Upload
alexander-decker
View
239
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Â
Citation preview
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)Vol.3, No.13, 2012
Prediction Using Estimators of Linear Regression Model with Aurocorrelated Error Terms and Correlated Stochastic Uniform
Kayode Ayinde
1. Department of Statistics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology
P
2. Department of
*E-mail:
Abstract
Prediction remains one of the fundamental reasons for regression analysis. However, the Classical Linear Regression Model is formulated under some assumptions which are not always satisfied especially economic and social sciences leading to the development of many estimatorsexamine the performances of the Ordinary Least Square estimator (OLS), CochraneMaximum Likelihood estimator (ML) and the estimators based on Principal Cprediction of linear regression model under the violations of assumption of non independent regressors and error terms. With stochastic uniform variables as regressors, Monte experiments were conducted over the levels of autocorrelation(multicollinearity -λ ) and sample sizes, and best estimators for prediction pgoodness of fit statistics of the estimators. Resultsmulticollinearity over the levels of autocorrelation have a convex are concave – like. Also, as the level of multicollinearity inestimators perform much better at all the levels of autocorrelationthe sample size is small (n=10), the performances of the COR and ML estimators are generally bethe same, even though at low level of autocorrelation the PC estimator either performs better than or competes with the best estimator when ≤λestimator is best except when the autocorrelation level is low and PR2 estimator is best. Moreover, at low level of autocorrelation in all the sample sizes, the OLS estimator competes with the best estimator in all the levels of multicollinearity.
.Keywords: Prediction, Estimators, Linear Regression Model, Autocorrelation
1.0 Introduction
Linear regression model is probably the most widely used statistical techrelationship problems among variables. It helps to explain observations of a dependent variable,values of one or more independent variables, prediction of its values often becomes very essential and necessary. However, the linear regression model is formulated under some basic assumptions. Among these assumptions are regressors being assumed to be (non-stochastic) and independent; and that themethods of estimation of the parameter model have been developed.
The assumption of non-stochastic regressors is not always satisfied especially in business, economic and social sciences because their regressors are often generated by stochastic process beyond their control. Many authors including Neter and Wasserman (1974), Fomby et al. (1984), Maddala (2002) have given situations and instances where these assumptions may be violated and alOrdinary Least Square (OLS) estimator when used to estimate the model parameters.stochastic and independent of the error terms; the OLS estimator is still unbiased and has minimum variance even though it is not Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (BLUE). Also,valid if the error terms are further assumed to be normal. However, modification is required in the area of confidence interval and power of the test
The violation of the assumption of independent regressors leads to multcollinearitybusiness and economics data. With strongly interrelated regressors, interpretation given to the regression coefficients may no longer be valid because the assumption under which the regression model is built has been violated. Although the estimates of the regression coefficients provided by the OLS estimator is still unbiased as long as multicollinearity is not perfect,
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 2855 (Online)
119
Prediction Using Estimators of Linear Regression Model with Aurocorrelated Error Terms and Correlated Stochastic Uniform
Regressors
Kayode Ayinde1* K. A. Olasemi2 O.E.Olubusoye2
Department of Statistics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology
P. M. B. 4000, Ogbomoso, Oyo State,, Nigeria.
Department of Statistics, University of Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria.
mail: [email protected], or [email protected]
Prediction remains one of the fundamental reasons for regression analysis. However, the Classical Linear Regression Model is formulated under some assumptions which are not always satisfied especially
ading to the development of many estimators. This work, therefore, attempts toof the Ordinary Least Square estimator (OLS), Cochrane-Orcutt estimator (COR),
Maximum Likelihood estimator (ML) and the estimators based on Principal Component analysis (PC) in prediction of linear regression model under the violations of assumption of non – independent regressors and error terms. With stochastic uniform variables as regressors, Monte
cted over the levels of autocorrelation )(ρ , correlation between regressors ) and sample sizes, and best estimators for prediction purposes are identified using
he estimators. Results show that the performances of COR and ML at each level of multicollinearity over the levels of autocorrelation have a convex – like pattern while that of OLS, PR1 and PR2
like. Also, as the level of multicollinearity increases the estimators especially the COR and ML perform much better at all the levels of autocorrelation. Furthermore, results show that
the sample size is small (n=10), the performances of the COR and ML estimators are generally bethe same, even though at low level of autocorrelation the PC estimator either performs better than or competes
49.0−≤ and 6.0≥λ . When the sample size is small (n =10), the COR mator is best except when the autocorrelation level is low and 4.0−≤λ or 2.0≥λ . At these instances, the
Moreover, at low level of autocorrelation in all the sample sizes, the OLS estimator h the best estimator in all the levels of multicollinearity.
