A single-blind controlled competition among tests for nonlinearity and chaos
非线性与混沌检验的单盲受控竞赛AI 解读 ↓
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要以线性、混沌和随机序列为对象比较非线性检验，直接涉及时间序列方法。
反馈分类问题正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
关注这篇论文的作者
非线性与混沌检验的单盲受控竞赛
- 研究问题
- 经济数据中的非线性与混沌为何难以可靠检出，常用检验面对不同生成机制及大小样本时具有怎样的检验功效？
- 方法与思路
- 作者组织五种检验的专家，对十条匿名模拟序列进行单盲竞赛；生成机制涵盖线性过程、混沌递推和非混沌随机过程。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称竞赛揭示了部分常用非线性及含噪混沌检验功效的意外表现，为理解相关实证争议提供受控比较证据。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对五种检验、数据生成机制、样本长度和调参规则，并查看尺寸控制、功效比较以及单盲安排是否充分可比。
- 阅读边界
- 仅依据所给作者／机构库版本摘要，不能推断刊本变化；摘要未列出检验名称、具体功效或胜负，不能据此作排名。
原文摘要
Interest has been growing in testing for nonlinearity or chaos in economic data, but much controversy has arisen about the available results. This paper explores the reasons for these empirical difficulties. We designed and ran a single-blind controlled competition among five highly regarded tests for nonlinearity or chaos with ten simulated data series. The data generating mechanisms include linear processes, chaotic recursions, and nonchaotic stochastic processes; and both large and small samples were included in the experiment. The data series were produced in a single blind manner by the competition manager and sent by e-mail, without identifying information, to the experiment participants. Each such participant is an acknowledged expert in one of the tests and has a possible vested interest in producing the best possible results with that one test. The results of this competition provide much surprising information about the power functions of some of the best regarded tests for nonlinearity or noisy chaos.