arxiv: v4 [math.st] 29 Aug 2017

Transcription

1 A Critical Value Function Approach, with an Application to Persistent Time-Series Marcelo J. Moreira, and Rafael Mourão arxiv: v4 [math.st] 29 Aug 27 Escola de Pós-Graduação em Economia e Finanças (FGV/EPGE) Getulio Vargas Foundation - th floor Praia de Botafogo 9 Rio de Janeiro - RJ moreiramj@fgv.r Astract: Researchers often rely on the t-statistic to make inference on parameters in statistical models. It is common practice to otain critical values y simulation techniques. This paper proposes a novel numerical method to otain an approximately similar test. This test rejects the null hypothesis when the test statistic is larger than a critical value function (CVF) of the data. We illustrate this procedure when regressors are highly persistent, a case in which commonly-used simulation methods encounter difficulties controlling size uniformly. Our approach works satisfactorily, controls size, and yields a test which outperforms the two other known similar tests. MSC 2 suject classifications: Primary 6F99, 62G9; secondary 62P2. Keywords and phrases: t-statistic, ootstrap, susampling, similar tests.. Introduction The exact distriution of a test statistic is often unknown to the researcher. If the statistic is asymptotically pivotal, the quantile ased on the limiting distriution is commonly used as a critical value. Simulation methods aim to find approximations to such a quantile, including the Quenouille-Tukey jackknife, the ootstrap method of Efron [8], and the susampling approach of Politis and Romano [6]. These methods are valid for a variety of models, as proved y Bickel and Freedman [4], Politis et al. [7], and Romano and Shaikh [8]. For some testing prolems, however, the distriution of a statistic can actually e sensitive to the unknown proaility distriution. This dependence can e related to the curvature of the model, in the sense of Efron [6, 7], not vanishing asymptotically. This curvature creates difficulty in drawing inference on parameters of interest. Usual tests may not control size uniformly and confidence regions do not necessarily cover the true parameter at the nominal level. As standard simulation methods may not circumvent the sensitivity to unknown parameters, there is a need to develop methods that take this dependence into consideration. The goal of this paper is to directly tackle the core of the prolem, adjusting for the sensitivity of the test statistic to nuisance parameters. In practice, our method entails replacing a critical value numer y a critical value function (CVF) of the data. The CVF is a linear comination of density ratios under the null distriution. The weight choice in this comination is at the discretion of the researcher. We focus here on cominations that yield tests which are approximately similar. These weights can e found y linear programming (LP). We illustrate the CVF procedure with a simple ut important model in which the regressor may e integrated. Jeganathan [, 2] shows that the limit of experiments is Locally Asymptotically Brownian Functional (LABF). The usual test statistics are no imsart-generic ver. 24//6 file: arxivnearlyinteg26e.tex date: August, 28

2 longer asymptotically pivotal and the theory of optimal tests ased on Locally Asymptotically Mixed Normal (LAMN) experiments is no longer applicale. The ootstrap and susampling may not provide uniform control in size and confidence levels, as discussed y Basawa et al. [2] and Politis and Romano [6], among others. The similar t-test ased on the CVF has null rejection proailities close to the nominal level regardless of the value of the autoregressive parameter. While this paper does not focus on otaining optimal procedures, the proposed similar t-test does have good power. It has correct size and outperforms the two other tests that are known to e similar: the L 2 test of Wright [2] and the uniformly most powerful conditionally uniased () test of Jansson and Moreira []. This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the CVF approach and shows how to find tests which are approximately similar in finite samples. Section 3 presents the predictive regressor model and otains approximations that are asymptotically valid whether the disturances are normal or not. Section 4 provides numerical simulations to compare the similar t-test with existing procedures in terms of size and power. Section 5 concludes. Appendix A provides a ound ased on a discrepancy error useful to implement the CVF. Appendix B contains the proofs to the theory underlying the CVF. The supplement presents additional numerical results and remaining proofs. 2. Inference Based on the t-statistic Commonly used tests for H : β β against H : β > β reject the null hypothesis when some statistic ψ is larger than a critical value κ α (we omit here the dependence of the statistic ψ on the data R for convenience). The test is said to have size α when the null rejection proaility is no larger than α for any value of the nuisance parameter γ: sup P β,γ (ψ > κ α ) = α. (2.) β β,γ Γ Finding the critical value κ α that satisfies (2.) is a difficult task as the null distriution of the statistic ψ is unknown. In practice, the choice of κ α is ased on the limiting distriution of ψ for a large sample size T. If ψ is asymptotically pivotal, the null rejection proaility at β is approximately α: lim P β T,γ (ψ > κ α ) = α. (2.2) The t-test rejects the null hypothesis when the t-statistic is larger than a critical value: ψ (r) > κ α. Simulation methods aim to find approximations to the critical value κ α. In most cases, the limit of experiments is locally asymptotically mixed normal (LAMN) and the t-statistic is asymptotically normal. Hence, numerical methods are usually not too sensitive to the true unknown nuisance parameter. This critical value numer can e simulated using sample draws. The ootstrap approach works if the asymptotic critical value does not depend on γ within the correct neighorhood around the true parameter value. In some prolems, however, the curvature does not vanish asymptotically. For example, take the case in which the regressors are persistent. Cavanagh et al. [5] show that several standard methods fail to control size uniformly. This failure is due to the model curvature not vanishing when the series is nearly integrated. In particular, the asymptotic quantile of the t-statistic does depend on the nuisance parameters when the autoregressive coefficient γ is near one. More precisely, if the family is locally asymptotically quadratic (LAQ) for all γ, then the more restrictive LAMN condition must hold for almost all γ (in the Leesgue sense); see Proposition 4 of Le Cam and Yang [3, p. 77]. 2

