Abstract

To capture location shifts in the context of model selection, we propose selecting significant step indicators from a saturating set added to the union of all of the candidate variables. The null retention frequency and approximate non-centrality of a selection test are derived using a ‘split-half’ analysis, the simplest specialization of a multiple-path block-search algorithm. Monte Carlo simulations, extended to sequential reduction, confirm the accuracy of nominal significance levels under the null and show retentions when location shifts occur, improving the non-null retention frequency compared to the corresponding impulse-indicator saturation (IIS)-based method and the lasso.

Highlights

  • Unmodelled location shifts can have pernicious effects on the constancy of models and on forecast performance

  • Hendry et al [3] derive the null distribution of indicator saturation (IIS) for independent, identically distributed (IID) data, and [4] generalize that analysis to dynamic regression models

  • We investigate the power of a step indicator to detect a known mean shift from λ1 6= 0 to λ1 = 0 at time 0 < T1 < T /2 in the data generation process (DGP): yt = μ + λ1 1{t≤T1 } + t where t ∼ IN 0, σ2 (6)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Unmodelled location shifts (changes in previous unconditional means of data) can have pernicious effects on the constancy of models and on forecast performance. Indicator saturation methods (such as IIS and SIS) are feasible because software, like Autometrics, can handle more candidate variables N than observations T during model selection using a combination of expanding and contracting multiple block searches, as described in [13], [14] (Chapter 19), and [15]. In this selection context, the null retention frequency of indicators is called the gauge by [16], akin to the size of a test denoting its (false) null rejection frequency, but taking into account that indicators that are insignificant on a pre-assigned criterion may be retained to offset what would otherwise be a significant misspecification test.

Step-Indicator Saturation
Analytical Power of a Step-Indicator Test for a Known Mean Shift
Potency of SIS for an Unknown Location Shift
Unknown Shift Period Matched by a Single Step Indicator
Simulating an Unknown Shift Period Matched by a Single Indicator
Misspecified Indicator Timing
Unknown Shift Requiring a Two-Step Indicator in One-Half Sample
Unknown Opposite-Signed Shifts in Each Split Half
Unknown Equal Shifts in Each Split Half
Unknown Shift Period Spanning Both Splits
Summary of the Simulation Results
Generalization to Retained Regressors
Comparisons with Least Angle Regression
Non-Linearity and SIS
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.