On finite sample properties of the tests of robinson (1994) for fractional integration

This article proposes a bootstrap version of the tests of Robinson (1994) for testing unit and/or fractional roots. The finite-sample behaviour of the tests, based on these bootstrap critical values is compared with those based on asymptotic and on finite-sample results and with a number of leading unit-root tests. The Monte-Carlo simulations indicate that the bootstrap version of the tests of Robinson (1994) outperforms the other tests, including the one using finite-sample critical values. The improvement in the size and the power is particularly important under AR(1) alternatives. A small empirical application is also carried out with inflation for a panel of 16 European countries. The results show that the differences across countries depend on the critical values used: whereas the I (1) property of inflation is unclear with the asymptotic tests in some countries, the bootstrap version of Robinson's (1994) tests cannot reject the presence of a unit-root in inflation.     

On the Power of Bootstrapped Specification Tests

Abstract

Decisions based on econometric model estimates may not have the expected effect if the model is misspecified. Thus, specification tests should precede any analysis. Bierens' specification test is consistent and has optimality properties against some local alternatives. A shortcoming is that the test statistic is not distribution free, even asymptotically. This makes the test unfeasible. There have been many suggestions to circumvent this problem, including the use of upper bounds for the critical values. However, these suggestions lead to tests that lose power and optimality against local alternatives. In this paper we show that bootstrap methods allow us to recover power and optimality of Bierens' original test. Bootstrap also provides reliable p-values, which have a central role in Fisher's theory of hypothesis testing. The paper also includes a discussion of the properties of the bootstrap Nonlinear Least Squares Estimator under local alternatives.     

A Comparative Study of Model-based Tests of Independence for Ordinal Data Using the Bootstrap

When analyzing categorical data using loglinear models in sparse contingency tables, asymptotic results may fail. In this paper the empirical properties of three commonly used asymptotic tests of independence, based on the uniform association model for ordinal data, are investigated by means of Monte Carlo simulation. Five different bootstrapped tests of independence are presented and compared to the asymptotic tests. The comparisons are made with respect to both size and power properties of the tests. Results indicate that the asymptotic tests have poor size control. The test based on the estimated association parameter is severely conservative and the two chi-squared tests (Pearson, likelihood-ratio) are both liberal. The bootstrap tests that either use a parametric assumption or are based on non-pivotal test statistics do not perform better than the asymptotic tests in all situations. The bootstrap tests that are based on approximately pivotal statistics provide both adjustment of size and enhancement of power. These tests are therefore recommended for use in situations similar to those included in the simulation study.     

Comments

In this paper we compare Bartlett-corrected, bootstrap, and fast double bootstrap tests on maximum likelihood estimates of cointegration parameters. The key result is that both the bootstrap and the Bartlett-corrected tests must be based on the unrestricted estimates of the cointegrating vectors: procedures based on the restricted estimates have almost no power. The small sample size bias of the asymptotic test appears so severe as to advise strongly against its use with the sample sizes commonly available; the fast double bootstrap test minimizes size bias, while the Bartlett-corrected test is somehow more powerful.     

Permutation Tests for Comparing Inequality Measures

ABSTRACT

Asymptotic and bootstrap tests for inequality measures are known to perform poorly in finite samples when the underlying distribution is heavy-tailed. We propose Monte Carlo permutation and bootstrap methods for the problem of testing the equality of inequality measures between two samples. Results cover the Generalized Entropy class, which includes Theil’s index, the Atkinson class of indices, and the Gini index. We analyze finite-sample and asymptotic conditions for the validity of the proposed methods, and we introduce a convenient rescaling to improve finite-sample performance. Simulation results show that size correct inference can be obtained with our proposed methods despite heavy tails if the underlying distributions are sufficiently close in the upper tails. Substantial reduction in size distortion is achieved more generally. Studentized rescaled Monte Carlo permutation tests outperform the competing methods we consider in terms of power.     

Robust Lagrange multiplier test for detecting ARCH/GARCH effect using permutation and bootstrap

The Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test is one of the principal tools to detect ARCH and GARCH effects in financial data analysis. However, when the underlying data are non‐normal, which is often the case in practice, the asymptotic LM test, based on the χ²‐approximation of critical values, is known to perform poorly, particularly for small and moderate sample sizes. In this paper we propose to employ two re‐sampling techniques to find critical values of the LM test, namely permutation and bootstrap. We derive the properties of exactness and asymptotically correctness for the permutation and bootstrap LM tests, respectively. Our numerical studies indicate that the proposed re‐sampled algorithms significantly improve size and power of the LM test in both skewed and heavy‐tailed processes. We also illustrate our new approaches with an application to the analysis of the Euro/USD currency exchange rates and the German stock index. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 40: 405–426; 2012 © 2012 Statistical Society of Canada     

Cross-sectional correlation robust tests for panel cointegration

We use meta-analytic procedures to develop new tests for panel cointegration, combining p-values from time-series cointegration tests on the units of the panel. The tests are robust to heterogeneity and cross-sectional dependence between the panel units. To achieve the latter, we employ a sieve bootstrap procedure with joint resampling of the units’ residuals. A simulation study shows that the tests can have substantially smaller size distortion than tests ignoring the presence of cross-sectional dependence while preserving high power. We apply the tests to a panel of post-Bretton Woods data to test for weak purchasing power parity.     