3 2.. The Critical Value Function We propose a new method to find a test ased on the t-statistic which controls size uniformly. We focus on finding approximately similar tests where the null rejection proaility is close to α. The approach developed here also holds if we instead want to find tests with correct size (in a uniform sense) in which the null rejection proaility is no larger than α. Our approach takes into consideration the dependence of the null rejection proaility on γ Γ y means of a critical value function. The proposed test rejects the null hypothesis when ψ (r) > κ Γn,α(r), (2.3) where κ Γn,α is the critical value function so that the test is similar at Γ n = {γ,..., γ n }, a set containing n values of the nuisance parameter γ. We choose κ Γn,α(r) = n i= k i f β,γ i (r) f ν (r), (2.4) where k = (k, k 2,..., k n ) is a vector of dimension n and f ν (r) is a density function. By a standard separation theorem (e.g., [5]), there exist scalars k, k 2,..., k n so that P β,γ i (ψ (R) > κ Γn,α(R)) = α, (2.5) for i =,..., n. Under some regularity conditions, the scalars k, k 2,..., k n are unique. The critical value function κ Γn,α(r) guarantees that the null rejection proaility equals α for γ Γ n. With enough discretization, we can ensure that the null rejection proaility does not differ from α y more than a discrepancy error ε. Theorem. Assume that f β,γ (r) is continuous in γ a.e. in r. Consider an array γ i,n so that sup γ Γ min γi,n Γ n γ γ i,n as n. Let φ Γn,α (r) e the test which rejects the null if ψ (r) > κ Γn,α(r), where Γ n = { γ,n,..., γ n,n }. Then, for any ɛ >, there exists an n large enough so that for any value of γ Γ. Eβ,γφ Γn,α (r) α ɛ, By Theorem, the size is controlled uniformly if the discretization is fine enough. In practice, we can find the set Γ n through an iterative algorithm. We can start y choosing two endpoints in the oundary of an interval of interest for γ. The critical value function ensures that the null rejection proaility for those two points is exactly α, ut not for the other points in that interval. We can proceed y computing the null rejection proailities for these other points, either analytically or numerically. If at least one of them differs from α y more than a discrepancy error, we include the point whose discrepancy is the largest in the next iteration and start the algorithm all over again. This approach will e discussed in our numerical example in Section 4, where we use Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the null rejection proailities. 3

4 2.2. The Baseline Density Function By Le Cam s Third Lemma, the critical value function collapses to a constant if the statistic is asymptotically pivotal and f ν (r) is a mixture of densities when β = β. Hence, we focus on f ν (r) = f β,γ (r) dν (γ), where ν is a proaility measure which weights different values of γ. One example is a weight, ν, which assigns the same mass /n on a finite numer of points γ < γ 2 <... < γ n : ν (dγ) = { n if γ = γ i otherwise. The test then rejects the null hypothesis when n i= ψ (r) > k if β,γ i (r) n n j= f β,γ j (r). A second proaility measure, ν, assigns all mass on a point γ: { ν if γ = γ (dγ) = otherwise. The test rejects the null when ψ (r) > n i= k i f β,γ i (r) f β,γ(r). The choice of γ for the aseline density f ν (r) can e motivated y those points for which the limit of experiments is not LAMN. In our leading example in which the regressor is persistent, it may e natural to set the autoregressive parameter γ equal to one. In practice, however, we recommend using the density average f ν (r). By choosing the aseline density as a simple average of the densities f β,γ i (r), the CVF is ounded and appears to have etter numerical performance for other null rejection proailities eyond Γ = {γ,..., γ n } Linear Programming We can find the multipliers k l, l =,..., n, using a linear programming approach. The method is simple and requires a sample drawn from only one proaility law. Let R (j), j =,..., J, e i.i.d. random variales with positive density f ν (r). Consider the maximization prolem max φ(r (j) ) s.t. J J j= J J j= φ(r (j) ) ψ(r(j) ).f ν (R (j) ) f ν (R (j) ) φ(r (j) ) f β,γ l (R (j) ) f ν (R (j) ) = α, l =,..., n. (2.6) The solution to this prolem is given y the test in (2.3) which approximately satisfies the oundary constraints given in (2.5). 4

5 We can rewrite the maximization prolem as a standard (primal) linear programming prolem: max m J [,] J d m J (2.7) s.t. Am J = α. n, ( ) where d = ψ(r () ).f ν(r () ),..., ψ(r(j) ).f ν(r (J) ) f ν (R () ) f ν (R (J) ) and mj = (φ(r () ),..., φ(r (J) )) are vectors in R J, the (l, j)-entry of the n J matrix A is f β,γ l (R (j) )/f ν (R (j) ), and n is an n-dimensional vector with all coordinates equal to one. The dual program min nk J (2.8) k J R n s.t. A k J = d yields an approximation to the vector k associated to the critical value function given in (2.4). The approximation k J to the unknown vector k satisfying (2.5) may, of course, e a poor one. This numerical difficulty can e circumvented if the LLN holds uniformly as J for the sample averages present in the maximization prolem given y (2.6). Showing uniform convergence is essentially equivalent to proving that the functions, appearing in the ojective function and the oundary constraints of (2.6), elong to the Glivenko- Cantelli class, as defined in van der Vaart [2, p. 45]. A sufficient condition for uniform convergence is that the set Γ is compact, the functions f β,γ(r)/f ν (r) are continuous in γ for every r, and ψ(r) is integrale. 3. Application: Persistent Regressors Consider a simple model with persistent regressors. There is a stochastic equation y t = µ y + βx t + ɛ y t, where the variale y t and the regressor x t are oserved, and ɛ y t is a disturance variale, t =,..., T. This equation is part of a larger model where the regressor can e correlated with the unknown disturance. More specifically, we have x t = γx t + ɛ x t, where x = and the disturance ɛ x t is unoserved and possily correlated with ɛ y t. We assume that ɛ t = (ɛ y t, ɛ x t ) iid N (, Σ) where [ ] σyy σ Σ = xy σ xy is a positive definite matrix. The theoretical results carry out asymptotically whether Σ is known or not. For simplicity, we assume for now that Σ is known. Our goal is to assess the predictive power of the past value of x t on the current value of y t. For example, a variale oserved at time t can e used to forecast another in period t. The null hypothesis is H : β and the alternative is H : β >. For example, consider the t-statistic β β ψ = [ σ /2 T ( yy t= x µ ) ] 2 /2, (3.9) t 5

