Heterogeneous autoregressions in short T panel data models (replication data)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers a first-order autoregressive panel data model with individual-specific effects and heterogeneous autoregressive coefficients defined on the interval (-1,1], thus allowing for some of the individual processes to have unit roots. It proposes estimators for the moments of the cross-sectional distribution of the autoregressive (AR) coefficients, assuming a random coefficient model for the autoregressive coefficients without imposing any restrictions on the fixed effects. It is shown the standard generalized method of moments estimators obtained under homogeneous slopes are biased. Small sample properties of the proposed estimators are investigated by Monte Carlo experiments and compared with a number of alternatives, both under homogeneous and heterogeneous slopes. It is found that a simple moment estimator of the mean of heterogeneous AR coefficients performs very well even for moderate sample sizes, but to reliably estimate the variance of AR coefficients much larger samples are required. It is also required that the true value of this variance is not too close to zero. The utility of the heterogeneous approach is illustrated in the case of earnings dynamics.
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 | 0.017 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".