Testing Non‐Correlation and Non‐Causality between Multivariate ARMA Time Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Haugh [Journal of the American Statistical Association (1976) Vol. 71, pp. 378–85] developed an approach to the problem of testing non‐correlation (at all leads and lags) between two univariate time series. Haugh's tests however have low power against two series which are related over a long distributed lag when individual lag coefficients are relatively small. As a remedy, Koch and Yang [Journal of the American Statistical Association (1986) Vol. 8, pp. 533–44] proposed an alternative method that performs better than Haugh's under such dependencies. A multivariate extension of Haugh's procedure was proposed by El Himdi and Roy [The Canadian Journal of Statistics (1997) Vol. 25, pp. 233–56], but suffers the same weaknesses as the original univariate method. We develop here an asymptotic test generalizing Koch and Yang's method to the multivariate case. Our method includes El Himdi and Roy's as a special case. Based on the same idea, we also suggest a generalization of the El Himdi and Roy procedure for testing causality in the sense of Granger [Econometrica (1969) Vol. 37, pp. 424–38] between two multivariate series. A Monte Carlo study is conducted, which indicates that our approach performs better than El Himdi and Roy's for a wide range of models. Both procedures are applied to the problem of testing the absence of correlation between Canadian and US economic indicators, and to a brief study of causality between money and income in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".