DOCSLIB.ORG

Unit Roots, Cointegration, and Structural Change

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unit Roots, Cointegration, and Structural Change Unit Roots, Cointegration, and Structural Change Time series analysis has undergone many changes in recent years with the advent of unit roots and cointegration. Maddala and Kim present a comprehensive review of these important developments and examine structural change. The volume provides an analysis of unit root tests, problems with unit root testing, estimation of cointegration systems, cointegration tests, and econometric estimation with integrated regressors. The authors also present the Bayesian approach to these problems and bootstrap methods for small-sample inference. The chapters on structural change discuss the problems of unit root tests and cointegration under structural change, outliers and robust methods, the Markov switching model, and Harvey's structural time series model. Unit Roots, Cointegration, and Structural Change is a major contribution to Themes in Modern Econometrics, of interest both to specialists and graduate and upper-undergraduate students. G. S. MADDALA is University Eminent Scholar at the Ohio State University and one of the most distinguished econometricians writing today. His many acclaimed publications include Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics (Cambridge, 1983) and Econometrics (McGraw-Hill, 1977) and Introduction to Econometrics (MacMillan, 1988, 1992). IN-MOO KIM is Professor of Economics at Sung Kyun Kwan University, Seoul, Korea. UNIT ROOTS COINTEGRATION AND STRUCTURAL CHANGE G. S. Maddala The Ohio State University In-Moo Kim Sung Kyun Kwan University CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521582575 © Cambridge University Press 1998 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1998 Sixth printing 2004 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library ISBN 978-0-521-58257-5 hardback ISBN 978-0-521-58782-2 paperback Transferred to digital printing 2007 To my parents G. S. Maddala To Jong Han, Jung Youn, and So Youn In-Moo Kim Contents Figures page xii Tables xiii Preface xvii Part I Introduction and basic concepts 1 1 Introduction 3 References 6 2 Basic concepts 8 2.1 Stochastic processes 8 2.2 Some commonly used stationary models 11 2.3 Box-Jenkins methods 17 2.4 Integrated variables and cointegration 20 2.5 Spurious regression 28 2.6 Deterministic trend and stochastic trend 29 2.7 Detrending methods 32 2.8 VAR, ECM, and ADL 34 2.9 Unit root tests 37 2.10 Cointegration tests and ECM 39 2.11 Summary 41 References 42 Part II Unit roots and cointegration 45 3 Unit roots 47 3.1 Introduction 47 3.2 Unit roots and Wiener processes 49 3.3 Unit root tests without a deterministic trend 60 3.4 DF test with a linear deterministic trend 65 vn viii Contents 3.5 Specification of deterministic trends 72 3.6 Unit root tests for a wide class of errors 74 3.7 Sargan-Bhargava and Bhargava tests 82 3.8 Variance ratio tests 86 3.9 Tests for TSP versus DSP 87 3.10 Forecasting from TS versus DS models 89 3.11 Summary and conclusions 92 References 92 4 Issues in unit root testing 98 4.1 Introduction 98 4.2 Size distortion and low power of unit root tests 100 4.3 Solutions to the problems of size and power 103 4.4 Problem of overdifferencing: MA roots 116 4.5 Tests with stationarity as null 120 4.6 Confirmatory analysis 126 4.7 Frequency of observations and power of unit root tests 129 4.8 Other types of nonstationarity 131 4.9 Panel data unit root tests 133 4.10 Uncertain unit roots and the pre-testing problem 139 4.11 Other unit root tests 140 4.12 Median-unbiased estimation 141 4.13 Summary and conclusions 145 References 146 5 Estimation of cointegrated systems 155 5.1 Introduction 155 5.2 A general CI system 155 5.3 A two-variable model: Engle-Granger methods 156 5.4 A triangular system 160 5.5 System estimation methods 165 5.6 The identification problem 173 5.7 Finite sample evidence 175 5.8 Forecasting in cointegrated systems 184 5.9 Miscellaneous other problems 187 5.10 Summary and conclusions 191 References 191 6 Tests for cointegration 198 6.1 Introduction 198 6.2 Single equation methods: residual-based tests 198 Contents ix 6.3 Single equation methods: ECM tests 203 6.4 Tests with cointegration as null 205 6.5 Multiple equation methods 211 6.6 Cointegration tests based on LCCA 222 6.7 Other tests for cointegration 226 6.8 Miscellaneous other problems 228 6.9 Of what use are cointegration tests? 