IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

LM-Tests for Linearity Against Smooth Transition Alternatives: A Bootstrap Simulation Study

  • Jonathan B. Hill

    (Florida International University)

The universal method for testing linearity against smooth transition autoregressive (STAR) alternatives is the linearization of the STAR model around the null nuisance parameter value, and performing F-tests on polynomial regressions in the spirit of the RESET test. Polynomial regressors, however, are poor proxies for the nonlinearity associated with STAR processes, and are not consistent (asymptotic power of one) against STAR alternatives, let alone general deviations from the null. Moreover, the most popularly used STAR forms of nonlinearity, exponential and logistic, are known to be exploitable for consistent conditional moment tests of functional form, cf. Bierens and Ploberger (1997). In this paper, pushing asymptotic theory aside, we compare the small sample performance of the standard polynomial test with an essentially ignored consistent conditional moment test of linear autoregression against smooth transition alternatives. In particular, we compute an LM sup-statistic and characterize the asymptotic p-value by Hansen's (1996) bootstrap method. In our simulations, we randomly select all STAR parameters in order not to bias experimental results based on the use of "safe", "interior" parameter values that exaggerate the smooth transition nonlinearity. Contrary to past studies, we find that the traditional polynomial regression method performs only moderately well, and that the LM sup-test out-performs the traditional test method, in particular for small samples and for LSTAR processes.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series Econometrics with number 0401004.

in new window

Length: 13 pages
Date of creation: 08 Jan 2004
Date of revision: 05 Jul 2004
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpem:0401004
Note: Type of Document - pdf; prepared on WinXP; pages: 13
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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. Hansen, Bruce E, 1996. "Inference When a Nuisance Parameter Is Not Identified under the Null Hypothesis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 413-30, March.
  2. van Dijk, D.J.C. & Terasvirta, T. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F., 2000. "Smooth transition autoregressive models - A survey of recent developments," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2000-23/A, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
  3. González-Rivera Gloria, 1998. "Smooth-Transition GARCH Models," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-20, July.
  4. Skalin, Joakim, 1998. "Testing linearity against smooth transition autoregression using a parametric bootstrap," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 276, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 13 Dec 1998.
  5. Bierens, Herman J., 1982. "Consistent model specification tests," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 105-134, October.
  6. Bierens, Herman J, 1990. "A Consistent Conditional Moment Test of Functional Form," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(6), pages 1443-58, November.
  7. Lee, Tae-Hwy & White, Halbert & Granger, Clive W. J., 1993. "Testing for neglected nonlinearity in time series models : A comparison of neural network methods and alternative tests," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 269-290, April.
  8. Alvaro Escribano & Oscar Jorda, . "Improved Testing And Specification Of Smooth Transition Regression Models," Department of Economics 97-26, California Davis - Department of Economics.
  9. 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.
  10. Chung-Ming Kuan, 2006. "Artificial Neural Networks," IEAS Working Paper : academic research 06-A010, Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.
  11. Robert B. Davies, 2002. "Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative: Linear model case," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 89(2), pages 484-489, June.
  12. Holly, Alberto, 1982. "A Remark on Hausman's Specification Test," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 749-59, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpem:0401004. 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: (EconWPA)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.