A comparison of statistical tests for the adequacy of a neural network regression model
An integral part of econometric practice is to test the adequacy of model specifications. If a model is adequately specified, it should not leave interesting features of the data-generating process in the errors. Despite the common tradition, the importance of diagnostic checking as a safeguard against mis-specification has only recently been recognized by neural network (NN) practitioners, possibly because this type of semi-parametric methodology was not originally designed for economic and financial applications. The purpose of this paper is to compare a number of analytical statistical testing procedures suitable to diagnostic checking on a neural network regression model. We present the standard Lagrange multiplier (LM) testing framework designed under the assumption of identically distributed disturbances and also examine two modifications that are robust to heteroskedasticity in errors. One modification also gives the researcher an opportunity to incorporate information concerning the volatility structure of the data-generating process in the testing procedure. By means of a Monte Carlo simulation, we investigate the performance of these tests under GARCH-type heteroskedasticity in errors and various distributional assumptions. The results show that although the primary concern of the researcher may be to design a regression model that accurately captures relations in the mean of the conditional distribution, developing a good approximation of the underlying volatility structure generally increases the efficiency of tests in detecting non-adequacy of a NN model. † http://fidelity.fme.ae gean.gr/decision
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 12 (2012)
Issue (Month): 3 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RQUF20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RQUF20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:quantf:v:12:y:2012:i:3:p:437-449. 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: (Michael McNulty)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.