BLOCK BOOTSTRAP HAC ROBUST TESTS: THE SOPHISTICATION OF THE NAIVE BOOTSTRAP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the properties of naive block bootstrap tests that are scaled by zero frequency spectral density estimators (long-run variance estimators). The naive bootstrap is a bootstrap where the formula used in the bootstrap world to compute standard errors is the same as the formula used on the original data. Simulation evidence shows that the naive bootstrap can be much more accurate than the standard normal approximation. The larger the HAC bandwidth, the greater the improvement. This improvement holds for a large number of popular kernels, including the Bartlett kernel, and it holds when the independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) bootstrap is used and yet the data are serially correlated. Using recently developed fixed-b asymptotics for HAC robust tests, we provide theoretical results that can explain the finite sample patterns. We show that the block bootstrap, including the special case of the i.i.d. bootstrap, has the same limiting distribution as the fixed-b asymptotic distribution. For the special case of a location model, we provide theoretical results that suggest the naive bootstrap can be more accurate than the standard normal approximation depending on the choice of the bandwidth and the number of finite moments in the data. Our theoretical results lay the foundation for a bootstrap asymptotic theory that is an alternative to the traditional approach based on Edgeworth expansions.
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 | 0.027 | 0.212 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".