Nason et al.

Kuldeep Kumar
article en

Abstract

I would like to congratulate the authors for demonstrating an outstanding application of a relatively new tool—Network Time Series—on COVID-19 hospitalisation data. As shown in the paper, the GNAR (1,[1]) model exhibited excellent predictive performance, outperforming standard alternatives such as VAR, sparse VAR, CARar, and AR(1).<br/><br/>However, I am unsure why the authors chose not to use model selection criteria such as AIC or BIC, in line with the principle of parsimony, rather than relying on ACF and PACF plots, which involve a degree of visual subjectivity. Additionally, I am curious about the decision to focus primarily on autoregressive (AR) models instead of ARIMA models, which might be more suitable for data exhibiting integration or differencing requirements. Another point of concern is whether the authors have addressed the issue of “dark data,” particularly given the prevalence of Type I and Type II errors in COVID-19 diagnosis. Accounting for such errors could have significant implications for the reliability of model predictions.

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society)Vol. 189(1)
Bond University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 67%
Time Series Analysis and Forecasting
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.