6 where β = T t= xµ t y t/ T ( t= x µ ) 2 t (hereinafter, x µ t is the demeaned value of x t ) and β =. The nonstandard error variance uses the fact that Σ is known. The one-sided t-test rejects the null hypothesis when the statistic given y (3.9) is larger than the α quantile of a standard normal distriution. If γ <, the t-statistic is asymptotically normal and κ α equals Φ ( α). If the convergence in the null rejection proaility is uniform and the sup (over γ) and lim (in T ) operators in (2.) and (2.2) can e interchanged, the test is asymptotically similar. That is, the test ψ > κ α has null rejection proaility close to α for all values of the nuisance parameter γ. The admissile values of the auto-regressive parameter γ play a fundamental role in the uniform convergence. The discontinuity in the limiting distriution of the t-statistic ψ at γ = shows that the convergence is not uniform even if we know that γ <. The test ased on the t-statistic with κ α = Φ ( α) has asymptotic size sustantially different from the size ased on the pointwise limiting distriution of ψ. One solution to the size prolem is to otain a larger critical value. The rejection region ψ > κ α would have asymptotically correct size ut would not e similar (and would consequently e iased). We instead apply the CVF approach to circumvent the size prolems in the presence of highly persistent regressors. 3.. Finite-Sample Theory We want to test H : β against H : β >, where the nuisance parameters are µ y and γ. Standard invariance arguments can eliminate the parameter µ y. Let y and x e T -dimensional vectors where the t-th entries are y t and x t, respectively. Consider the group of translation transformations on the data g (y, x) = (y + g. T, x), where g is a scalar and T is the T dimensional vector whose entries all equal one. This yields a transformation on the parameter space g ( β, γ, µ y ) = ( β, γ, µy + g ). This group action preserves the parameter of interest β. Because the group translation preserves the hypothesis testing prolem, it is reasonale to focus on tests that are invariant to translation transformations on y. The test ased on the t-statistic is invariant to these transformations. Any invariant test can e written as a function of the maximal invariant statistic. Let q = (q, q 2 ) e an orthogonal T T matrix where the first column is given y q = T / T. Algeraic manipulations show that q 2 q 2 = M T, where M T = I T T ( T T ) T is the projection matrix to the space orthogonal to T. Let x e the T -dimensional vector whose t-th entry is x t, and define w µ = q 2w for a T -dimensional vector w. The maximal invariant statistic is given y r = (y µ, x). Its density function is given y f β,γ (y µ, x) = (2π ) T 2 exp (2πσ yy.x ) T 2 exp { { 2σ yy.x 2 t= } (x t x t γ) 2 t= ( y µ t x µ σ xy t x µ t where σ yy.x = σ yy σ 2 xy/ is the variance of ɛ y t not explained y ɛ x t. [ β γ σ ]) } 2 xy, (3.) 6

7 Lemma of Jansson and Moreira [] shows that this density elongs to the curvedexponential family, which consists of two parameters, β and γ, and a four-dimensional sufficient statistic: S β = σ yy.x S ββ = σ yy.x t= t= x µ t ( y t σ ) xy x t, S γ = ( x µ ) 2 t, and Sγγ = t= t= x t x t σ xy S β, (x t ) 2 + σ2 xy σ 2 S ββ. xx As a result, classical exponential-family statistical theory is not applicale to this prolem. This has several consequences for testing H : β against H : β >. First, there does not exist a uniformly most powerful uniased (UMPU) test for H : β against H : β >. Jansson and Moreira [] instead otain an optimal test within the class of similar tests conditional on the specific ancillary statistics S ββ and S γγ. Second, the pair of sufficient statistics under the null hypothesis, S γ and S γγ, is not complete. Hence, there exist similar tests eyond those considered y Jansson and Moreira []. This less restrictive requirement can lead to power gains ecause (i) S ββ and S γγ are not independent of S β and S γ ; and (ii) the joint distriution of S β and S γ does depend on the parameter β Asymptotic Theory We now analyze the ehavior of testing procedures as T. The asymptotic power of tests depends on the likelihood ratio around β = and the true parameter γ. The Hessian matrix of the log-likelihood captures the difficulty in making inference in parametric models. Define the scaling function ( ) /2 g T (γ) = E,γ (x t ) 2, which is directly related to the Hessian matrix of the log-likelihood given in (3.). For example, Anderson [] and Mikusheva [4] implicitly use the scaling function g T (γ) for the one-equation autoregressive model with one lag, AR(). This scaling function is chosen so that P,γ and P /2 σ yy.xσxx /2 g T (γ),γ+c g T are mutually contiguous for any value of γ. (γ) The local alternative is indexed y σ /2 yy.xσ /2 xx to simplify algeraic calculations. Define the stochastic process Λ T as the log-likelihood ratio Λ T ( σ /2 yy.xσ /2 xx t= ) g T (γ), γ + c g T (γ) ;, γ = ln f σ /2 yy.xσxx /2 g T (γ),γ+c g T (γ) (r) f,γ (r) The suscript T indicates the dependency of the log-likelihood ratio on the sample.. Proposition 2. The scaling function equals g T (γ) = ( T t ) /2 γ 2l. t= l= The function g T (γ) is continuous in γ and simplifies to the usual rates for the stationary, integrated, and explosive cases: (a) if γ <, then g T (γ) ( γ 2 ) /2 T /2 ; () if γ =, then g T (γ) 2 /2 T ; and, (c) if γ >, then g T (γ) ( γ 2 ) γ (T 2). 7

