Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The Block Bootstrap for Parameter Estimation Error In Recursive Estimation Schemes, With Applications to Predictive Evaluation

Contents:

Author Info

  • Valentina Corradi

    ()
    (Queen Mary, University of London)

  • Norman Swanson

    ()
    (Rutgers University)

Abstract

This paper introduces a new block bootstrap which is valid for recursive m-estimators, in the sense that its use suFFIces to mimic the limiting distribution of (1/P^.5)(SUM(t=R to T-1)(THETA-t-hat - THETA-plus)); where R denotes the length of the estimation period, P the number of recursively estimated parameters, bµt is a recursive m¡estimator constructed using the first t observations, and THETA-t-plus is its probability limit. In the recursive case, earlier observations are used more frequently than temporally subsequent observations. This introduces a bias to the usual block bootstrap. We circumvent this problem by first resampling R observations from the initial R sample observations, and then concatenating onto this vector an additional P resampled observations from the remaining sample. Thereafter, THETA-hat-t-star is constructed using the resampled series, and an adjustment term is added to 1/P^.5)(SUM(t=R to T-1)(THETA-hat-t-star - THETA-t-hat)); in order to ensure that the distribution of this sum is the same as the distribution of (1/P^.5)(SUM(t=R to T-1)(THETA-t-hat - THETA-plus)). This parameter estimation error bootstrap for recursive estimation schemes can be used to provide valid critical values in a variety of interesting testing contexts, and three such leading applications are developed. The first is a generalization of the reality check test of White (2000) that allows for non vanishing parameter estimation error. The second is an out-of-sample version of the integrated conditional moment (ICM) test of Bierens (1982,1990) and Bierens and Ploberger (1997) which provides out of sample tests consistent against generic (nonlinear) alternatives. Finally, the third is a procedure assessing the relative out-of-sample predictive accuracy of multiple conditional distribution models. This procedure is based on an extension of the Andrews (1997) conditional Kolmogorov test. The main findings from a small Monte Carlo experiment indicate that: (i) the adjustment term used in the suggested bootstrap substantially improve coverage rates relative to a bootstrap without adjustment, and (ii) the suggested bootstrap is as reliable as the standard block bootstrap within the context of full sample estimation.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: ftp://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/wp/2003-13.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Rutgers University, Department of Economics in its series Departmental Working Papers with number 200313.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 21 Oct 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rut:rutres:200313

