Evaluating Specification Tests for Markov‐Switching Time‐Series Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We evaluate the performance of several specification tests for Markov regime‐switching time‐series models. We consider the Lagrange multiplier (LM) and dynamic specification tests of Hamilton (1996) and Ljung–Box tests based on both the generalized residual and a standard‐normal residual constructed using the Rosenblatt transformation. The size and power of the tests are studied using Monte Carlo experiments. We find that the LM tests have the best size and power properties. The Ljung–Box tests exhibit slight size distortions, though tests based on the Rosenblatt transformation perform better than the generalized residual‐based tests. The tests exhibit impressive power to detect both autocorrelation and autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (ARCH). The tests are illustrated with a Markov‐switching generalized ARCH (GARCH) model fitted to the US dollar–British pound exchange rate, with the finding that both autocorrelation and GARCH effects are needed to adequately fit the 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 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 | 0.101 | 0.347 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".