MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105499585 · doi:10.1081/etc-200049135

ROBUST ASYMPTOTIC INFERENCE IN AUTOREGRESSIVE MODELS WITH MARTINGALE DIFFERENCE ERRORS

2005· article· en· W2105499585 on OpenAlexafffund
Nikolay Gospodinov

Bibliographic record

VenueEconometric Reviews · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAutoregressive modelEstimatorMathematicsInferenceConfidence intervalMartingale difference sequenceEconometricsStatisticsHeteroscedasticityCoverage probabilityLikelihood functionMartingale (probability theory)Maximum likelihoodComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a GMM-based method for asymptotic confidence interval construction in stationary autoregressive models, which is robust to the presence of conditional heteroskedasticity of unknown form. The confidence regions are obtained by inverting the asymptotic acceptance region of the distance metric test for the continuously updated GMM (CU-GMM) estimator. Unlike the predetermined symmetric shape of the Wald confidence intervals, the shape of the proposed confidence intervals is data-driven owing an estimated sequence of nonuniform weights. It appears that the flexibility of the CU-GMM estimator in downweighting certain observations proves advantageous for confidence interval construction. This stands in contrast to some other generalized empirical likelihood estimators with appealing optimality properties such as the empirical likelihood estimator whose objective function prevents such downweighting. A Monte Carlo simulation study illustrates the excellent small-sample properties of the method for AR models with ARCH errors. The procedure is applied to study the dynamics of the federal funds rate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.248
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.122 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconometric ReviewsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207