Prediction, Estimators, Linear Regression Model, Autocorrelation, Multicollinearity
Linear regression model is probably the most widely used statistical technique for solving functional relationship problems among variables. It helps to explain observations of a dependent variable,values of one or more independent variables, X1, X2,...,Xp. In an attempt to explain the dependent variable,
ction of its values often becomes very essential and necessary. However, the linear regression model is formulated under some basic assumptions. Among these assumptions are regressors being assumed to be
and independent; and that the error terms are assumed to be independent. Consequently, various methods of estimation of the parameter model have been developed.
stochastic regressors is not always satisfied especially in business, economic cause their regressors are often generated by stochastic process beyond their control.
Many authors including Neter and Wasserman (1974), Fomby et al. (1984), Maddala (2002) have given situations and instances where these assumptions may be violated and also discussed their consequences on the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) estimator when used to estimate the model parameters.stochastic and independent of the error terms; the OLS estimator is still unbiased and has minimum variance
Unbiased Estimator (BLUE). Also, the traditional hypothesis testing remains valid if the error terms are further assumed to be normal. However, modification is required in the area of
and power of the test and the power of the test calculated for each sample.
The violation of the assumption of independent regressors leads to multcollinearitybusiness and economics data. With strongly interrelated regressors, interpretation given to the regression oefficients may no longer be valid because the assumption under which the regression model is built has been
violated. Although the estimates of the regression coefficients provided by the OLS estimator is still unbiased as perfect, the regression coefficients have large sampling errors which affect both
www.iiste.org
Prediction Using Estimators of Linear Regression Model with Aurocorrelated Error Terms and Correlated Stochastic Uniform
Department of Statistics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology
University of Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria.
Prediction remains one of the fundamental reasons for regression analysis. However, the Classical Linear Regression Model is formulated under some assumptions which are not always satisfied especially in business,
. This work, therefore, attempts to Orcutt estimator (COR),
omponent analysis (PC) in stochastic regressors,
independent regressors and error terms. With stochastic uniform variables as regressors, Monte - Carlo , correlation between regressors
urposes are identified using the the performances of COR and ML at each level of
like pattern while that of OLS, PR1 and PR2 especially the COR and ML
show that except when the sample size is small (n=10), the performances of the COR and ML estimators are generally best and almost the same, even though at low level of autocorrelation the PC estimator either performs better than or competes
. When the sample size is small (n =10), the COR . At these instances, the
Moreover, at low level of autocorrelation in all the sample sizes, the OLS estimator
Multicollinearity
nique for solving functional relationship problems among variables. It helps to explain observations of a dependent variable,y, with observed
In an attempt to explain the dependent variable, ction of its values often becomes very essential and necessary. However, the linear regression model is
formulated under some basic assumptions. Among these assumptions are regressors being assumed to be fixed error terms are assumed to be independent. Consequently, various
stochastic regressors is not always satisfied especially in business, economic cause their regressors are often generated by stochastic process beyond their control.
Many authors including Neter and Wasserman (1974), Fomby et al. (1984), Maddala (2002) have given so discussed their consequences on the
Ordinary Least Square (OLS) estimator when used to estimate the model parameters. When regressors are stochastic and independent of the error terms; the OLS estimator is still unbiased and has minimum variance
the traditional hypothesis testing remains valid if the error terms are further assumed to be normal. However, modification is required in the area of
mple.