8 The log-likelihood ratio can e written as ( ) Λ T σ /2 g T (γ), γ + c g T (γ) ;, γ = [, c] R T (γ) 2 [, c] K T (γ) [, c], yy.xσxx /2 where R T is a random vector and K T is a symmetric random matrix. The first and second components of R T are R β,t R γ,t (γ) = g T (γ) (γ) = g T (γ) σ /2 yy.xσ /2 xx t= t= x µ t x t (x t γx t ) ( y t β x t σ ) xy [x t γx t ] ρ ρ 2 R β,t (γ), where ρ = σ xy /(σ /2 xx σ /2 yy ) is the error correlation. The entries (, ), (, 2), and (2, 2) of K T (γ) are, respectively, K ββ,t (γ) = g T (γ) 2 t= x µ2 t, K βγ,t (γ) = g T (γ) 2 ρ ρ 2 [ K γγ,t (γ) = g T (γ) 2 ρ 2 ρ 2 t= t= x µ2 t, and x µ2 t + The asymptotic ehavior of the log-likelihood ratio is divided into pointwise limits: γ < (stationary), γ = (integrated), and γ > (explosive). t= x 2 t ]. and Proposition 3. For any ounded scalars and c, Λ γ T (, c) = Λγ (, c) + o P,γ (), where Λ γ (, c) is defined as follows: (a) For γ <, Λ γ (, c) = [, c] R S 2 [, c] KS [, c], where R S N (, K S) and K S is a matrix given y ρ K S = ρ ρ 2 ρ 2 ρ 2. () For γ =, Λ γ (, c) = [, c] R I 2 [, c] KI [, c], where R I and K I are given y [ R I = 2 /2 W ] x µ (r) dw y (r) W x µ (r) dw x (r) ρ W x µ and (r) dw y (r) K I = 2 ρ 2 W µ x (r) 2 dr ρ ρ ρ 2 W µ x (r) 2 dr ρ 2 W µ x (r) 2 dr ρ ρ 2 W x µ (r) 2 dr + W x µ (r) 2 dr 8,

9 with W x and W y eing two independent Wiener processes and W µ x (r) = W x (r) W x (s) ds. (c) For γ >, Λ γ (, c) = [, c] R E 2 [, c] KE [, c], where ( K E) /2 R E N (, I 2 ) independent of K E whose distriution is K E χ 2 () ρ 2 ρ ρ ρ 2 ρ 2 The log-likelihood ratio has an exact quadratic form of and c in finite samples. Proposition 3 finds the limit of experiments when the series is (a) stationary; () nearly integrated; and (c) explosive. When γ <, the limit of experiments is Locally Asymptotically Normal (LAN). When γ = the limit of experiments is Locally Asymptotically Brownian Functional (LABF). When γ >, the limit of experiments is Locally Asymptotically Mixed Normal (LAMN). Because LAN is a special case of LAMN, the limit of experiments is LAMN for every γ except for γ =. By Le Cam s Third Lemma, the asymptotic power of a test φ is given y lim T E σ /2 yy.xσ /2 xx g T (γ),γ+c g T (γ) φ (R) = E,γφ exp {Λ γ (, c)}. As T, the null rejection proaility is controlled in a neighorhood that shrinks with rate g T (γ). Define f,γi (r) = f,γ+ci g T (γ) (r), where c i c for i =,..., n (we assume that n is odd and c (n+)/2 = for convenience). Theorem and Proposition 3 allow us to refine the partition within a shrinking interval for γ. The approximation error converges in proaility to zero for any ounded values of and c. Let φ Γ n,α e the test ased on the measure ν, which assigns the same mass /n on Γ n = {γ,..., γ n }. This test rejects H when n i= ψ (r) > k i f,γ i (r) n n j= f,γ j (r), where k,..., k n are constants such that the null rejection proaility equals α at γ,..., γ n. Analogously, let φ Γ n,α e the test ased on the measure ν, which assigns all mass on γ (n+)/2 = γ. This test rejects H when n i= ψ (r) > k i f,γ i (r), f,γ (r) where k,..., k n are constants such that the null rejection proaility equals α at γ i = γ + c i g T (γ), i =,..., n. We, of course, do not know the true parameter γ. Both tests φ Γ n,α and φ Γ n,α reject H when the test statistic ψ (r) is larger than a critical value function. The respective critical value functions can e written in terms of 9.

