Article

Sup-tests for linearity in a general nonlinear AR(1) model

Econometric Theory (Impact Factor: 1.15). 01/2010; 26(04):965-993. DOI: 10.1017/S0266466609990430
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT We consider linearity testing in a general class of nonlinear time series models of order one, involving a nonnegative nuisance parameter that (a) is not identified under the null hypothesis and (b) gives the linear model when equal to zero. This paper studies the asymptotic distribution of the likelihood ratio test and asymptotically equivalent supremum tests. The asymptotic distribution is described as a functional of chi-square processes and is obtained without imposing a positive lower bound for the nuisance parameter. The finite-sample properties of the sup-tests are studied by simulations.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Lajos Horvath, Aug 24, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
111 Views
  • Source
    • "This is one of testing problems when nuisance parameters are not identifiable under the null hypothesis. Inference under similar situations have been studied by Hansen (1996) and Francq et al. (2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper investigates the identifiability conditions of M-estimation for some nonlinear time series models. We present primitive conditions for the identifiability in smooth transition GARCH, nonlinear Poisson autoregressive, and multiple regime smooth transition AR models. As an unexpected result, the smooth transition GARCH model turns out not to require the familiar common root condition for the identifiability. The method for verification is anticipated to be applicable to other nonlinear models.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this paper we develop testing procedures for the detection of structural changes in nonlinear autoregressive processes. For the detection procedure we model the regression function by a single layer feedforward neural network. We show that CUSUM-type tests based on cumulative sums of estimated residuals, that have been intensively studied for linear regression, can be extended to this case. The limit distribution under the null hypothesis is obtained, which is needed to construct asymptotic tests. For a large class of alternatives it is shown that the tests have asymptotic power one. In this case, we obtain a consistent change-point estimator which is related to the test statistics. Power and size are further investigated in a small simulation study with a partic-ular emphasis on situations where the model is misspecified, i.e. the data is not generated by a neural network but some other regression function. As illustration, an application on the Nile data set as well as S&P log-returns is given.
    Journal of Time Series Analysis 04/2011; 33(3). DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9892.2011.00764.x · 0.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Supremum score test statistics are often used to evaluate hypotheses with unidentifiable nuisance parameters under the null hypothesis. Although these statistics provide an attractive framework to address non-identifiability under the null hypothesis, little attention has been paid to their distributional properties in small to moderate sample size settings. In situations where there are identifiable nuisance parameters under the null hypothesis, these statistics may behave erratically in realistic samples as a result of a non-negligible bias induced by substituting these nuisance parameters by their estimates under the null hypothesis. In this paper, we propose an adjustment to the supremum score statistics by subtracting the expected bias from the score processes and show that this adjustment does not alter the limiting null distribution of the supremum score statistics. Using a simple example from the class of zero-inflated regression models for count data, we show empirically and theoretically that the adjusted tests are superior in terms of size and power. The practical utility of this methodology is illustrated using count data in HIV research.
    Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 11/2014; DOI:10.1111/sjos.12134 · 1.06 Impact Factor
Show more