The violation of the assumption of independent regressors leads to multcollinearity as found in business and economics data. With strongly interrelated regressors, interpretation given to the regression oefficients may no longer be valid because the assumption under which the regression model is built has been
violated. Although the estimates of the regression coefficients provided by the OLS estimator is still unbiased as have large sampling errors which affect both
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)Vol.3, No.13, 2012
the inference and forecasting that is based on the model (Chartterjee et al., 2000). Various methods have been developed to estimate the model parameters when muitcollineariinclude Ridge Regression estimator developed by Hoerl (1962) and Hoerl and Kennard (1970), Estimator based on Principal Component Regression suggested by Massy (1965), Marquardt (1970) and Bock, Yancey and Judg(1973), Naes and Marten (1988), and method of Partial Least Squares developed by Hermon Wold in the 1960s (Helland, 1988, Helland, 1990, Phatak and Jony 1997).
When all the assumptions of the Classical Linear Regression Model hold except that the erronot homoscedastic (i.e. E (U1U) = σGeneralized Least Squares (GLS) Model. Aitken (1935) has shown that the GLS estimator (X1Ω
1X )-1 X1Ω
1Y is efficient among the class of linear unbiased estimators of matrix of β given as V(β) = σ2(X1
Ω
is often estimated by^
Ω to have what is known
When the assumption of independencethe problem of autocorrelation arises. parameter estimation of the linear regression model when the error term follows autoregressive of orders one. The OLS estimator is inefficient even though unbiased. Its predicted values are also inefficient and the sampling variances of the autocorrelated error termsinvalid (Johnston, 1984; Fomby et al., 1984; Chartterjee, 2000; Maddala, 2002). To compensate for the lost of efficiency, several feasible GLS estimators have been developed. These includeCochrane and Orcutt (1949), Paris and Winstern (1954), Hildreth and Lu (1960), Durbin (1960), Theil (1971), the Maximum Likelihood and the Maximum Likelihood Grid (Beach and Mackinnon, 1978), and Thornton (1982). Chipman (1979), Kramer (1980), Kleiber (2001), Iyaniwura and Nwabueze (2004), Nwabueze ( 2005a, b, c), Ayinde and Ipinyomi (2007) and many other authors have not only observed the asymptotic equivalence of these estimators but have also noted that that their performancesregressor used. Rao and Griliches (1969) did one of the earliest Monteproperties of several two-stage regression methods in the context of autocorrelation error. Otherdone on these estimators and the violations of the assumptions of classical linear regression model include thatof Ayinde and Oyejola (2007), Ayinde (2007a,b), Ayinde and Olaomi (2008), Ayinde (2008), and Ayinde and Iyaniwura (2008).
In spite of these several works on these estimators, none has actually been done on their prediction. Very fundamentally, prediction is one of the basic reasons for regression analysis. Therefore, this paper does not only examine the predictive potential of somassumption of regression model making the model much closer to reality.
2.0 Materials and Methods
Consider the linear regression model is of the form:
ttt XXXY +++= 322110 ββββWhere , 0(~ε Ntcorrelated.
For Monte-Carlo simulation study, the parameters of equation (1) were specified and fixed as= 1.8 and β3 = 0.6. The levels of multicollinearity among the independent variables were sixteen (16) and specified as: )()( 1312 == xx λλλis twenty-one (21) and are specified as: experiment was replicated in 1000 times (R =1000) under Six (6) levels of sample sizes (n =10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 100).
The correlated stochastic uniform regressors were generated by first using the equations provided by Ayinde (2007) and Ayinde and Adegboye (2010) to generate normally distributed random variables with specified intercorrelation. With P= the equations give:
X1 = µ1 + σ1Z1
X2 = µ2 + ρ12 σ2Z1 + Z2
X3 = µ3 + ρ13 σ3Z1 + Z2 +
where m22 = , m23 = inter-correlation matrix has to be positive definite and hence, the correlations among the independent variable were taken as prescribed earlier). In the study, we assumed X
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 2855 (Online)
120
the inference and forecasting that is based on the model (Chartterjee et al., 2000). Various methods have been developed to estimate the model parameters when muitcollinearity is present in a data set. These estimators include Ridge Regression estimator developed by Hoerl (1962) and Hoerl and Kennard (1970), Estimator based on Principal Component Regression suggested by Massy (1965), Marquardt (1970) and Bock, Yancey and Judg(1973), Naes and Marten (1988), and method of Partial Least Squares developed by Hermon Wold in the 1960s (Helland, 1988, Helland, 1990, Phatak and Jony 1997).