10 the log-likelihood ratio differences Λ T (, γ + c i g T (γ) ;, γ). The test φ Γ n,α rejects H when n i= ψ (r) > k i exp {Λ T (, γ + c i g T (γ) ;, γ)} n n j= exp {Λ T (, γ + c j g T (γ) ;, γ)}. (3.) The test φ Γ n,α rejects H when ψ (r) > n k i exp {Λ T (, γ + c i g T (γ) ;, γ)}. (3.2) i= Assume that ψ (R) is regular and asymptotically standard normal when the series is stationary (or explosive). In particular, this assumption applies to the t-statistic. For each γ, we write c to denote convergence in distriution under P,γ+c.gT (γ). Assumption AP: The test statistic ψ (r) is a continuous function of the sufficient statistics (a.e.). Furthermore, when γ < (or γ > ), ψ (R) c N (, ) for any ounded c. Under Assumption AP, the critical value function converges to the α quantile of a normal distriution when either γ < or γ >. This implies that oth tests φ Γ n,α and φ Γ n,α are asymptotically UMPU in the stationary case and conditionally (on ancillary statistics) UMPU in the explosive case. Theorem 4. Assume that ψ satisfies Assumption AP. The following hold as T : (a) If γ <, then (i) k i p Φ ( α) /n, and (ii) k (n+)/2 p Φ ( α) and k i p for i (n + )/2. () If γ =, then (i) ki converge to ki, which satisfy ( n i= k i, exp { c i R γ (c l ) 2 c2 i K γγ (c l ) } ) P ψ (c l ) > n n j= exp { c j R γ (c l ) 2 c2 j K γγ (c l ) } = α, (3.3) l =,..., n, and (ii) k i converge to k i, which satisfy ( n P ψ (c l ) > k i, {c exp i R γ (c l ) 2 c2 i K γγ (c l )} ) = α, (3.4) i= l =,..., n, where ψ (c l ) is defined as ψ (R β (c l ), R γ (c l ), K ββ (c l ), K βγ (c l ), K γγ (c l )) and [ ] R β (c) = 2 /2 W x,c µ ρ (r) dw y (r) c W µ ρ 2 x,c (r) 2 dr, [ ] R γ (c) = 2 /2 W x µ ρ (r) dw x (r) R β (c), ρ 2 K ββ (c) = 2 W µ x,c (r) 2 dr, ρ K βγ (c) = 2 ρ 2 [ K γγ (c) = 2 ρ ρ 2 W µ x,c (r) 2 dr, and W µ x,c (r) 2 dr + ] W x,c µ (r) 2 dr,

11 for the two independent Wiener processes W x and W y, with W x,c eing the standard Ornstein-Uhleneck process, and W µ x,c = W x,c W x,c (s) ds. (c) If γ > and ψ is the t-statistic, then (i) k i p Φ ( α) /n, and (ii) k (n+)/2 p Φ ( α) and k i p for i (n + )/2. Comment: Theorem 4 is valid for γ when errors are nonnormal and the error covariance is estimated under mild moment conditions. Parts (a) and (c) show that there is no critical-value adjustment when the series is either stationary or explosive. Part () provides a size correction when the series is integrated. We note that the t-statistic is not asymptotically pivotal under the nearly-integrated asymptotics. Hence, the size adjustment is non-trivial; that is, not all n oundary conditions are satisfied for the t-statistic if ki equals a constant for i =,..., n or k i = for i (n + ) /2. We, of course, do not know the true parameter γ. We could choose an auxiliary estimator γ T or select a prespecified value of γ for the CVF. In this paper, we choose the second option. As the CVF provides an adjustment only when γ =, we recommend this value as the centering point of the CVF. We use the test n i= ψ (r) > k i exp {Λ T (, + c i g T () ;, )} n n j= exp {Λ T (, + c j g T (γ) ;, )}. (3.5) for the numerical simulations. 4. Numerical Simulations In this section, we present numerical simulations for the approximately similar t-test. We simulate the simple model with moderately small samples (T = ). We perform, Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate each rejection proaility. The nominal size α is % and β =. The disturances ε y t and ε x t are serially independent and identically distriuted, with variance one and correlation ρ. We focus on the iterative algorithm which provides size adjustments and on properties of the CVF. To avoid an additional level of uncertainty, we assume for now the covariance matrix to e known. In Section 4., we relax the assumption of known variance and evaluate the feasile similar t-test in terms of size and power. To find the approximated critical value function, we start with two initial points at c = 5 and c = 2. For T =, the value of the autoregressive parameter is respectively γ =.5 and γ =.2. The choice of these parameters relies on the fact that the t-statistic is approximately normal in the stationary and explosive cases. We uniformly discretize the range c [ 5, 2] y points and make sure all null rejection proailities are near %. We approximate the null rejection proailities for these points with J =, Monte Carlo simulations. If at least one of them differs from % y more than.5, we include the point whose discrepancy is the largest in the next iteration. We then reevaluate all null rejection proailities and include an additional point if necessary, and so forth. In Appendix A, we show that if the discrepancy error is.5, the proaility of unnecessarily adding one more point is less than.%. The multipliers are otained solving the linear programming prolem given in expression (2.8). Figure plots null rejection proailities for ρ =.95 and ρ =.95. Taking c ranging from to 5 allows us to consider cases in which the regressors are stationary (γ =