Testing the Equality of Multivariate Distributions Using the Bootstrap and Integrated Empirical Processes

We introduce some projected integrated empirical processes for testing the equality of two multivariate distributions. The bootstrap is used for determining the approximate critical values. We show that the bootstrap test is consistent. A number-theoretic method is used for efficient computation of the bootstrap critical values. Some simulation results are also given.     

A note on tests for interaction in quantal response data

There are few distribution-free methods for detecting interaction in fixed-dose trials involving quantal response data, despite the fact that such trials are common. We present three new tests to address this issue, including a simple bootstrap procedure. We examine the power of the likelihood ratio test and our new bootstrap test statistic using an innovative linear extrapolation power-estimation technique described in Boos, D. D. and Zhang, J. (2000) in Monte Carlo evaluation of resampling-based hypothesis tests. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 486–492.     

Bootstrap versus traditional hypothesis testing procedures for coefficients in least absolute value regression

Several approaches to hypothesis testing for coefficients in least absolute value regression are compared using a Monte Carlo simulation: likelihood ratio test, Lagrange multiplier test, and three versions of the bootstrap hypothesis test. Factors considered that might influence test performance include the disturbance distribution, the type of independent variable, and the sample size. Overall, the likelihood ratio and the bootstrap tests perform best, with the likelihood ratio test being marginally more powerful. Least absolute value tests are also compared to the standard t test and three versions of the bootstrapped t test for least squares regression.     

Comparing k Cumulative Incidence Functions Through Resampling Methods

Tests for the equality of k cumulative incidence functions in a competing risks model are proposed. Test statistics are based on a vector of processes related to the cumulative incidence functions. Since their asymptotic distributions appear very complicated and depend on the underlying distribution of the data, two resampling techniques, namely the well-known bootstrap method and the so-called random symmetrization method, are used to approximate the critical values of the tests. Without making any assumptions on the nature of dependence between the risks, the tests allow one to compare k risks simultaneously for k 2 under the random censorship model. Tests against ordered alternatives are also considered. Simulation studies indicate that the proposed tests perform very well with moderate sample size. A real application to cancer mortality data is given.     

On bootstrap testing inference in cure rate models

Survival models deal with the time until the occurrence of an event of interest. However, in some situations the event may not occur in part of the studied population. The fraction of the population that will never experience the event of interest is generally called cure rate. Models that consider this fact (cure rate models) have been extensively studied in the literature. Hypothesis testing on the parameters of these models can be performed based on likelihood ratio, gradient, score or Wald statistics. Critical values of these tests are obtained through approximations that are valid in large samples and may result in size distortion in small or moderate sample sizes. In this sense, this paper proposes bootstrap corrections to the four mentioned tests and bootstrap Bartlett correction for the likelihood ratio statistic in the Weibull promotion time model. Besides, we present an algorithm for bootstrap resampling when the data presents cure fraction and right censoring time (random and non-informative). Simulation studies are conducted to compare the finite sample performances of the corrected tests. The numerical evidence favours the corrected tests we propose. We also present an application in an actual data set.     

Likelihood Ratio Type Two‐Sample Tests for Current Status Data

Abstract. We introduce fully non‐parametric two‐sample tests for testing the null hypothesis that the samples come from the same distribution if the values are only indirectly given via current status censoring. The tests are based on the likelihood ratio principle and allow the observation distributions to be different for the two samples, in contrast with earlier proposals for this situation. A bootstrap method is given for determining critical values and asymptotic theory is developed. A simulation study, using Weibull distributions, is presented to compare the power behaviour of the tests with the power of other non‐parametric tests in this situation.     

Bootstrap procedures for variance breaks test in time series with a changing trend

In this article, we consider the problem of testing for variance breaks in time series in the presence of a changing trend. In performing the test, we employ the cumulative sum of squares (CUSSQ) test introduced by Inclán and Tiao (1994, J.?Amer.?Statist.?Assoc., 89, 913 ? 923). It is shown that CUSSQ test is not robust in the case of broken trend and its asymptotic distribution does not convergence to the sup of a standard Brownian bridge. As a remedy, a bootstrap approximation method is designed to alleviate the size distortions of test statistic while preserving its high power. Via a bootstrap functional central limit theorem, the consistency of these bootstrap procedures is established under general assumptions. Simulation results are provided for illustration and an empirical example of application to a set of high frequency real data is given.     

One‐Way anova for Functional Data via Globalizing the Pointwise F‐test

In this paper, we propose and study a new global test, namely, GPF test, for the one‐way anova problem for functional data, obtained via globalizing the usual pointwise F‐test. The asymptotic random expressions of the test statistic are derived, and its asymptotic power is investigated. The GPF test is shown to be root‐n consistent. It is much less computationally intensive than a parametric bootstrap test proposed in the literature for the one‐way anova for functional data. Via some simulation studies, it is found that in terms of size‐controlling and power, the GPF test is comparable with two existing tests adopted for the one‐way anova problem for functional data. A real data example illustrates the GPF test.     

