IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/emetrv/v18y1999i2p195-209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monte carlo sampling approach to testing nonnested hypothesis: monte carlo results

Author

Listed:
  • N. Coulibaly
  • B. Wade Brorsen

Abstract

Alternative ways of using Monte Carlo methods to implement a Cox-type test for separate families of hypotheses are considered. Monte Carlo experiments are designed to compare the finite sample performances of Pesaran and Pesaran's test, a RESET test, and two Monte Carlo hypothesis test procedures. One of the Monte Carlo tests is based on the distribution of the log-likelihood ratio and the other is based on an asymptotically pivotal statistic. The Monte Carlo results provide strong evidence that the size of the Pesaran and Pesaran test is generally incorrect, except for very large sample sizes. The RESET test has lower power than the other tests. The two Monte Carlo tests perform equally well for all sample sizes and are both clearly preferred to the Pesaran and Pesaran test, even in large samples. Since the Monte Carlo test based on the log-likelihood ratio is the simplest to calculate, we recommend using it.

Suggested Citation

  • N. Coulibaly & B. Wade Brorsen, 1999. "Monte carlo sampling approach to testing nonnested hypothesis: monte carlo results," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 195-209.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:emetrv:v:18:y:1999:i:2:p:195-209
    DOI: 10.1080/07474939908800439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07474939908800439
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/07474939908800439?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. White,Halbert, 1996. "Estimation, Inference and Specification Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521574464, January.
    2. Hashem Pesaran, M. & Pesaran, Bahram, 1993. "A simulation approach to the problem of computing Cox's statistic for testing nonnested models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1-3), pages 377-392.
    3. Gourieroux,Christian & Monfort,Alain, 1995. "Statistics and Econometric Models," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521405515.
    4. M. H. Pesaran, 1974. "On the General Problem of Model Selection," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(2), pages 153-171.
    5. Jung-Hee Lee & B. Wade Brorsen, 1997. "A non-nested test of GARCH vs. EGARCH models," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(12), pages 765-768.
    6. Gourieroux,Christian & Monfort,Alain, 1995. "Statistics and Econometric Models 2 volume set," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521478373, July.
    7. Godfrey, L. G., 1998. "Tests of non-nested regression models some results on small sample behaviour and the bootstrap," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 59-74, May.
    8. Gwyn Aneuryn-Evans & Angus Deaton, 1980. "Testing Linear versus Logarithmic Regression Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(1), pages 275-291.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Kapetanios, G. & Weeks, M., 2003. "Non-nested Models and the likelihood Ratio Statistic: A Comparison of Simulation and Bootstrap-based Tests," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0308, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    2. Kapetanios, G. & Weeks, M., 2003. "Non-nested Models and the likelihood Ratio Statistic: A Comparison of Simulation and Bootstrap-based Tests," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0308, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    3. Park, Seong C. & Brorsen, B. Wade & Stoecker, Arthur L. & Hattey, Jeffory A., 2012. "Forage Response to Swine Effluent: A Cox Nonnested Test of Alternative Functional Forms Using a Fast Double Bootstrap," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(4), pages 593-606, November.
    4. Kaitibie, Simeon & Nganje, William E. & Brorsen, B. Wade & Epplin, Francis M., 2003. "Optimal Grazing Pressure Under Output Price And Production Uncertainty With Alternative Functional Forms," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22020, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Dameus, Alix & Brorsen, B. Wade & Sukhdial, Kullapapruk Piewthongngam & Richter, Francisca G.-C., 2001. "Aids Versus Rotterdam: A Cox Nonnested Test With Parametric Bootstrap," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20453, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Berg, Nathan, 2004. "No-decision classification: an alternative to testing for statistical significance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 631-650, November.
    7. Dameus, Alix & Richter, Francisca G.-C. & Brorsen, B. Wade & Sukhdial, Kullapapruk Piewthongngam, 2002. "Aids Versus The Rotterdam Demand System: A Cox Test With Parametric Bootstrap," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-13, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McAleer, Michael, 1995. "The significance of testing empirical non-nested models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 149-171, May.
    2. Monfardini, Chiara, 2003. "An illustration of Cox's non-nested testing procedure for logit and probit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 425-444, March.
    3. Gouriéroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain & Zakoian, Jean-Michel, 2017. "Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood and Lie Groups of Linear Transformations," MPRA Paper 79623, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. C. Gouriéroux & A. Monfort & J.‐M. Zakoïan, 2019. "Consistent Pseudo‐Maximum Likelihood Estimators and Groups of Transformations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(1), pages 327-345, January.
    5. Maozu Lu & Grayham E. Mizon & Chiara Monfardini, 2008. "Simulation Encompassing: Testing Non‐nested Hypotheses," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 70(s1), pages 781-806, December.
    6. Han, Xiaoyi & Lee, Lung-fei, 2013. "Model selection using J-test for the spatial autoregressive model vs. the matrix exponential spatial model," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 250-271.
    7. Godfrey, Leslie G., 2007. "On the asymptotic validity of a bootstrap method for testing nonnested hypotheses," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 408-413, March.
    8. Coulibaly, Nouhoun & Brorsen, B. Wade, 1997. "A Monte Carlo Sampling Approach to Testing Separate Families of Hypotheses: Monte Carlo Results," 1997 Annual Meeting, July 13-16, 1997, Reno\ Sparks, Nevada 35879, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Bo E. Honoré & Luojia Hu, 2023. "The COVID-19 pandemic and Asian American employment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 2053-2083, May.
    10. Patrick Gagliardini & Christian Gouriéroux, 2011. "Approximate Derivative Pricing for Large Classes of Homogeneous Assets with Systematic Risk," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 237-280, Spring.
    11. Luis Orea & David Roibás & Alan Wall, 2004. "Choosing the Technical Efficiency Orientation to Analyze Firms' Technology: A Model Selection Test Approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 51-71, July.
    12. Gerhard, Frank & Hess, Dieter & Pohlmeier, Winfried, 1998. "What a Difference a Day Makes: On the Common Market Microstructure of Trading Days," CoFE Discussion Papers 98/01, University of Konstanz, Center of Finance and Econometrics (CoFE).
    13. Alexandre Petkovic & David Veredas, 2009. "Aggregation of linear models for panel data," Working Papers ECARES 2009-012, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. Roxana Chiriac & Valeri Voev, 2011. "Modelling and forecasting multivariate realized volatility," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 922-947, September.
    15. Zhongqi Liang & Qihua Wang & Yuting Wei, 2022. "Robust model selection with covariables missing at random," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 74(3), pages 539-557, June.
    16. Kapetanios, G. & Weeks, M., 2003. "Non-nested Models and the likelihood Ratio Statistic: A Comparison of Simulation and Bootstrap-based Tests," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0308, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    17. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 2002. "Bootstrap J tests of nonnested linear regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 167-193, July.
    18. Shapiro, Dmitry & Shi, Xianwen & Zillante, Artie, 2014. "Level-k reasoning in a generalized beauty contest," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 308-329.
    19. J. M. C. Santos Silva, 2001. "A score test for non-nested hypotheses with applications to discrete data models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 577-597.
    20. West, Kenneth D., 2001. "Encompassing tests when no model is encompassing," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 287-308, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cox test; Monte Carlo test; Nonnested hypotheses; JEL Classification:C12; C15;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:emetrv:v:18:y:1999:i:2:p:195-209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/LECR20 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.