MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Portmanteau tests for ARMA models with infinite variance

2008· article· en· W2154239282 on OpenAlexaff
Junxiong Lin, A. Ian McLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Time Series Analysis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsAutoregressive modelAutoregressive–moving-average modelSeries (stratigraphy)Applied mathematicsVariance (accounting)RandomnessGaussianMonte Carlo methodStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Autoregressive and moving‐average (ARMA) models with stable Paretian errors are some of the most studied models for time series with infinite variance. Estimation methods for these models have been studied by many researchers but the problem of diagnostic checking of fitted models has not been addressed. In this article, we develop portmanteau tests for checking the randomness of a time series with infinite variance and for ARMA diagnostic checking when the innovations have infinite variance. It is assumed that least squares or an asymptotically equivalent estimation method, such as Gaussian maximum likelihood, is used. It is also assumed that the distribution of the innovations is identically and independently distributed (i.i.d.) stable Paretian. It is seen via simulation that the proposed portmanteau tests do not converge well to the corresponding limiting distributions for practical series length so a Monte Carlo test is suggested. Simulation experiments show that the proposed Monte Carlo test procedure works effectively. Two illustrative applications to actual data are provided to demonstrate that an incorrect conclusion may result if the usual portmanteau test based on the finite variance assumption is used.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.281
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.281
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Time Series AnalysisSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207