When all the assumptions of the Classical Linear Regression Model hold except that the erro) = σ2In) but are heteroscedastic (i.e. E(U1U) = σ2
Ω), the resulting model is the Generalized Least Squares (GLS) Model. Aitken (1935) has shown that the GLS estimator
ent among the class of linear unbiased estimators of β with variance Ω
1X)-1 where Ω is assumed to be known. However, Ω is not always known, it to have what is known as Feasible GLS estimator.
of independence of error terms is violated as it is often found in time series data, the problem of autocorrelation arises. Several authors have worked on this violation especially in terms of the
stimation of the linear regression model when the error term follows autoregressive of orders one. The OLS estimator is inefficient even though unbiased. Its predicted values are also inefficient and the sampling variances of the autocorrelated error terms are known to be underestimated causing the t and the F tests to be invalid (Johnston, 1984; Fomby et al., 1984; Chartterjee, 2000; Maddala, 2002). To compensate for the lost of efficiency, several feasible GLS estimators have been developed. These include the estimator provided by Cochrane and Orcutt (1949), Paris and Winstern (1954), Hildreth and Lu (1960), Durbin (1960), Theil (1971), the Maximum Likelihood and the Maximum Likelihood Grid (Beach and Mackinnon, 1978), and Thornton
Kramer (1980), Kleiber (2001), Iyaniwura and Nwabueze (2004), Nwabueze ( 2005a, b, c), Ayinde and Ipinyomi (2007) and many other authors have not only observed the asymptotic equivalence of these estimators but have also noted that that their performances and efficiency depend on the structure of the regressor used. Rao and Griliches (1969) did one of the earliest Monte-Carlo investigations on the small sample
stage regression methods in the context of autocorrelation error. Otherdone on these estimators and the violations of the assumptions of classical linear regression model include that
Ayinde and Oyejola (2007), Ayinde (2007a,b), Ayinde and Olaomi (2008), Ayinde (2008), and Ayinde and
ite of these several works on these estimators, none has actually been done on their prediction. Very fundamentally, prediction is one of the basic reasons for regression analysis. Therefore, this paper does not only examine the predictive potential of some of these estimators but also does it under some violations of assumption of regression model making the model much closer to reality.
Consider the linear regression model is of the form:
tt uX +3
),0 2σ , t = 1, 2, 3,...n and ~0,1) i = 1, 2, 3 are stochastic and
simulation study, the parameters of equation (1) were specified and fixed as= 0.6. The levels of multicollinearity among the independent variables were sixteen (16) and
.99.0,9.0,8.0,...,3.0,4.0,49.0)( 23 −−−=xλ The levels of autocorrelation one (21) and are specified as: 99.0,9.0,8.0,...,8.0,9.0,99.0 −−−=ρ
experiment was replicated in 1000 times (R =1000) under Six (6) levels of sample sizes (n =10, 15, 20, 30, 50,
The correlated stochastic uniform regressors were generated by first using the equations provided by Ayinde Ayinde and Adegboye (2010) to generate normally distributed random variables with specified
the equations give:
1
2 (2)
Z3
and n33 = m33 - ; and Zi N (0, 1) i = 1, 2, 3. (The positive definite and hence, the correlations among the independent variable
were taken as prescribed earlier). In the study, we assumed Xi N (0, 1), i = 1, 2, 3. We further utilized the
www.iiste.org
the inference and forecasting that is based on the model (Chartterjee et al., 2000). Various methods have been ty is present in a data set. These estimators
include Ridge Regression estimator developed by Hoerl (1962) and Hoerl and Kennard (1970), Estimator based on Principal Component Regression suggested by Massy (1965), Marquardt (1970) and Bock, Yancey and Judge (1973), Naes and Marten (1988), and method of Partial Least Squares developed by Hermon Wold in the 1960s
When all the assumptions of the Classical Linear Regression Model hold except that the error terms are Ω), the resulting model is the
Generalized Least Squares (GLS) Model. Aitken (1935) has shown that the GLS estimator β of β given as β = β with variance – covariance
Ω is not always known, it
of error terms is violated as it is often found in time series data, Several authors have worked on this violation especially in terms of the
stimation of the linear regression model when the error term follows autoregressive of orders one. The OLS estimator is inefficient even though unbiased. Its predicted values are also inefficient and the sampling
