SEARCHING FOR ADDITIVE OUTLIERS IN NONSTATIONARY TIME SERIES*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Recently, Vogelsang (1999) proposed a method to detect outliers which explicitly imposes the null hypothesis of a unit root. It works in an iterative fashion to select multiple outlier in a given series. We show, via simulations, that, under the null hypothesis of no outliers, it has the right size in finite samples to detect a single outlier but, when applied in an iterative fashion to select multiple outliers, it exhibits severe size distortions towards finding an excessive number of outliers. We show that his iterative method is incorrect and derive the appropriate limiting distribution of the test at each step of the search. Whether corrected or not, we also show that the outliers need to be very large for the method to have any decent power. We propose an alternative method based on first‐differenced data that has considerably more power. We also show that our method to identify outliers leads to unit root tests with more accurate finite sample size and robustness to departures from a unit root. The issues are illustrated using two US/Finland real‐exchange rate series.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it