MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Testing for Multivariate Threshold Autoregression

2011· article· en· W3124772184 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shu-Ing Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in mathematical sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsAutoregressive modelScore testHomoscedasticityApplied mathematicsMultivariate statisticsBayesian vector autoregressionMartingale (probability theory)Vector autoregressionLikelihood-ratio testRobustness (evolution)Lagrange multiplierStatisticsMathematical optimizationBayesian probabilityHeteroscedasticity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we propose a testing procedure for multivariate threshold autoregression with the disturbances following conditional homoscedastic martingale difference sequences. A right-tailed asymptotic distribution of the proposed test statistics is derived and the accuracy is investigated by simulations. The numerical simulations however show a remarkable robustness to a miss-specification of the order of the AR model. This encourages one to apply the asymptotic results, which will make the computation more convenient in actual applications. Furthermore, some numerical simulations indicate that the proposed test is more powerful than the test in [12]. Key Words: Eigenvalues; Lagrange-multiplier test; Likelihood ratio test; Martingale differences; Threshold autoregression

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.482
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.101 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in mathematical sciencesSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207