233 6.10 Conclusions 241 References 242 7 Econometric modeling with integrated regressors 249 7.1 1(1) regressors not cointegrated 249 7.2 1(1) regressors cointegrated 250 7.3 Unbalanced equations 251 7.4 Lagged dependent variables: the ARDL model 252 7.5 Uncertain unit roots 254 7.6 Uncertain unit roots and cointegration 256 7.7 Summary and conclusions 258 References 258 Part III Extensions of the basic model 261 8 The Bayesian analysis of stochastic trends 263 8.1 Introduction to Bayesian inference 264 8.2 The posterior distribution of an autoregressive parameter 266 8.3 Bayesian inference on the Nelson-Plosser data 268 8.4 The debate on the appropriate prior 271 8.5 Classical tests versus Bayesian tests 277 8.6 Priors and time units of measurement 277 8.7 On testing point null hypotheses 278 8.8 Further comments on prior distributions 284 8.9 Bayesian inference on cointegrated systems 287 8.10 Bayesian long-run prediction 290 8.11 Conclusion 291 References 292 9 Fractional unit roots and fractional cointegration 296 9.1 Some definitions 296 9.2 Unit root tests against fractional alternatives 298 9.3 Estimation of ARFIMA models 300 9.4 Estimation of fractionally cointegrated models 302 Contents 9.5 Empirical relevance of fractional unit roots 303 9.6 Summary and conclusions 305 References 306 10 Small sample inference: bootstrap methods 309 10.1 Introduction 309 10.2 A review of the bootstrap approach 309 10.3 The AR(1) model 322 10.4 Bootstrapping unit root tests 325 10.5 The moving block bootstrap and extensions 328 10.6 Issues in bootstrapping cointegrating regressions 332 10.7 Miscellaneous other applications 335 10.8 Conclusions 336 References 336 11 Cointegrated systems with 1(2) variables 342 11.1 Determination of the order of differencing 342 11.2 Cointegration analysis with 1(2) and 1(1) variables 348 11.3 Empirical applications 355 11.4 Summary and conclusions 358 References 359 12 Seasonal unit roots and seasonal cointegration 362 12.1 Effect of seasonal adjustment 364 12.2 Seasonal integration 365 12.3 Tests for seasonal unit roots 366 12.4 The unobserved component model 371 12.5 Seasonal cointegration 375 12.6 Estimation of seasonally cointegrated systems 376 12.7 Empirical evidence 378 12.8 Periodic autoregression and periodic integration 379 12.9 Periodic cointegration and seasonal cointegration 381 12.10 Time aggregation and systematic sampling 381 12.11 Conclusion 382 References 383 Part IV Structural change 387 13 Structural change, unit roots, and cointegration 389 13.1 Tests for structural change 390 13.2 Tests with known break points 390 13.3 Tests with unknown break points 391 Contents xi 13.4 A summary assessment 398 13.5 Tests for unit roots under structural change 399 13.6 The Bayesian approach 402 13.7 A summary assessment of the empirical work 407 13.8 Effect of structural change on cointegration tests 410 13.9 Tests for structural change in cointegrated relationships 411 13.10 Miscellaneous other issues 414 13.11 Practical conclusions 416 References 418 14 Outliers and unit roots 425 14.1 Introduction 425 14.2 Different types of outliers in time series models 425 14.3 Effects of outliers on unit root tests 428 14.4 Outlier detection 437 14.5 Robust unit root tests 440 14.6 Robust estimation of cointegrating regressions 445 14.7 Outliers and seasonal unit roots 448 14.8 Conclusions 448 References 449 15 Regime switching models and structural time series models 454 15.1 The switching regression model 454 15.2 The Markov switching regression model 455 15.3 The Hamilton model 457 15.4 On the usefulness of the MSR model 460 15.5 Extensions of the MSR model 463 15.6 Gradual regime switching models 466 15.7 A model with parameters following a random walk 469 15.8 A general state-space model 470 15.9 Derivation of the Kalman filter 472 15.10 Harvey's structural time series model (1989) 475 15.11 Further comments on structural time series models 477 15.12 Summary and conclusions 479 References 479 16 Future directions 486 References 488 Appendix 1 A brief guide to asymptotic theory 490 Author index 492 Subject index 500 Figures 2.1 Correlogram of an AR(2) model 16 2.2 Examples of two AR(1) processes with a drift 23 2.3 The variances of xt and yt 24 2.4 The autocorrelations of Xt and yt 25 2.5 Cointegrated and independent 1(1) variables 27 2.6 ARIMA(O,1,1) and its components 31 3.1 Random walk and step function 53 8.1 Marginal posterior distributions of p when p = 1 272 xn Tables 2.1 Regression of integrated variables 32 3.1 Critical values for Dickey-Fuller tests 64 3.2 Asymptotic distributions of the t-ratios for different DGPs 71 3.3 Critical values for the Schmidt-Phillips LM test 85 3.4 Nelson and Plosser's results 89
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Testing for Cointegration When Some of The
