4.4 Article

On bandwidth selection problems in nonparametric trend estimation under martingale difference errors

期刊

BERNOULLI
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 395-423

出版社

INT STATISTICAL INST
DOI: 10.3150/21-BEJ1347

关键词

Nonparametric trend estimation; kernel nonparametric models; smoothing parameter selection; martingale difference sequences; average squared error; mean average squared error; Mallows criterion; cross validation; generalized cross validation; ARCH(1)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper focuses on the selection of smoothing parameters in nonparametric curve estimation with dependent errors, comparing different minimization methods and proving their first-order equivalence in probability. A Monte-Carlo simulation study is conducted for the Auto-Regressive Conditional Heteroscedastic (ARCH(1)) process.
In this paper, we are interested in the problem of smoothing parameter selection in nonparametric curve estimation under dependent errors. We focus on kernel estimation and the case when the errors form a general stationary sequence of martingale difference random variables where neither linearity assumption nor all moments are finite are required. We compare the behaviors of the smoothing bandwidths obtained by minimizing either the unknown average squared error, the theoretical mean average squared error, a Mallows-type criterion adapted to the dependent case and the family of criteria known as generalized cross validation (GCV) extensions of the Mallows' criterion. We prove that these three minimizers and those based on the GCV family are first-order equivalent in probability. We give also a normal asymptotic behavior of the gap between the minimizer of the average squared error and that of the Mallows-type criterion. This is extended to the GCV family. Finally, we apply our theoretical results to a specific case of martingale difference sequence, namely the Auto-Regressive Conditional Heteroscedastic (ARCH(1)) process. A Monte-Carlo simulation study, for this regression model with ARCH(1) process, is conducted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据