Contact details of provider:
Postal: New Jersey Hall - 75 Hamilton Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1248
Phone: (732) 932-7482
Fax: (732) 932-7416
Web page: http://snde.rutgers.edu/Rutgers/wp/rutgers-wplist.html
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: block bootstrap; recursive estimation scheme; nonlinear causality; parameter estimation; predictive density;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Goncalves, Silvia & White, Halbert, 2000. "Maximum Likelihood and the Bootstrap for Nonlinear Dynamic Models," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt1bj657ff, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  2. Whitney K. Newey & Kenneth D. West, 1986. "A Simple, Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and AutocorrelationConsistent Covariance Matrix," NBER Technical Working Papers 0055, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Corradi, Valentina, 1999. "Deciding Between I(0) And I(1) Via Flil-Based Bounds," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(05), pages 643-663, October.
  4. Diebold, Francis X & Mariano, Roberto S, 1995. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(3), pages 253-63, July.
  5. Francis X. Diebold & Jinyong Hahn & Anthony S. Tay, 1999. "Multivariate Density Forecast Evaluation And Calibration In Financial Risk Management: High-Frequency Returns On Foreign Exchange," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(4), pages 661-673, November.
  6. Halbert White, 2000. "A Reality Check for Data Snooping," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1097-1126, September.
  7. Peter F. Christoffersen & Francis X. Diebold, 2000. "How Relevant is Volatility Forecasting for Financial Risk Management?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 12-22, February.
  8. Peter F. Christoffersen & Francis X. Diebold, . "Optimal Prediction Under Asymmetric Loss," CARESS Working Papres 97-20, University of Pennsylvania Center for Analytic Research and Economics in the Social Sciences.
  9. Donald W.K. Andrews, 1988. "Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 877R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jul 1989.
  10. repec:cup:etheor:v:13:y:1997:i:6:p:808-17 is not listed on IDEAS
  11. Francis X. Diebold & Celia Chen, 1993. "Testing structural stability with endogenous break point: a size comparison of analytic and bootstrap procedures," Working Papers 93-11, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
  12. Todd E. Clark & Michael McCracken, 1999. "Tests of Equal Forecast Accuracy and Encompassing for Nested Models," Computing in Economics and Finance 1999 1241, Society for Computational Economics.
  13. Corradi, Valentina & Swanson, Norman R., 2006. "Bootstrap conditional distribution tests in the presence of dynamic misspecification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 779-806, August.
  14. Peter Reinhard Hansen, 2001. "An Unbiased and Powerful Test for Superior Predictive Ability," Working Papers 2001-06, Brown University, Department of Economics.
  15. West, Kenneth D, 1996. "Asymptotic Inference about Predictive Ability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(5), pages 1067-84, September.
  16. Norman R. Swanson & Halbert White, 1997. "A Model Selection Approach To Real-Time Macroeconomic Forecasting Using Linear Models And Artificial Neural Networks," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 540-550, November.
  17. Peter Christoffersen & Jinyong Hahn & Atsushi Inoue, 2001. "Testing and Comparing Value-at-Risk Measures," CIRANO Working Papers 2001s-03, CIRANO.
  18. Francis X. Diebold & Todd A. Gunther & Anthony S. Tay, 1997. "Evaluating density forecasts," Working Papers 97-6, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
  19. Christoffersen, Peter F, 1998. "Evaluating Interval Forecasts," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(4), pages 841-62, November.
  20. Clements, M.P. & Smith J., 1998. "Evaluating The Forecast of Densities of Linear and Non-Linear Models: Applications to Output Growth and Unemployment," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 509, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
  21. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. & White, Halbert, 1988. "Some Invariance Principles and Central Limit Theorems for Dependent Heterogeneous Processes," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(02), pages 210-230, August.
  22. Donald W. K. Andrews, 1997. "A Conditional Kolmogorov Test," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1097-1128, September.
  23. Gon alves, S lvia & White, Halbert, 2002. "The Bootstrap Of The Mean For Dependent Heterogeneous Arrays," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(06), pages 1367-1384, December.
  24. Donald W. K. Andrews, 2004. "the Block-Block Bootstrap: Improved Asymptotic Refinements," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(3), pages 673-700, 05.
  25. Bierens, Herman J., 1982. "Consistent model specification tests," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 105-134, October.
  26. Corradi, Valentina & Swanson, Norman R., 2002. "A consistent test for nonlinear out of sample predictive accuracy," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 353-381, October.
  27. Corradi, Valentina & Swanson, Norman R. & Olivetti, Claudia, 2001. "Predictive ability with cointegrated variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 315-358, September.
  28. Christoffersen & Diebold, . "Further Results on Forecasting and Model Selection Under Asymmetric Loss," Home Pages _059, University of Pennsylvania.
  29. Linton, Oliver & Maasoumi, Esfandiar & Whang, Yoon-Jae, 2003. "Consistent Testing for Stochastic Dominance under General Sampling Schemes," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2003,31, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
  30. Donald W. K. Andrews, 2002. "Higher-Order Improvements of a Computationally Attractive "k"-Step Bootstrap for Extremum Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 119-162, January.
  31. Raffaella Giacomini, 2002. "Comparing Density Forecasts via Weighted Likelihood Ratio Tests: Asymptotic and Bootstrap Methods," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 583, Boston College Department of Economics.
  32. Hall, Peter & Horowitz, Joel L, 1996. "Bootstrap Critical Values for Tests Based on Generalized-Method-of-Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 891-916, July.
  33. Lars Peter Hansen & John Heaton & Erzo Luttmer, 1993. "Econometric Evaluation of Asset Pricing Models," NBER Technical Working Papers 0145, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  34. Hansen, B.E., 1991. "Inference when a Nuisance Parameter is Not Identified Under the Null Hypothesis," RCER Working Papers 296, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  35. Clive W.J. Granger, 1999. "Outline of forecast theory using generalized cost functions," Spanish Economic Review, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 161-173.
  36. Clements, Michael P. & Smith, Jeremy, 2002. "Evaluating multivariate forecast densities: a comparison of two approaches," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 397-407.
  37. Lars Peter Hansen & Ravi Jagannathan, 1994. "Assessing specification errors in stochastic discount factor models," Staff Report 167, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  38. Valentina Corradi & Norman R. Swanson, 2003. "A Test for Comparing Multiple Misspecified Conditional Distributions," Departmental Working Papers 200314, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
  39. Weiss, Andrew A, 1996. "Estimating Time Series Models Using the Relevant Cost Function," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 539-60, Sept.-Oct.
  40. Granger, C. W. J. & White, Halbert & Kamstra, Mark, 1989. "Interval forecasting : An analysis based upon ARCH-quantile estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 87-96, January.
  41. Chatfield, Chris, 1993. "Calculating Interval Forecasts," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 11(2), pages 121-35, April.
  42. Stinchcombe, Maxwell B. & White, Halbert, 1998. "Consistent Specification Testing With Nuisance Parameters Present Only Under The Alternative," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(03), pages 295-325, June.
  43. McCracken, Michael W., 2007. "Asymptotics for out of sample tests of Granger causality," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 719-752, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Corradi, Valentina & Swanson, Norman R., 2004. "A test for the distributional comparison of simulated and historical data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 185-193, November.
  2. Geetesh Bhardwaj & Norman Swanson, 2004. "An Empirical Investigation of the Usefulness of ARFIMA Models for Predicting Macroeconomic and Financial Time Series," Departmental Working Papers 200422, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rut:rutres:200313. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.