Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:34:45.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BACKWARD CUSUM FOR TESTING AND MONITORING STRUCTURAL CHANGE WITH AN APPLICATION TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC DATA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2022

Sven Otto  and
Jörg Breitung
Sven Otto
Affiliation:
Institute of Finance and Statistics, University of Bonn
Jörg Breitung*
Affiliation:
Institute of Econometrics and Statistics, University of Cologne
*
Address correspondence to Jörg Breitung, Institute of Econometrics and Statistics, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50923 Cologne, Germany; e-mail: [email protected].
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It is well known that the conventional cumulative sum (CUSUM) test suffers from low power and large detection delay. In order to improve the power of the test, we propose two alternative statistics. The backward CUSUM detector considers the recursive residuals in reverse chronological order, whereas the stacked backward CUSUM detector sequentially cumulates a triangular array of backwardly cumulated residuals. A multivariate invariance principle for partial sums of recursive residuals is given, and the limiting distributions of the test statistics are derived under local alternatives. In the retrospective context, the local power of the tests is shown to be substantially higher than that of the conventional CUSUM test if a break occurs in the middle or at the end of the sample. When applied to monitoring schemes, the detection delay of the stacked backward CUSUM is found to be much shorter than that of the conventional monitoring CUSUM procedure. Furthermore, we propose an estimator of the break date based on the backward CUSUM detector and show that in monitoring exercises this estimator tends to outperform the usual maximum likelihood estimator. Finally, an application of the methodology to COVID-19 data is presented.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Econometric Theory , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , August 2023 , pp. 659 - 692
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Footnotes

We are thankful to Holger Dette, Josua Gösmann, Alexander Mayer, Dominik Wied, and three referees for their very helpful comments and suggestions which helped to improve the paper a lot. Furthermore, the usage of the CHEOPS HPC cluster for parallel computing is gratefully acknowledged.

