No abstract uploaded!

A bandwidth selection method is proposed for local linear regression. Our approach is to combine the ideas of optimal bandwidth selection of Hall et al.(1991) in kernel density estimation, and use of direct bias and variance in Fan and Gijbels (1995) for local linear regression. We show that the bandwidth selector has an optimal relative rate of convergence of n-1/2 with n the sample size.

There are few techniques available for testing whether or not a family of parametric times series models fits a set of data reasonably well without serious restrictions on the forms of alternative models. In this paper, we consider generalised likelihood ratio tests on whether the spectral density function of a stationary time series admits certain parametric forms. We propose a bias correction method for the generalised likelihood ratio test of Fan et al.(2001). In particular, our methods can be applied to test whether or not a residual series is white noise. Sampling properties of the proposed tests are established. A bootstrap approach is proposed for estimating the null distribution of the test statistics. Simulation studies investigate the accuracy of the proposed bootstrap estimate and compare the power of the various ways of constructing the generalised likelihood ratio tests as well as some classic methods like the Cramer-von Mises and Ljung-Box tests. Our results favour the newly proposed bias reduction method using the local likelihood estimator.

Regularity properties such as the incoherence condition, the restricted isometry property, compatibility, restricted eigenvalue and iq sensitivity of covariate matrices play a pivotal role in high-dimensional regression and compressed sensing. Yet, like computing the spark of a matrix, we first show that it is NP-hard to check the conditions involving all submatrices of a given size.

In event studies of capital market efficiency, an earnings surprise has historically been measured by the consensus error, defined as earnings minus the consensus or average of professional forecasts. The rationale is that the consensus is an accurate measure of the markets expectation of earnings. But since forecasts can be biased due to conflicts of interest and some investors can see through these conflicts, this rationale is flawed and the consensus error a biased measure of an earnings surprise. We show that the fraction of forecasts that miss on the same side (FOM), by ignoring the size of the misses, is less sensitive to such bias and a better measure of an earnings surprise. As a result, FOM out-performs the consensus error and its related robust statistics in explaining stock price movements around and subsequent to the announcement date.