are known to be underestimated causing the t and the F tests to be invalid (Johnston, 1984; Fomby et al., 1984; Chartterjee, 2000; Maddala, 2002). To compensate for the lost of
the estimator provided by Cochrane and Orcutt (1949), Paris and Winstern (1954), Hildreth and Lu (1960), Durbin (1960), Theil (1971), the Maximum Likelihood and the Maximum Likelihood Grid (Beach and Mackinnon, 1978), and Thornton
Kramer (1980), Kleiber (2001), Iyaniwura and Nwabueze (2004), Nwabueze ( 2005a, b, c), Ayinde and Ipinyomi (2007) and many other authors have not only observed the asymptotic equivalence
and efficiency depend on the structure of the Carlo investigations on the small sample
stage regression methods in the context of autocorrelation error. Other recent works done on these estimators and the violations of the assumptions of classical linear regression model include that
Ayinde and Oyejola (2007), Ayinde (2007a,b), Ayinde and Olaomi (2008), Ayinde (2008), and Ayinde and
ite of these several works on these estimators, none has actually been done on their prediction. Very fundamentally, prediction is one of the basic reasons for regression analysis. Therefore, this paper does not
e of these estimators but also does it under some violations of
(1)
) i = 1, 2, 3 are stochastic and
simulation study, the parameters of equation (1) were specified and fixed as β0 = 4, β1 = 2.5, β2 = 0.6. The levels of multicollinearity among the independent variables were sixteen (16) and
The levels of autocorrelation .99 Furthermore, the
experiment was replicated in 1000 times (R =1000) under Six (6) levels of sample sizes (n =10, 15, 20, 30, 50,
The correlated stochastic uniform regressors were generated by first using the equations provided by Ayinde Ayinde and Adegboye (2010) to generate normally distributed random variables with specified
N (0, 1) i = 1, 2, 3. (The positive definite and hence, the correlations among the independent variable
We further utilized the
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)Vol.3, No.13, 2012
properties of random variables that cumulative distribution functiowithout affecting the correlation among the variables (Schumann, 2009) to generate
The error terms were generated using one of the distributional properties of the autocorrela(0, )) and the AR(1) equation as follows:
u1=
ut = ρut-1 + εt t = 2,3,4,…n
Since some of these estimators have now been incorporated into the Time Series Processor (TSP 5.0, 2005) software, a computer program was written usDetermination of the model )(
2_
Restimator, Maximum Likelihood estimator and the estimator based on Principal ComponenThe Adjusted Coefficient of Determination of the model was averaged over the numbers of replications. i.e.
The two possible PCs (PC1 and PC2) of the Priseparate Adjusted Coefficient of Determination. An estimator is best if its Adjusted Coefficient of Determination is closest to unity.
3.0 Results and Discussion
The full summary of the simulated resuand autocorrelation is contained in the work of Olasemi (2011). The graphical representations of the results when n=10, 15, 20, 30, 50 and 100 are respectively presented in Figure 1
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 2855 (Online)
121
properties of random variables that cumulative distribution function of Normal distribution produces U (0, 1) without affecting the correlation among the variables (Schumann, 2009) to generate
The error terms were generated using one of the distributional properties of the autocorrela) and the AR(1) equation as follows:
(3)
t = 2,3,4,…n (4)
Since some of these estimators have now been incorporated into the Time Series Processor (TSP 5.0, 2005) software, a computer program was written using the software to estimate the Adjusted Coefficient of
) the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) estimator, Cochrane Oestimator, Maximum Likelihood estimator and the estimator based on Principal ComponenThe Adjusted Coefficient of Determination of the model was averaged over the numbers of replications. i.e.
∑=
=
=R
i
iRRR
1
2_1 (5)
The two possible PCs (PC1 and PC2) of the Principal Component Analysis were used. Each provides its separate Adjusted Coefficient of Determination. An estimator is best if its Adjusted Coefficient of Determination
The full summary of the simulated results of each estimator at different level of sample size, muticollinearity, and autocorrelation is contained in the work of Olasemi (2011). The graphical representations of the results when n=10, 15, 20, 30, 50 and 100 are respectively presented in Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
www.iiste.org
n of Normal distribution produces U (0, 1) .