References

REFERENCES

Anatolyev, S. & Kosenok, G. (2018) Sequential testing with uniformly distributed size. Journal of Time Series Econometrics 10, 1941–1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D.W. (1991) Heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix estimation. Econometrica 59, 817–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D.W. (1993) Tests for parameter instability and structural change with unknown change point. Econometrica 61, 821–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astill, S., Harvey, D.I., Leybourne, S.J., Sollis, R., & Robert Taylor, A. (2018) Real-time monitoring for explosive financial bubbles. Journal of Time Series Analysis 39, 863–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aue, A. & Horváth, L. (2004) Delay time in sequential detection of change. Statistics & Probability Letters 67, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aue, A. & Horváth, L. (2013) Structural breaks in time series: Structural breaks in time series. Journal of Time Series Analysis 34, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aue, A., Horváth, L., Hušková, M., & Kokoszka, P. (2006) Change-point monitoring in linear models. Econometrics Journal 9, 373–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aue, A., Horváth, L., & Reimherr, M.L. (2009) Delay times of sequential procedures for multiple time series regression models. Journal of Econometrics 149, 174–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bai, J. (1997) Estimation of a change point in multiple regression models. Review of Economics and Statistics 79, 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, I., Hörmann, S., Schauer, J., et al. (2011) Split invariance principles for stationary processes. Annals of Probability 39, 2441–2473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, I., Liu, W., & Wu, W.B. (2014) Komlós–Major–Tusnády approximation under dependence. Annals of Probability 42, 794–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billingsley, P. (1999). Convergence of Probability Measures, 2nd edition. Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R.L., Durbin, J., & Evans, J.M. (1975) Techniques for testing the Constancy of regression relationships over time. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B 37, 149–192.Google Scholar
Casini, A. (2021) Theory of evolutionary spectra for heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation robust inference in possibly misspecified and nonstationary models. Preprint, arXiv:2103.02981.Google Scholar
Casini, A. and Perron, P. (2019) Structural breaks in time series. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casini, A. and Perron, P. (2021a) Continuous record asymptotics for structural change models. Preprint, arXiv:1803.10881.Google Scholar
Casini, A. & Perron, P. (2021b) Continuous record Laplace-based inference about the break date in structural change models. Journal of Econometrics 224, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, C.-S.J., Stinchcombe, M., & White, H. (1996) Monitoring structural change. Econometrica 64, 1045–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla, V., Giraitis, L., & Phillips, P.C.B. (2020) Robust tests for white noise and cross-correlation. Econometric Theory, forthcoming. DOI:10.1017/S0266466620000341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. (1994) Stochastic Limit Theory: An Introduction for Econometricians. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dette, H. & Gösmann, J. (2020) A likelihood ratio approach to sequential change point detection for a general class of parameters. Journal of the American Statistical Association 115, 1361–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fremdt, S. (2015) Page’s sequential procedure for change-point detection in time series regression. Statistics 49, 128–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gösmann, J., Kley, T., & Dette, H. (2021) A new approach for open-end sequential change point monitoring. Journal of Time Series Analysis 42, 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, B.E. (1992) Testing for parameter instability in linear models. Journal of Policy Modeling 14, 517–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homm, U. & Breitung, J. (2012) Testing for speculative bubbles in stock markets: A comparison of alternative methods. Journal of Financial Econometrics 10(1), 198–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horváth, L. (1995) Detecting changes in linear regressions. Statistics 26, 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horváth, L., Hušková, M., Kokoszka, P., & Steinebach, J. (2004) Monitoring changes in linear models. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 126, 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, P. & Kurozumi, E. (2019) Power properties of the modified CUSUM tests. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods 48, 2962–2981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirch, C. & Kamgaing, J.T. (2015) On the use of estimating functions in monitoring time series for change points. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 161, 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komlós, J., Major, P., & Tusnády, G. (1975) An approximation of partial sums of independent RV’-s, and the sample DF. I. Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete 32, 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krämer, W., Ploberger, W., & Alt, R. (1988) Testing for structural change in dynamic models. Econometrica 56, 1355–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leisch, F., Hornik, K., & Kuan, C.-M. (2000) Monitoring structural changes with the generalized fluctuation test. Econometric Theory 16, 835–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newey, W.K. & West, K.D. (1987) A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica 55, 703–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. & Durlauf, S.N. (1986) Multiple time series regression with integrated processes. Review of Economic Studies 53, 473–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. & Shi, S.-P. (2018) Financial bubble implosion and reverse regression. Econometric Theory 34(4), 705–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B., Wu, Y., & Yu, J. (2011) Explosive behavior in the 1990s Nasdaq: When did exuberance escalate asset values? International Economic Review 52, 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ploberger, W. & Krämer, W. (1990) The local power of the CUSUM and CUSUM of squares tests. Econometric Theory 6, 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ploberger, W. & Krämer, W. (1992) The CUSUM test with OLS residuals. Econometrica 60, 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, H. & Siegmund, D. (1970) Boundary crossing probabilities for the wiener process and sample sums. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 41, 1410–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, M., Gallagher, C., Lund, R., & Aue, A. (2011) Mean shift testing in correlated data. Journal of Time Series Analysis 32, 498–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, P.K. (1982) Invariance principles for recursive residuals. Annals of Statistics 10, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strassen, V. (1967) Almost sure behavior of sums of independent random variables and martingales. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability 2, 315–343.Google Scholar
White, H. (2001). Asymptotic Theory for Econometricians, revised edition. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wied, D. & Galeano, P. (2013) Monitoring correlation change in a sequence of random variables. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 143, 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, J.M. & White, H. (1988) Some invariance principles and central limit theorems for dependent heterogeneous processes. Econometric Theory 4, 210–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, W.B., et al. (2007) Strong invariance principles for dependent random variables. Annals of Probability 35, 2294–2320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeileis, A., Leisch, F., Kleiber, C., & Hornik, K. (2005) Monitoring structural change in dynamic econometric models. Journal of Applied Econometrics 20, 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar