Specification tests based on MCMC output
基于MCMC输出的模型设定检验AI 解读 ↓
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。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:方法本身适用于多种模型,所给摘要明确列出线性状态空间和随机波动率应用,因此以时间序列与波动率作为应用分类。
基于MCMC输出的模型设定检验AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Two test statistics are proposed to determine model specification after a model is estimated by an MCMC method. The first test is the MCMC version of IOSA test and its asymptotic null distribution is normal. The second test is motivated from the power enhancement technique of Fan et al. (2015). It combines a component (J1) that tests a null point hypothesis in an expanded model and a power enhancement component (J0) obtained from the first test. It is shown that J0 converges to zero when the null model is correctly specified and diverges when the null model is misspecified. Also shown is that J1 is asymptotically χ2-distributed, suggesting that the second test is asymptotically pivotal, when the null model is correctly specified. The main feature of the first test is that no alternative model is needed. The second test has several properties. First, its size distortion is small and hence bootstrap methods can be avoided. Second, it is easy to compute from MCMC output and hence is applicable to a wide range of models, including latent variable models for which frequentist methods are difficult to use. Third, when the test statistic rejects the null model and J1 takes a large value, the test suggests the source of misspecification. The finite sample performance is investigated using simulated data. The method is illustrated in a linear regression model, a linear state-space model, and a stochastic volatility model using real data.