    EconometricTheory, 11, 1995, 984-1014. Printed in the United States of America. TESTINGFOR COINTEGRATION WHEN SOME OF THE COINTEGRATINGVECTORS ARE PRESPECIFIED MICHAELT.K. HORVATH Stanford University MARKW. WATSON Princeton University Manyeconomic models imply that ratios, simpledifferences, or "spreads"of variablesare I(O).In these models, cointegratingvectors are composedof l's, O's,and - l's and containno unknownparameters. In this paper,we develop tests for cointegrationthat can be appliedwhen some of the cointegratingvec- tors are prespecifiedunder the null or underthe alternativehypotheses. These tests are constructedin a vectorerror correction model and are motivatedas Waldtests from a Gaussianversion of the model. Whenall of the cointegrat- ing vectorsare prespecifiedunder the alternative,the tests correspondto the standardWald tests for the inclusionof errorcorrection terms in the VAR. Modificationsof this basictest are developedwhen a subsetof the cointegrat- ing vectorscontain unknown parameters. The asymptoticnull distributionsof the statisticsare derived,critical values are determined,and the local power propertiesof the test are studied.Finally, the test is appliedto data on for- eign exchangefuture and spot pricesto test the stabilityof the forward-spot premium. 1. INTRODUCTION Economic models often imply that variables are cointegrated with simple and known cointegrating vectors. Examples include the neoclassical growth model, which implies that income, consumption, investment, and the capi- tal stock will grow in a balanced way, so that any stochastic growth in one of the series must be matched by corresponding growth in the others. Asset This paper has benefited from helpful comments by Neil Ericsson, Gordon Kemp, Andrew Levin, Soren Johansen, John McDermott, Pierre Perron, Peter Phillips, James Stock, and three referees.
    [Show full text]
  • Conditional Heteroscedastic Cointegration Analysis with Structural Breaks a Study on the Chinese Stock Markets
    Conditional Heteroscedastic Cointegration Analysis with Structural Breaks A study on the Chinese stock markets Authors: Supervisor: Andrea P.G. Kratz Frederik Lundtofte Heli M.K. Raulamo VT 2011 Abstract A large number of studies have shown that macroeconomic variables can explain co- movements in stock market returns in developed markets. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether this relation also holds in China’s two stock markets. By doing a heteroscedastic cointegration analysis, the long run relation is investigated. The results show that it is difficult to determine if a cointegrating relationship exists. This could be caused by conditional heteroscedasticity and possible structural break(s) apparent in the sample. Keywords: cointegration, conditional heteroscedasticity, structural break, China, global financial crisis Table of contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 2. The Chinese stock market ...................................................................................................... 5 3. Previous research .................................................................................................................... 7 3.1. Stock market and macroeconomic variables ................................................................ 7 3.2. The Chinese market ..................................................................................................... 9 4. Theory .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 18 Cointegration
    RS – EC2 - Lecture 18 Lecture 18 Cointegration 1 Spurious Regression • Suppose yt and xt are I(1). We regress yt against xt. What happens? • The usual t-tests on regression coefficients can show statistically significant coefficients, even if in reality it is not so. • This the spurious regression problem (Granger and Newbold (1974)). • In a Spurious Regression the errors would be correlated and the standard t-statistic will be wrongly calculated because the variance of the errors is not consistently estimated. Note: This problem can also appear with I(0) series –see, Granger, Hyung and Jeon (1998). 1 RS – EC2 - Lecture 18 Spurious Regression - Examples Examples: (1) Egyptian infant mortality rate (Y), 1971-1990, annual data, on Gross aggregate income of American farmers (I) and Total Honduran money supply (M) ŷ = 179.9 - .2952 I - .0439 M, R2 = .918, DW = .4752, F = 95.17 (16.63) (-2.32) (-4.26) Corr = .8858, -.9113, -.9445 (2). US Export Index (Y), 1960-1990, annual data, on Australian males’ life expectancy (X) ŷ = -2943. + 45.7974 X, R2 = .916, DW = .3599, F = 315.2 (-16.70) (17.76) Corr = .9570 (3) Total Crime Rates in the US (Y), 1971-1991, annual data, on Life expectancy of South Africa (X) ŷ = -24569 + 628.9 X, R2 = .811, DW = .5061, F = 81.72 (-6.03) (9.04) Corr = .9008 Spurious Regression - Statistical Implications • Suppose yt and xt are unrelated I(1) variables. We run the regression: y t x t t • True value of β=0. The above is a spurious regression and et ∼ I(1).
