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 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.