Bootstrap Tests of Nonnested Hypotheses: Some Further Results

Abstract

Nonnested models are sometimes tested using a simulated reference distribution for the uncentred log likelihood ratio statistic. This approach has been recommended for the specific problem of testing linear and logarithmic regression models. The general asymptotic validity of the reference distribution test under correct choice of error distributions is questioned. The asymptotic behaviour of the test under incorrect assumptions about error distributions is also examined. In order to complement these analyses, Monte Carlo results for the case of linear and logarithmic regression models are provided. The finite sample properties of several standard tests for testing these alternative functional forms are also studied, under normal and nonnormal error distributions. These regression-based variable-addition tests are implemented using asymptotic and bootstrap critical values.     

Bootstrap methods for single structural change tests: power versus corrected size and empirical illustration

This paper assesses the performance of tests for a single structural change at unknown date when regressors are stationary, trending and when they have a break in mean. Size and power of the test procedures are compared in a simulation setup particularly aimed at autoregressive models using their limiting distribution and some bootstrap approximations. The comparisons are performed using graphical methods, namely P value discrepancy plots and size–power curves. The simulation study gives some interesting insights to the test procedures. Indeed, it documents that tests based on the conventional asymptotic distribution are oversized in small samples. The size correction is achieved by some bootstrap methods which appear to possess reasonable size properties. For the power study, the proposed bootstrap method improves on the asymptotic approximations of some tests for heteroskedastic regression errors especially when there is a mean-shift in the regressors. This result has not been found for the case of i.i.d. errors where the bootstrap tests have the same power properties as the tests based on the asymptotic approximations. We finally study the relationship between two monthly US interest rates. The results show that such relationship has been altered by a regime-shift located in May 1981.     

Power and Sample Size for Fixed-Effects Inference in Reversible Linear Mixed Models

ABSTRACT

Despite the popularity of the general linear mixed model for data analysis, power and sample size methods and software are not generally available for commonly used test statistics and reference distributions. Statisticians resort to simulations with homegrown and uncertified programs or rough approximations which are misaligned with the data analysis. For a wide range of designs with longitudinal and clustering features, we provide accurate power and sample size approximations for inference about fixed effects in the linear models we call reversible. We show that under widely applicable conditions, the general linear mixed-model Wald test has noncentral distributions equivalent to well-studied multivariate tests. In turn, exact and approximate power and sample size results for the multivariate Hotelling–Lawley test provide exact and approximate power and sample size results for the mixed-model Wald test. The calculations are easily computed with a free, open-source product that requires only a web browser to use. Commercial software can be used for a smaller range of reversible models. Simple approximations allow accounting for modest amounts of missing data. A real-world example illustrates the methods. Sample size results are presented for a multicenter study on pregnancy. The proposed study, an extension of a funded project, has clustering within clinic. Exchangeability among the participants allows averaging across them to remove the clustering structure. The resulting simplified design is a single-level longitudinal study. Multivariate methods for power provide an approximate sample size. All proofs and inputs for the example are in the supplementary materials (available online).     

Bootstrapping unit root tests with covariates

We consider the bootstrap method for the covariates augmented Dickey–Fuller (CADF) unit root test suggested in Hansen (1995 Hansen, B. E. (1995). Rethinking the univariate approach to unit root testing: Using covariates to increase power. \ Econometric Theory 11:1148–1171.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) which uses related variables to improve the power of univariate unit root tests. It is shown that there are substantial power gains from including correlated covariates. The limit distribution of the CADF test, however, depends on the nuisance parameter that represents the correlation between the equation error and the covariates. Hence, inference based directly on the CADF test is not possible. To provide a valid inferential basis for the CADF test, we propose to use the parametric bootstrap procedure to obtain critical values, and establish the asymptotic validity of the bootstrap CADF test. Simulations show that the bootstrap CADF test significantly improves the asymptotic and the finite sample size performances of the CADF test, especially when the covariates are highly correlated with the error. Indeed, the bootstrap CADF test offers drastic power gains over the conventional unit root tests. Our testing procedures are applied to the extended Nelson and Plosser data set.     

The Size and Power of Bootstrap and Bartlett-Corrected Tests of Hypotheses on the Cointegrating Vectors

In this paper we compare Bartlett-corrected, bootstrap, and fast double bootstrap tests on maximum likelihood estimates of cointegration parameters. The key result is that both the bootstrap and the Bartlett-corrected tests must be based on the unrestricted estimates of the cointegrating vectors: procedures based on the restricted estimates have almost no power. The small sample size bias of the asymptotic test appears so severe as to advise strongly against its use with the sample sizes commonly available; the fast double bootstrap test minimizes size bias, while the Bartlett-corrected test is somehow more powerful.