Paper detail

Improved Pena-Rodriguez Portmanteau Test

Several problems with the diagnostic check suggested by Pena and Rodriguez [2002. A powerful portmanteau test of lack of fit for time series. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 97, 601-610.] are noted and an improved Monte-Carlo version of this test is suggested. It is shown that quite often the test statistic recommended by Pena and Rodriguez [2002. A powerful portmanteau test of lack of fit for time series. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 97, 601-610.] may not exist and their asymptotic distribution of the test does not agree with the suggested gamma approximation very well if the number of lags used by the test is small. It is shown that the convergence of this test statistic to its asymptotic distribution may be quite slow when the series length is less than 1000 and so a Monte-Carlo test is recommended. Simulation experiments suggest the Monte-Carlo test is usually more powerful than the test given by Pena and Rodriguez [2002. A powerful portmanteau test of lack of fit for time series. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 97, 601-610.] and often much more powerful than the Ljung-Box portmanteau test. Two illustrative examples of enhanced diagnostic checking with the Monte-Carlo test are given.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.