Detecting early or late changes in linear models with heteroscedastic errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We construct and study a test to detect possible change points in the regression parameters of a linear model when the model errors and covariates may exhibit heteroscedasticity. Being based on a new trimming scheme for the CUSUM process introduced in Horváth et al. (2020), this test is particularly well suited to detect changes that might occur near the endpoints of the sample. A complete asymptotic theory for the test is developed under the null hypothesis of no change in the regression parameter, and consistency of the test is also established in the presence of a parameter change. Monte Carlo simulations show that our test is comparable to existing methods when the errors are homoscedastic. In contrast, existing methods developed for homoscedastic data are demonstrated to be ill‐sized and poorly performing in the presence of heteroscedasticity, while the proposed test continues to perform well in heteroscedastic environments. These results are further demonstrated in a study of the linear connection between the price of crude oil and the U.S. dollar, and in detecting changes points in asset pricing models surrounding the COVID‐19 pandemic.
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 | 0.028 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".