12 Fig : Null Rejection Proailities.7.7 First Iteration Last Iteration Parametric Bootstrap Nonparametric Bootstrap Susampling First Iteration Last Iteration Parametric Bootstrap Nonparametric Bootstrap Susampling γ γ (a) ρ =.95 () ρ =.95.,...,.5), nearly integrated (γ =.85,...,.95), exactly integrated (γ =.), nearly explosive (γ =.5 or.), and explosive (γ =.2,...,.5). When ρ =.95 and we include only the initial points γ =.5 and γ =.2, the null rejection proaility is lower than % for values of γ etween the endpoints γ =.5 and γ =.2. The associated test seems to have correct size ut the null rejection proaility is near zero when γ =. As a result, the power of a test using only the two endpoints can e very low when the series is nearly integrated. By adding additional points, the null rejection proaility ecomes closer to % for all values γ [.5,.2]. In practice, our algorithm includes aout additional points. When ρ =.95 and we consider only the initial points γ =.5 and γ =.2, the null rejection proailities can e as large as 55%. Applied researchers would then reject the null consideraly more often than the reported nominal level. By sequentially adding the most discrepant points, the algorithm eventually yields a null rejection proaility close to %. Figure also compares the CVF approach with the usual ootstrap method, the parametric ootstrap, and susampling. For the (nonparametric) ootstrap, we draw a random sample from the centered empirical distriution function of the fitted residuals for ɛ t from OLS regressions. For the parametric ootstrap, we replace the unknown autoregressive parameter γ with the OLS estimator. For the susampling, we choose the susampling parameters following the recommendation of Romano and Wolf [9]. The ootstrap sampling schemes have similar performance and do not have null rejection proaility near % when the series are nearly integrated. This failure is due to the fact that the estimator β is not locally asymptotically equivariant in the sense of Beran [3]; see also Basawa et al. [2]. The susampling is a remarkaly general method and has good performance when γ =. However, its null rejection proaility can e quite different from % for values of γ near one. In the supplement, we show that the ootstrap and susampling can e even further away from the nominal level of % if we make inference in the presence of a time trend. Interestingly, the null rejection proaility for the CVF method is not far from % even for values of γ outside the range [.5,.2] whether ρ is positive or negative. This suggests 2

13 Fig 2: Critical Value Function (a) ρ =.95 () ρ =.95 that the critical value functions take values close to.28, the 9% quantile of a standard normal distriution, when the series is stationary or explosive. Figure 2 supports this oservation when the series is stationary. This graph plots the critical value function as a mapping of R γ,t () and K γγ,t (). To shorten notation, we denote these statistics R γ and K γγ respectively. Standard asymptotic arguments show that K γγ converges in proaility to zero and R γ /K γγ diverges to. Whether ρ =.95 or ρ =.95, the critical value function takes values close to.28 when K γγ is close to zero and R γ is ounded away from zero (which, of course, implies that their ratio diverges). We cannot visualize, in this figure, the explosive case in which K γγ diverges to. In the supplement, we plot the critical values as a function of R γ /K γγ and K γγ and re-scale the axis to accommodate for the explosive case as well. We show again that the critical value function takes values near.28 also when the series is explosive. 4.. Size and Power Comparison We now evaluate different size correction methods for the t-statistic when the variance matrix for the innovations ε y t and ε x t is unknown. The covariance matrix is estimated using residuals from OLS regressions. We compare size and power of the similar t-test with the two other similar tests: the L 2 test of Wright [2] and the test of Jansson and Moreira []. The figures present power curves for c = 5 and c =. The rejection proailities are plotted against local departures from the null hypothesis. Specifically, the parameter of interest is β = σ yy.x g T (γ) for =, 9,...,. The value = corresponds to β = for the null hypothesis H : β. Figure 3 plots size and power comparisons for ρ =.95. The similar t-test has correct size and null rejection proaility near the nominal level when =. Hence, replacing the unknown variance y a consistent estimate has little effect on size in practice. Indeed, the limiting distriution of the t-statistic and the CVF is the same whether the variance is estimated or not 2. The L 2 test is also similar ut does not have correct size when the 2 More generally, it is even possile to accommodate for heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation for the 3

14 series is integrated. The L 2 test actually has a ell-shaped power curve when the regressor is integrated, ut has a monotonic power curve when the series is nearly integrated. This inconsistency makes it hard to use the L 2 test for either one-sided or two-sided hypothesis testing prolems. Although the test is a similar test, our reported null rejection proaility is near zero when = and the series is nearly integrated. This prolem is possily due to the inaccuracy of the algorithm used y Jansson and Moreira [] for integral approximations (and their computed critical value). Fig 3: Power (ρ =.95) (a) γ = () γ = Whether the series is nearly integrated or exactly integrated, the similar t-test dominates the two other similar tests in terms of power. When c = 5 and =, the similar t-test has power aove 9% while the L 2 and tests have power lower than 6% and 3%, respectively. When c = and =, the similar t-test has power close to 5% while the L 2 and tests have power close to 4% and 3%. The fact that the similar t-test outperforms the test may seem puzzling at first. However, the test is optimal within the class of similar tests conditional on specific ancillary statistics S ββ and S γγ. As there exist similar tests eyond those considered y Jansson and Moreira [], our less restrictive requirement yields power gains. Therefore, the performance of the similar t-test shows that the test uses a conditional argument that entails unnecessary power loss. The similar t-test also has consideraly etter performance than the other similar tests when the endogeneity coefficient is negative. Figure 4 presents power curves for ρ =.95. All three tests present null rejection proailities near the nominal level when =. The L 2 test again can present ell-shaped power, and does not even have correct size. The power functions for the similar t-test and test are monotonic and have null rejection proailities smaller than % when c = 5 or c =. The supplement presents size and power comparisons for all cominations of c =, 5, 5,,, 3 and ρ =.5,.5,.95,.95. These numerical simulations further show that the similar t-test has overall etter performance than the L 2 and tests in terms of size and power. innovations y adjusting the statistics R T and K T and estimating a long-run variance, as done y Jansson and Moreira []. 4

