A wavelet-based approach for Johansen’s likelihood ratio test for cointegration in the presence of measurement errors: An application to CO<sub>2</sub> emissions and real GDP data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We suggest a wavelet filtering technique as a remedy to the problem of measurement errors when testing for cointegration using Johansen’s (Citation1988) likelihood ratio test. Measurement errors, which more or less are always present in empirical economic data, essentially indicates that the variable of interest (the true signal) is contaminated with noise, which may induce biased and inconsistent estimates and erroneous inference. Our Monte Carlo experiments demonstrate that measurement errors distort the statistical size of Johansen’s cointegration test in finite samples; the test is significantly oversized. A contribution and major finding of this article is that the proposed wavelet-based technique significantly improves the statistical size of the traditional Johansen test in small and medium sized samples. Since Johansen’s test is a standard cointegration test, and we demonstrate that the constantly present measurement errors in empirical data over sizes the test, this simple alteration can be used in most situations with more reliable finite sample inference. We empirically examine the long-run relation between CO2 emissions and the real GDP in the G7 countries. The traditional Johansen tests provide evidence of an equilibrium relation for Canada and weak evidence for the US. However, the suggested size-unbiased wavelet-filtering approach consistently indicates no evidence of cointegration for all six countries.
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 | 0.012 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".