跳到正文
← 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:摘要明确将一阶自回归面板及其单位根参数检验作为主要分析模型之一。

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
Prosper Dovonon
Alastair R. Hall
Frank Kleibergen

二阶识别模型中的推断

研究问题
当矩条件仅能在局部以二阶识别参数时,常规检验与识别稳健检验的局部功效如何变化,哪些统计量仍具有有意义的功效?
方法与思路
作者比较 Wald、LM 及多种识别稳健统计量的局部功效,并分别分析一阶自回归面板与条件异方差因子模型。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称 Wald 在局部备择下的极限分布还依赖雅可比矩阵收敛率;两类模型的比较表明功效排序取决于模型及样本情形。
阅读关注点
应核对二阶局部识别的定义、局部备择与雅可比收敛率的设定,并区分参数检验和模型设定检验的功效比较。
阅读边界
摘要中的功效排序对应特定模型与检验问题,不能推广为普遍优劣;未说明完整正则条件、局部序列构造及数值结果。

原文摘要

We explore the local power properties of different test statistics for conducting inference in moment condition models that only identify the parameters locally to second order. We consider the conventional Wald and LM statistics, and also the Generalized Anderson–Rubin (GAR) statistic (Anderson and Rubin, 1949; Dufour, 1997; Staiger and Stock, 1997; Stock and Wright, 2000), KLM statistic (Kleibergen, 2002; Kleibergen, 2005) and the GMM extension of Moreira (2003) (GMM-M) conditional likelihood ratio statistic. The GAR, KLM and GMM-M statistics are so-called “identification robust” since their (conditional) limiting distribution is the same under first-order, weak and therefore also second order identification. For inference about the model specification, we consider the identification-robust J statistic (Kleibergen, 2005), and the GAR statistic. Interestingly, we find that the limiting distribution of the Wald statistic under local alternatives not only depends on the distance to the null hypothesis but also on the convergence rate of the Jacobian. We specifically analyse two empirically relevant models with second order identification. In the panel autoregressive model of order one, our analysis indicates that the Wald test of a unit root value of the autoregressive parameter has better power compared to the corresponding GAR test which, in turn, dominates the KLM, GMM-M and LM tests. For the conditionally heteroskedastic factor model, we compare Kleibergen (2005) J and the GAR statistics to Hansen (1982) overidentifying restrictions test (previously analysed in this context by Dovonon and Renault, 2013) and find the power ranking depends on the sample size. Collectively, our results suggest that tests with meaningful power can be conducted in second-order identified models.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文