15 Fig 4: Power (ρ =.95) (a) γ = () γ = 5. Conclusion and Extensions This paper proposes a novel method to find tests with correct size for situations in which conventional numerical methods do not perform satisfactorily. The critical value function (CVF) approach is very general and relies on weighting schemes which can e found through linear programming (LP). Considering the polynomial speed of interior-point methods for LP, it is fast and straightforward to find the CVF. The weights are chosen so that the test is similar for a finite numer of null rejection proailities. If the nuisance parameter dimension is not too large, we expect the CVF method to work adequately. In a model with persistent regressors, the CVF method yields a similar t-test which outperforms other similar tests proposed in the literature. It would e interesting to assess how our methodology performs in other models. For example, take the autoregressive model. If the model has one lag, Hansen [9] suggests a grid ootstrap which delivers confidence regions with correct coverage proaility (in a uniform sense). This method relies on less restrictive conditions than the ootstrap. However, it requires the null distriution of the test statistic to e asymptotically independent of the nuisance parameter (hence, it is applicale even for our model with persistent regressors). If the autoregressive model has more lags, Romano and Wolf [9] propose susampling methods ased on Dickey-Fuller representations. Their proposed confidence region which has correct coverage level can e conservative (in the sense that some of the coverage proailities can e larger than the nominal level). By inverting the tests ased on the CVF method, we are ale to provide confidence regions which instead have coverage proailities near the nominal level. References [] Anderson, T. W. (959). On asymptotic distriutions of estimates of parameters of stochastic difference equations. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 3, [2] Basawa, I. V., A. K. Mallick, W. P. McCormick, J. H. Reeves, and R. L. Taylor (99). Bootstrapping unstale first-order autoregressive processes. Annals of Statistics 9, 98. 5

16 [3] Beran, R. (997). Diagnosing ootstrap success. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 49, 24. [4] Bickel, P. J. and D. A. Freedman (98). Some asymptotic theory for the ootstrap. Annals of Statistics 9, [5] Cavanagh, C. L., G. Elliott, and J. H. Stock (995). Inference in models with nearly integrated regressors. Econometric Theory, [6] Efron, B. (975). Defining the curvature of a statistical prolem (with applications to second order efficiency). Annals of Statistics 3, [7] Efron, B. (978). The geometry of exponential families. Annals of Statistics 6, [8] Efron, B. (979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. Annals of Statistics 7, 26. [9] Hansen, B. E. (999). The grid ootstrap and the autoregressive model. Review of Economics and Statistics 8, [] Jansson, M. and M. J. Moreira (26). Optimal inference in regression models with nearly integrated regressors. Econometrica 74, [] Jeganathan, P. (995). Some aspects of asymptotic theory with applications to time series models. Econometric Theory, [2] Jeganathan, P. (997). On asymptotic inference in linear cointegrated time series systems. Econometric Theory 3, [3] Le Cam, L. and G. L. Yang (2). Asymptotics in Statistics: Some Basic Concepts. Second Edition. New York: Springer-Verlag. [4] Mikusheva, A. (27). Uniform inference in autoregressive models. Econometrica 75, [5] Moreira, H. and M. J. Moreira (23). Contriutions to the theory of optimal tests. Ensaios Economicos 747. FGV/EPGE. [6] Politis, D. N. and J. P. Romano (994). Large sample confidence regions ased on susamples under minimal assumptions. Annals of Statistics 22, [7] Politis, D. N., J. P. Romano, and M. Wolf (999). Susampling. New York: Springer Verlag. [8] Romano, J. P. and A. M. Shaikh (22). On the uniform asymptotic validity of susampling and the ootstrap. Annals of Statistics 4, [9] Romano, J. P. and M. Wolf (2). Susampling intervals in autoregressive models with linear time trend. Econometrica 69, [2] van der Vaart, A. W. (998). Asymptotic Statistics. Camridge: Camridge University Press. [2] Wright, J. H. (2). Confidence sets for cointegrating coefficients ased on stationarity tests. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 8,

17 Supplement to A Critical Value Function Approach, with an Application to Persistent Time-Series Marcelo J. Moreira, and Rafael Mourão, arxiv: v4 [math.st] 29 Aug 27. Introduction Escola de Pós-Graduação em Economia e Finanças (FGV/EPGE) Getulio Vargas Foundation - th floor Praia de Botafogo 9 Rio de Janeiro - RJ moreiramj@fgv.r This supplement consists of two parts. The first section includes additional graphs on the critical value function, size and power comparison. The second section provides additional proofs for the remaining theoretical results. 2. Numerical Results We provide additional numerical results. First, we allow for a time trend and compare the performance of commonly-used sampling methods to our CVF approach. We then consider flattening schemes to guarantee that the critical value function (CVF) converges to the usual standard normal quantiles. Finally, we make further power comparisons etween our similar t-test and other similar tests for different values of the autoregressive parameter γ and degrees of endogeneity ρ. 2.. Time Trend For now, we extend the model to allow for a time trend. The model is given y y t = µ yd t + βx t + ɛ y t x t = γx t + ɛ x t, where µ y is a two-dimensional vector and d t = (, t). We consider the group of translation transformations on the data g (y, x) = (y + Dg, x), where g is a two-dimensional vector and D is a T 2 matrix whose t-th line is given y d t. This yields a transformation on the parameter space g ( β, γ, µ y ) = ( β, γ, µy + g ). Any invariant test can e written as a function of the maximal invariant statistic. Let q = (q, q 2 ) e an orthogonal T T matrix where the first column is given y q = D (D D) /2. Algeraic manipulations show that q 2 q 2 = M D, where M D = I T D (D D) D is the projection matrix to the space orthogonal to T. Let x e the imsart-generic ver. 24//6 file: arxivsuppnearlyinteg6e.tex date: August, 28