The error terms were generated using one of the distributional properties of the autocorrelated error terms (ut N
(3)
Since some of these estimators have now been incorporated into the Time Series Processor (TSP 5.0, 2005) ing the software to estimate the Adjusted Coefficient of
, Cochrane Orcutt (COR) estimator, Maximum Likelihood estimator and the estimator based on Principal Component Analysis (PRN). The Adjusted Coefficient of Determination of the model was averaged over the numbers of replications. i.e.
(5)
ncipal Component Analysis were used. Each provides its separate Adjusted Coefficient of Determination. An estimator is best if its Adjusted Coefficient of Determination
lts of each estimator at different level of sample size, muticollinearity, and autocorrelation is contained in the work of Olasemi (2011). The graphical representations of the results
, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)Vol.3, No.13, 2012
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 2855 (Online)
122
www.iiste.org
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)Vol.3, No.13, 2012
From these figures, it can be generally observed that the performances of COR and ML at each level of multicollinearity over the levels of autocorrelation have a convex are concave – like. Also, as the level of multicollinearity increases the estimators perform much better at all the levels of autocorrelation even though the values of their averaged adjusted coefficient of determination are not high at low and moderate levels of estimators are much better at all the levels of autocorrelation. Furthermore except when the sample size is small (n=10), the performances of the COR and ML estimators are gelow level of autocorrelation the PR2 estimator either performs better than or competes with the best estimator when 49.0−≤λ and 6.0≥λ . When the sample size is small (n =10), twhen the autocorrelation level is low and Moreover, at low level of autocorrelation in all the sample sizes, the OLS estimator cestimator in all the levels of multicollinearity.
Very specifically in term of identification of the best estimator, Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively summarize the best estimator for prediction at all the levels of autocorrelat10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 100.
Table 1: The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and Autocorrelation when n=10. ρ
-0.49 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2
-0.99 COR COR COR COR COR-0.9 COR COR COR COR COR-0.8 COR COR COR COR COR-0.7 COR COR COR COR COR0.-6 COR COR COR COR COR-0.5 COR COR COR COR COR-0.4 COR COR COR COR COR-0.3 COR COR COR COR -0.2 PC2 COR COR ML -0.1 PC2 PC2 ML ML
0 PC2 PC2 ML ML 0.1 PC2 PC2 ML ML 0.2 PC2 PC2 ML ML 0.3 PC2 PC2 ML ML 0.4 PC2 PC2 ML ML 0.5 PC2 COR COR ML 0.6 COR COR COR COR COR0.7 COR COR COR COR COR0.8 COR COR COR COR COR0.9 COR COR COR COR COR0.99 COR COR COR COR COR
From Table 1 when n = 10, COR estimator is best for prediction at4.0−≤ρ and 7.0≥ρ . When −
estimator is only best when 2.0 ≤−Table 2: The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level when n=15.
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 2855 (Online)
123
From these figures, it can be generally observed that the performances of COR and ML at each level of multicollinearity over the levels of autocorrelation have a convex – like pattern while that of OLS, PR1 and PR2
like. Also, as the level of multicollinearity increases the estimators perform much better at all the levels of autocorrelation even though the values of their averaged adjusted coefficient of determination are not high at low and moderate levels of autocorrelation except when 6.0≥λ . At these instances, COR and ML estimators are much better at all the levels of autocorrelation. Furthermore except when the sample size is small (n=10), the performances of the COR and ML estimators are generally best and almost the same, even though at low level of autocorrelation the PR2 estimator either performs better than or competes with the best estimator
. When the sample size is small (n =10), the COR estimator is best except when the autocorrelation level is low and 4.0−≤λ or 2.0≥λ . At these instances, the PR2 estimator is best. Moreover, at low level of autocorrelation in all the sample sizes, the OLS estimator cestimator in all the levels of multicollinearity.