    [Show full text]
  • Testing Linear Restrictions on Cointegration Vectors: Sizes and Powers of Wald Tests in Finite Samples
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Haug, Alfred A. Working Paper Testing linear restrictions on cointegration vectors: Sizes and powers of Wald tests in finite samples Technical Report, No. 1999,04 Provided in Cooperation with: Collaborative Research Center 'Reduction of Complexity in Multivariate Data Structures' (SFB 475), University of Dortmund Suggested Citation: Haug, Alfred A. (1999) : Testing linear restrictions on cointegration vectors: Sizes and powers of Wald tests in finite samples, Technical Report, No. 1999,04, Universität Dortmund, Sonderforschungsbereich 475 - Komplexitätsreduktion in Multivariaten Datenstrukturen, Dortmund This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/77134 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung
    [Show full text]
  • SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX a Time Series Model of Interest Rates
    SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX A Time Series Model of Interest Rates With the Effective Lower Bound⇤ Benjamin K. Johannsen† Elmar Mertens Federal Reserve Board Bank for International Settlements April 16, 2018 Abstract This appendix contains supplementary results as well as further descriptions of computa- tional procedures for our paper. Section I, describes the MCMC sampler used in estimating our model. Section II describes the computation of predictive densities. Section III reports ad- ditional estimates of trends and stochastic volatilities well as posterior moments of parameter estimates from our baseline model. Section IV reports estimates from an alternative version of our model, where the CBO unemployment rate gap is used as business cycle measure in- stead of the CBO output gap. Section V reports trend estimates derived from different variable orderings in the gap VAR of our model. Section VI compares the forecasting performance of our model to the performance of the no-change forecast from the random-walk model over a period that begins in 1985 and ends in 2017:Q2. Sections VII and VIII describe the particle filtering methods used for the computation of marginal data densities as well as the impulse responses. ⇤The views in this paper do not necessarily represent the views of the Bank for International Settlements, the Federal Reserve Board, any other person in the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee. Any errors or omissions should be regarded as solely those of the authors. †For correspondence: Benjamin K. Johannsen, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington D.C. 20551. email [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Models and Probabilities in the Monetary Policy Process
    1017-01 BPEA/Sims 12/30/02 14:48 Page 1 CHRISTOPHER A. SIMS Princeton University The Role of Models and Probabilities in the Monetary Policy Process This is a paper on the way data relate to decisionmaking in central banks. One component of the paper is based on a series of interviews with staff members and a few policy committee members of four central banks: the Swedish Riksbank, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of England, and the U.S. Federal Reserve. These interviews focused on the policy process and sought to determine how forecasts were made, how uncertainty was characterized and handled, and what role formal economic models played in the process at each central bank. In each of the four central banks, “subjective” forecasting, based on data analysis by sectoral “experts,” plays an important role. At the Federal Reserve, a seventeen-year record of model-based forecasts can be com- pared with a longer record of subjective forecasts, and a second compo- nent of this paper is an analysis of these records. Two of the central banks—the Riksbank and the Bank of England— have explicit inflation-targeting policies that require them to set quantita- tive targets for inflation and to publish, several times a year, their forecasts of inflation. A third component of the paper discusses the effects of such a policy regime on the policy process and on the role of models within it. The large models in use in central banks today grew out of a first generation of large models that were thought to be founded on the statisti- cal theory of simultaneous-equations models.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Applied Econometrics
    Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Applied Econometrics Jozef Barunik IES, FSV, UK Summer Semester 2010/2011 Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 1 / 18 Introduction Readings Readings 1 The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (2003): Time Series Econometrics: Cointegration and Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity, downloadable from: http://www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/∼steele/HoldingPen/NobelPrizeInfo.pdf 2 Granger,C.W.J. (2003): Time Series, Cointegration and Applications, Nobel lecture, December 8, 2003 3 Harris Using Cointegration Analysis in Econometric Modelling, 1995 (Useful applied econometrics textbook focused solely on cointegration) 4 Almost all textbooks cover the introduction to cointegration Engle-Granger procedure (single equation procedure), Johansen multivariate framework (covered in the following lecture) Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 2 / 18 Introduction Outline Outline of the today's talk What is cointegration? Deriving Error-Correction Model (ECM) Engle-Granger procedure Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 3 / 18 Introduction Outline Outline of the today's talk What is cointegration? Deriving Error-Correction Model (ECM) Engle-Granger procedure Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 3 / 18 Introduction Outline Outline of the today's talk What is cointegration? Deriving Error-Correction Model (ECM) Engle-Granger procedure Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 3 / 18 Introduction Outline Robert F. Engle and Clive W.J. Granger Robert F. Engle shared the Nobel prize (2003) \for methods of analyzing economic time series with time-varying volatility (ARCH) with Clive W.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Power and Size Properties of Cointegration Tests in the Light of High-Frequency Stylized Facts
    Journal of Risk and Financial Management Article On the Power and Size Properties of Cointegration Tests in the Light of High-Frequency Stylized Facts Christopher Krauss *,† and Klaus Herrmann † University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Lange Gasse 20, 90403 Nürnberg, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-0911-5302-278 † The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of affiliated institutions. Academic Editor: Teodosio Perez-Amaral Received: 10 October 2016; Accepted: 31 January 2017; Published: 7 February 2017 Abstract: This paper establishes a selection of stylized facts for high-frequency cointegrated processes, based on one-minute-binned transaction data. A methodology is introduced to simulate cointegrated stock pairs, following none, some or all of these stylized facts. AR(1)-GARCH(1,1) and MR(3)-STAR(1)-GARCH(1,1) processes contaminated with reversible and non-reversible jumps are used to model the cointegration relationship. In a Monte Carlo simulation, the power and size properties of ten cointegration tests are assessed. We find that in high-frequency settings typical for stock price data, power is still acceptable, with the exception of strong or very frequent non-reversible jumps. Phillips–Perron and PGFF tests perform best. Keywords: cointegration testing; high-frequency; stylized facts; conditional heteroskedasticity; smooth transition autoregressive models 1. Introduction The concept of cointegration has been empirically applied to a wide range of financial and macroeconomic data. In recent years, interest has surged in identifying cointegration relationships in high-frequency financial market data (see, among others, [1–5]). However, it remains unclear whether standard cointegration tests are truly robust against the specifics of high-frequency settings.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Wald Tests Work for Cointegrated VAR Systems *
    ECONOMETRIC REVIEWS, 15(4), 369-386 (1996) Making Wald Tests Work for Cointegrated VAR Systems * Juan J. Dolado and Helmut Lütkepohl CEMF1 Humboldt-Universitiit Casado del Alisal, 5 Spandauer Strasse 1 28014 Madrid, Spain 10178 Berlin, Germany Abstract Wald tests of restrictions on the coefficients of vector autoregressive (VAR) processes are known to have nonstandard asymptotic properties for 1(1) and cointegrated sys- tems of variables. A simple device is proposed which guarantees that Wald tests have asymptotic X2-distributions under general conditions. If the true generation process is a VAR(p) it is proposed to fit a VAR(p+1) to the data and perform a Wald test on the coefficients of the first p lags only. The power properties of the modified tests are studied both analytically and numerically by means of simple illustrative examples. 1 Introduction Wald tests are standard tools for testing restrictions on the coefficients of vector au- toregressive (VAR) processes. Their conceptual simplicity and easy applicability make them attractive for applied work to carry out statistical inference on hypotheses of interest. For instance, a typical example is the test of Granger-causality in the VAR *The research for this paper was supported by funds frorn the Deutsche Forschungsgerneinschaft, Sonderforschungsbereich 373. We are indebted to R. Mestre for invaluable research assistance. We have benefited frorn cornrnents by Peter C.B. Phillips, Enrique Sentana, Jürgen Wolters, three anony- rnous referees and participants at the European Meeting of the Econornetric Society, Maastricht 1994. 369 1 Copyright © 1996 by Mareel Dekker, Ine. 370 DOLADO AND LÜTKEPOHL framework where the null hypothesis is formulated as zero restrictions on the coeffi- cients of the lags of a subset of the variables.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Performance of a Cointegration-Based Approach for Novelty Detection in Realistic Fatigue Crack Growth Scenarios