18 T -dimensional vector whose t-th entry is x t, and define w µ = q 2w for a T -dimensional vector w. The maximal invariant statistic is given y r = (y µ, x). Its density function is given y f β,γ (y µ, x) = (2π ) T 2 exp (2πσ yy.x ) T 2 2 exp { { 2σ yy.x 2 t= } (x t x t γ) 2 t= ( y µ t x µ σ xy t x µ t [ β γ σ ]) } 2 xy, (2.) where σ yy.x = σ yy σ 2 xy/ is the variance of ɛ y t not explained y ɛ x t. Because of invariance, the density depends on β and γ, ut not on µ y. Furthermore, the formulae for the sufficient statistics and the log-likelihood ratio process are exactly the same as in the model with only an intercept, ut replacing q 2 in y µ and x µ. The asymptotic distriution of the new R T (γ) and K T (γ) statistics is, however, different when we allow for time trend. In particular, the model curvature increases in the sense of Efron [, 2] when γ =. This yields larger departures from the nominal size y conventional sampling schemes. Fig S: Size (intercept and time trend).9.8 First Iteration Last Iteration Parametric Bootstrap Nonparametric Bootstrap Susampling.9.8 First Iteration Last Iteration Parametric Bootstrap Nonparametric Bootstrap Susampling γ.5.5 γ (a) ρ =.95 () ρ =.95 Figure S plots null rejection proailities when we allow for a time trend. Comparing this graph with Figure, it is evident that oth ootstrap methods and susampling have null rejection proailities farther away from the % nominal size when we allow for a time trend. The CVF, however, is ale to correct size distortions whether there is a time trend or not. As such, the CVF needs to provide more curvature when we allow for time trend. This can e seen y comparing Figure S2, which plots the CVF when the model has a time trend, to Figure 2. The range of values that the CVF can take is larger when we make inference in the presence of a time trend. For example, take the CVF plot when ρ =.95. The CVF can have values as low as -2.5 and as high as.5 in the presence of a time trend. On the other hand, the CVF ranges from - to.5 when we make inference knowing there is no time trend. 2

19 Fig S2: Critical Value Function (intercept and time trend) (a) ρ =.95 () ρ = Flattening Schemes We study the ehavior of the critical value function (CVF) when the series is stationary and explosive. We focus on the main model in which there is only intercept and no time trend. We are ale to analyze the ehavior of R γ /K γγ and K γγ when the series is stationary and explosive (to save space, we again use the notation R γ and K γγ for R γ,t () and K γγ,t (), respectively). Figure S3 plots the critical values as a function of R γ /K γγ and K γγ. It is convenient to re-scale the x-axis and y-axis in the figures to analyze the critical value under different asymptotic regimes. We choose the scale G (z) 2. (F (z).5), where F (z) = [ + exp ( z)] is the logistic distriution. This scale is an increasing, symmetric transformation, which preserves zero and maps into ; that is, G (z) >, G ( z) = G (z), G () =, and lim z G (z) =. When the series is stationary, R γ /K γγ converges to (under local alternatives) and K γγ to. This convergence is represented y the point (, ) in the domain for G (R γ /K γγ ) and G (K γγ ). When the series is explosive, R γ /K γγ diverges to (under local alternatives) and K γγ to. This limit is indicated y the point (, ) in the new domain. In oth situations, the critical value function takes values near.28, the 9% quantile of a standard normal distriution. Of course, those values are not exactly equal to.28. This suggests we can try to flatten the critical value function using the values of R γ /K γγ or K γγ themselves. For example, we could consider setting the critical value function at.28 for (i) large values of R γ /K γγ, or (ii) small values and large values of K γγ. The figures elow consider flattening schemes when (i) R γ /K γγ > 2 and (ii) K γγ < 2 or K γγ > 6. For these regions, the critical value function is forced to take the value.28. Figure S4 plots the null rejection proailities from oth flattening methods for ρ =.95 and.95. The tests sizes are sometimes sensitive to the choice of the thresholds for oth flattening methods. When flattening slightly improves size, it does not yield a sustantial effect on the power of the respective tests. Hence, we report power using the standard critical value function, without any auxiliary flattening method. 3

20 Fig S3: Critical Value Function (a) ρ =.95 () ρ = Additional Power Comparison Figures S5-S8 present power for different levels of γ and ρ. The results further support the similar t-test in terms of size and power. The ehavior of the L 2 test is sensitive to the values of c, sometimes ehaving as a one-sided and other times as a two-sided test. At the value =, the test presents null rejection proailities aove the nominal level when c = 5, and close to zero when c = 3. This prolem is possily due to the inaccuracy of the algorithm used y Jansson and Moreira [3] for integral approximations. Although this prolem can e conceivaly fixed y using etter numerical approximations for c >, the power of the test is consideraly elow that found y the similar t-test for c. Overall, the similar t-test has correct size and etter power than the competing tests. References [] Efron, B. (975). Defining the curvature of a statistical prolem (with applications to second order efficiency). Annals of Statistics 3, [2] Efron, B. (978). The geometry of exponential families. Annals of Statistics 6, [3] Jansson, M. and M. J. Moreira (26). Optimal inference in regression models with nearly integrated regressors. Econometrica 74,

21 Fig S4: Size.2.2 Standard Standard.8 Flattened Rg/Kgg Flattened Kgg.8 Flattened Rg/Kgg Flattened Kgg γ γ (a) ρ =.95 () ρ =.95 5

22 Fig S5: Power (ρ =.5) (a) γ = () γ = (c) γ = (d) γ = (e) γ = (f) γ =.3 6

23 Fig S6: Power (ρ =.5) (a) γ = () γ = (c) γ = (d) γ = (e) γ = (f) γ =.3 7

24 Fig S7: Power (ρ =.95) (a) γ = () γ = (c) γ = (d) γ = (e) γ = (f) γ =.3 8

25 Fig S8: Power (ρ =.95) (a) γ = () γ = (c) γ = (d) γ = (e) γ = (f) γ =.3 9