MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886412929 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v7n5p19

Optimized Dickey-Fuller Test Refines Sign and Boundary Problems Compare to Traditional Dickey-Fuller Test

2018· article· en· W2886412929 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Masudul Islam, Afroza Akhtar, Sirajum Munira, Md. Salauddin Khan, Md Monzur Murshed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsUnit root testUnit rootSign (mathematics)Augmented Dickey–Fuller testTerm (time)Series (stratigraphy)StatisticsBoundary (topology)Ordinary least squaresSign testLimit (mathematics)Applied mathematicsMathematical analysisWilcoxon signed-rank testCointegrationMann–Whitney U test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impede nonstationarity is vigorous to study performance of time series data and removes long-term components to expose any regular short-term regularity. So, we find miscellaneous unit root tests for instance Dickey-Fuller test, Augmented Dickey-Fuller plus DF-GLS Tests and identify that almost all unit root tests with the estimated model suffer from sign and boundary problems of the parameters to smooth the progress of the non-stationarity problem. In this paper, we usage Dickey-Fuller test and impose some limits on the parameter. Our proposed optimized DF test based on error sum of square (ESS). Monto Carlo simulation method is used to generate simulated critical values for different sample size. Our proposed optimized DF test gives better result than the ordinary DF test with effectiveness, uniformity and power properties. Also, optimized DF improves the sign and boundary problems through imposing some limit on error sum of squares and capture more nonstationarity of time related data.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207