    This is a repository copy of On the performance of a cointegration-based approach for novelty detection in realistic fatigue crack growth scenarios. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/141351/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Salvetti, M., Sbarufatti, C., Cross, E. orcid.org/0000-0001-5204-1910 et al. (3 more authors) (2019) On the performance of a cointegration-based approach for novelty detection in realistic fatigue crack growth scenarios. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 123. pp. 84-101. ISSN 0888-3270 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.01.007 Article available under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Title On the performance of a cointegration-based approach for novelty detection in realistic fatigue crack growth scenarios Abstract Confounding influences, such as operational and environmental variations, represent a limitation to the implementation of Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) systems in real structures, potentially leading to damage misclassifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Low-Frequency Robust Cointegration Testing∗
    Low-Frequency Robust Cointegration Testing∗ Ulrich K. Müller Mark W. Watson Princeton University Princeton University Department of Economics Department of Economics Princeton, NJ, 08544 and Woodrow Wilson School Princeton, NJ, 08544 June 2007 (This version: August 2009) Abstract Standard inference in cointegrating models is fragile because it relies on an assump- tion of an I(1) model for the common stochastic trends, which may not accurately describe the data’s persistence. This paper discusses efficient low-frequency inference about cointegrating vectors that is robust to this potential misspecification. A sim- pletestmotivatedbytheanalysisinWright(2000)isdevelopedandshowntobe approximately optimal in the case of a single cointegrating vector. JEL classification: C32, C12 Keywords: least favorable distribution, power envelope, nuisance parameters, labor’s share of income ∗We thank participants of the Cowles Econometrics Conference, the NBER Summer Institute and the Greater New York Metropolitan Area Econometrics Colloquium, and of seminars at Chicago, Cornell, North- western, NYU, Rutgers, and UCSD for helpful discussions. Support was provided by the National Science Foundation through grants SES-0518036 and SES-0617811. 1 Introduction The fundamental insight of cointegration is that while economic time series may be individ- ually highly persistent, some linear combinations are much less persistent. Accordingly, a suite of practical methods have been developed for conducting inference about cointegrat- ing vectors, the coefficients that lead to this reduction in persistence. In their standard form, these methods assume that the persistence is the result of common I(1) stochastic trends,1 and their statistical properties crucially depend on particular characteristics of I(1) processes. But in many applications there is uncertainty about the correct model for the per- sistence which cannot be resolved by examination of the data, rendering standard inference potentially fragile.
    [Show full text]
  • Cointegration - General Discussion
    Coint - 1 Cointegration - general discussion Definitions: A time series that requires d differences to get it stationary is said to be "integrated of order d". If the dth difference has p AutoRegressive and q Moving Average terms, the differenced series is said to be ARMA(p,q) and the original Integrated series to be ARIMA(p,d,q). Two series Xtt and Y that are integrated of order d may, through linear combination, produce a series +\>> ,] which is stationary (or integrated of order smaller than d) in which case we say that \]>> and are cointegrated and we refer to Ð+ß ,Ñ as the cointegrating vector. Granger and Weis discuss this concept and terminology. An example: For example, if \]>> and are wages in two similar industries, we may find that both are unit root processes. We may, however, reason that by virtue of the similar skills and easy transfer between the two industries, the difference \]>> - cannot vary too far from 0 and thus, certainly should not be a unit root process. The cointegrating vector is specified by our theory to be Ð"ß "Ñ or Ð "ß "Ñ, or Ð-ß -Ñ all of which are equivalent. The test for cointegration here consists of simply testing the original series for unit roots, not rejecting the unit root null , then testing the \]>> - series and rejecting the unit root null. We just use the standard D-F tables for all these tests. The reason we can use these D-F tables is that the cointegrating vector was specified by our theory, not estimated from the data.
    [Show full text]