I have conducted an analysis on a time series dataset, and the issue is that the 'manual' ARIMA (SARIMA) performed in Gretl gives me a model (3,0,1)(1,1,1) with all *** and AIC=1595.332. However, when analyzing the same dataset with R, it suggests that the best model is (1,1,0)(1,0,0) with AIC=1602.51.
When I input the Gretl model (3,0,1)(1,1,1) into R, the results show an AIC of 1589.14 (just for control). I also tried the auto.arima model from R in Gretl, and the results are: only ar1*** and AIC=1628.738.
Could someone please explain to me why the auto.arima function gives a different model (with higher AIC) compared to the manual ARIMA in Gretl? In simple terms, why is the ARIMA model in Gretl considered better than the one suggested by auto.arima in R?
Thank you, and I hope someone can clarify this.
auto.arima()performs a greedy search over possible models, and can absolutely get stuck in local minima. Since the two integration orders differ, apparently the tests for seasonality and integration did not suggest differencing was necessary, which is quite possible. Finally, AIC calculations are not cast in stone, especially when differencing is involved, because there are different possible ways to calculate likelihoods in time series contexts. – Stephan Kolassa Feb 01 '24 at 08:14