11.07.2015 Views

Causality in Time Series - ClopiNet

Causality in Time Series - ClopiNet

Causality in Time Series - ClopiNet

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Causal Search <strong>in</strong> SVARV 2,t |V 1,t−1 ,V 3,t−1 .In our simulations, we vary two aspects. The first aspect is the functional form ofthe causal dependency. To systematically vary nonl<strong>in</strong>earity and its impact, we characterizethe causal relation between, say, V 1,t−1 and V 2,t , <strong>in</strong> a polynomial form, i.e. viaV 2,t = f (V 1,t−1 ) + e, where f = ∑︀ pj=0 b jV j1,t−1. Here<strong>in</strong>, j reflects the degree of nonl<strong>in</strong>earity,while b j would capture the impact nonl<strong>in</strong>earity exerts. For polynomials of anydegree, we set only b p 0. An additive error term e completes the specification.The second aspect is the number of variables <strong>in</strong> Z conditional on which X and Ycan be <strong>in</strong>dependent. Either zero, one, but maximally two variables may form the set Z= {Z 1 ,...,Z d } of conditioned variables; hence Z has card<strong>in</strong>ality #Z = {0,1,2}.To identify power properties, H 0 must not hold anywhere, i.e. X ⊥/ Y|Z. We calldata generation processes where H 0 does not hold anywhere, power-DGPs. Such DGPscan be <strong>in</strong>duced by (i) a direct path between X and Y which does not <strong>in</strong>clude Z, (ii) acommon cause for X and Y which is not an element of Z, or (iii) a “collider” between Xand Y belong<strong>in</strong>g to Z. 4 As before, we vary the functional form f of these causal pathspolynomially where aga<strong>in</strong>, only b p 0. Third, we <strong>in</strong>vestigate different card<strong>in</strong>alities#Z = {0,1,2} of set Z conditional on which X and Y become dependent.4.3. Simulation ResultsLet us start with #Z = 0, that is, H 0 := X ⊥ Y. Table 2 reports our simulation results forboth size and power DGPs. Rejection frequencies are reported for three different tests,for a theoretical level of significance of 0.05, and 0.1.Table 2: Proportion of rejection of H 0 (no conditioned variables)Energy Cramer Fisher Energy Cramer Fisherlevel of significance 5% level of significance 10%Size DGPsS0.1 (<strong>in</strong>d. time series) 0.065 0.000 0.151 0.122 0.000 0.213Power DGPsP0.1 (time series l<strong>in</strong>ear) 0.959 0.308 0.999 0.981 0.462 1P0.2 (time series quadratic) 0.986 0.255 0.432 0.997 0.452 0.521P0.3 (time series cubic) 1 0.905 1 1 0.975 1P0.3 (time series quartic) 1 0.781 0.647 1 0.901 0.709Note: length series (n) = 100; number of iterations = 1000Take the first l<strong>in</strong>e of Table 2. For size DGPs, H 0 holds everywhere. A test performsaccurately if it rejects H 0 <strong>in</strong> accordance with the respective theoretical significancelevel. We see that the energy test rejects H 0 slightly more often than it should (0.065 >0.05;0.122 > 0.1), whereas the Cramer test does not reject H 0 often enough (0.000

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!