MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025462174 · doi:10.1017/s0266466622000652

NEARLY EFFICIENT LIKELIHOOD RATIO TESTS OF A UNIT ROOT IN AN AUTOREGRESSIVE MODEL OF ARBITRARY ORDER

2022· article· en· W3025462174 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel Brien, Michael Jansson, Morten Ørregaard Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueEconometric Theory · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersQueen's UniversityDanmarks GrundforskningsfondNational Research Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsAutoregressive modelUnit rootLikelihood-ratio testSieve (category theory)StatisticsApplied mathematicsGaussianSTAR modelScore testEconometricsAutoregressive integrated moving averageCombinatoricsTime series

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study large sample properties of likelihood ratio tests of the unit-root hypothesis in an autoregressive model of arbitrary order. Earlier research on this testing problem has developed likelihood ratio tests in the autoregressive model of order 1, but resorted to a plug-in approach when dealing with higher-order models. In contrast, we consider the full model and derive the relevant large sample properties of likelihood ratio tests under a local-to-unity asymptotic framework. As in the simpler model, we show that the full likelihood ratio tests are nearly efficient, in the sense that their asymptotic local power functions are virtually indistinguishable from the Gaussian power envelopes. Extensions to sieve-type approximations and different classes of alternatives are also considered.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.223
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.223
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconometric TheorySame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207