Very specifically in term of identification of the best estimator, Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively summarize the best estimator for prediction at all the levels of autocorrelation and multicollinearity when the sample size is
The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and Autocorrelation
λ -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR ML ML ML ML ML COR PC2 PC2 ML ML ML ML PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 ML ML ML PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 ML ML ML PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 ML ML ML PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 ML ML ML PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 ML ML ML PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 ML ML ML PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 ML ML ML ML PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 COR ML ML COR COR COR COR PR2 COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR
From Table 1 when n = 10, COR estimator is best for prediction at all levels of multicollinearity especially when 5.02.0 ≤≤− ρ and 4.0−≤λ or 2.0≥λ , the PR2 is best. The ML
5.0≤≤ ρ and 1.03.0 ≤≤− λ .
The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and Autocorrelation
www.iiste.org
From these figures, it can be generally observed that the performances of COR and ML at each level of
like pattern while that of OLS, PR1 and PR2 like. Also, as the level of multicollinearity increases the estimators perform much better at all the
levels of autocorrelation even though the values of their averaged adjusted coefficient of determination are not . At these instances, COR and ML
estimators are much better at all the levels of autocorrelation. Furthermore except when the sample size is small nerally best and almost the same, even though at
low level of autocorrelation the PR2 estimator either performs better than or competes with the best estimator he COR estimator is best except
. At these instances, the PR2 estimator is best. Moreover, at low level of autocorrelation in all the sample sizes, the OLS estimator competes with the best
Very specifically in term of identification of the best estimator, Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively summarize ion and multicollinearity when the sample size is
The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and Autocorrelation
0.7 0.8 0.9 0.99
COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PR2 PR2 PR2 COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR
all levels of multicollinearity especially when , the PR2 is best. The ML
Autocorrelation
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)Vol.3, No.13, 2012
ρ
-0.49 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2
-0.99 COR COR COR COR COR-0.9 COR COR COR COR COR-0.8 COR COR COR COR COR-0.7 COR COR COR COR COR0.-6 COR COR COR COR COR-0.5 COR COR COR COR COR-0.4 COR COR COR COR COR-0.3 COR COR COR COR COR-0.2 COR COR COR COR COR-0.1 COR COR COR COR COR
0 PC2 COR COR COR COR0.1 PC2 COR COR COR COR0.2 PC2 COR COR COR COR0.3 PC2 COR COR COR COR0.4 COR COR COR COR COR0.5 COR COR COR COR COR0.6 COR COR COR COR COR0.7 COR COR COR COR COR0.8 COR COR COR COR COR0.9 COR COR COR COR COR0.99 COR COR COR COR COR
From the Table 2, it can be seen that the COR estimator is genemulticollinearity and autocorrelation except occasionally when autocorrelation level is low and multicollinearityis best .
Table 3: The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and when n=20.
ρ
-0.49 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2
-0.99 COR COR COR COR COR-0.9 COR COR COR COR COR-0.8 COR COR COR COR COR-0.7 COR COR COR COR COR0.-6 COR COR COR COR COR-0.5 COR COR COR COR COR-0.4 COR COR COR COR COR-0.3 COR COR COR COR COR-0.2 COR COR COR ML -0.1 COR ML ML ML
0 PC2 ML ML ML 0.1 PC2 ML ML ML 0.2 PC2 ML ML ML 0.3 COR ML ML ML 0.4 COR COR COR COR COR0.5 COR COR COR COR COR0.6 COR COR COR COR COR0.7 COR COR COR COR COR0.8 COR COR COR COR COR0.9 COR COR COR COR COR0.99 COR COR COR COR COR
When n = 20 as revealed in Table 3, the COR estimator is best except atthe best estimator is PC2 when λsparsely COR even though the two of them compete very favorably well. (See figure 3).
Table 4: The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and Autocorrelation when n=30. ρ
-0.49 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2
-0.99 COR COR COR COR COR-0.9 COR COR COR COR COR-0.8 COR COR COR COR COR-0.7 COR COR COR COR COR0.-6 COR COR COR COR COR-0.5 COR COR COR COR COR-0.4 COR COR COR COR COR-0.3 COR COR ML ML -0.2 ML ML ML ML
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 2855 (Online)
124
λ
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR PC2 COR COR COR COR COR COR COR PC2 COR COR COR COR COR COR COR PC2 COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR
From the Table 2, it can be seen that the COR estimator is generally best for prediction at all levels of multicollinearity and autocorrelation except 3.00 ≤≤ ρ when 49.0−≤λ or 6.0≥λoccasionally when autocorrelation level is low and multicollinearity level is very high or tends to unity, the PR2
The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and
λ -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR
When n = 20 as revealed in Table 3, the COR estimator is best except at 02.0 ≤≤− ρ49.0−≤λ or 7.0≥λ ; otherwise, the best estimator is often ML and
sparsely COR even though the two of them compete very favorably well. (See figure 3).
r Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and Autocorrelation when
λ
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML
www.iiste.org
0.7 0.8 0.9 0.99
COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR PC2 COR PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 COR COR COR PC2 COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR
rally best for prediction at all levels of
At these instances and level is very high or tends to unity, the PR2
Autocorrelation
0.7 0.8 0.9 0.99
COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR ML ML ML ML PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 ML PC2 PC2 PC2 COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR
3.0 . At these instances, ; otherwise, the best estimator is often ML and
r Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and Autocorrelation when
0.7 0.8 0.9 0.99
COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR ML ML COR COR ML ML ML ML
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)Vol.3, No.13, 2012
-0.1 ML ML ML ML 0 ML ML ML ML
0.1 ML ML ML ML 0.2 ML ML ML ML 0.3 ML ML ML ML 0.4 COR COR COR COR COR0.5 COR COR COR COR COR0.6 COR COR COR COR COR0.7 COR COR COR COR COR0.8 COR COR COR COR COR0.9 COR COR COR COR COR0.99 COR COR COR COR COR
From Table 4, it can be observed that the best estimator for prediction when n = 30 is generally COR except when the 3.0≤ρ At these instances, the estimator based on using PC2 is best when
7.0≥λ ; otherwise, the best estimator is often ML and sparsely COR even though the two of them still compete very favorably well. (See figure 4).
Table 5: The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity when n=50. ρ
-0.49 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2
-0.99 COR COR COR COR COR-0.9 COR COR COR COR COR-0.8 COR COR COR COR COR-0.7 COR COR COR COR COR0.-6 COR COR COR COR COR-0.5 COR COR COR COR COR-0.4 COR COR COR COR COR-0.3 COR COR COR COR COR-0.2 COR COR COR COR COR-0.1 ML COR COR COR COR0 ML ML COR COR COR0.1 ML COR COR COR COR0.2 ML COR COR COR COR0.3 COR COR COR COR COR0.4 COR COR COR COR COR0.5 COR COR COR COR COR0.6 COR COR COR COR COR0.7 COR COR COR COR COR0.8 COR COR COR COR COR0.9 COR COR COR COR COR0.99 COR COR COR COR COR
From Table 5 when n= 50, the best estimator for prediction is still COR except when and when 2.01.0 ≤≤− ρ andλbest at the latter.
Table 6: The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and Autocorrelation when n=100. ρ
-0.49 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2
-0.99 COR COR COR COR COR-0.9 COR COR COR COR COR-0.8 COR COR COR COR COR-0.7 COR COR COR COR COR0.-6 COR COR COR COR COR-0.5 COR COR COR COR COR-0.4 COR COR COR COR COR-0.3 COR COR COR COR COR-0.2 COR COR COR COR COR-0.1 COR COR COR COR COR
0 COR COR COR COR COR0.1 COR COR COR COR COR0.2 COR COR COR COR COR0.3 COR COR COR COR COR0.4 COR COR COR COR COR0.5 COR COR COR COR COR0.6 COR COR COR COR COR0.7 COR COR COR COR CO0.8 COR COR COR COR COR0.9 COR COR COR COR COR0.99 COR COR COR COR COR
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 2855 (Online)
125
ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML COR ML ML COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR
From Table 4, it can be observed that the best estimator for prediction when n = 30 is generally COR except At these instances, the estimator based on using PC2 is best when
; otherwise, the best estimator is often ML and sparsely COR even though the two of them still compete very favorably well. (See figure 4).
The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and
λ
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR
From Table 5 when n= 50, the best estimator for prediction is still COR except when ρ49.0−≤ . At the former estimator based on using PC2 is best while ML is
The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and Autocorrelation when
λ
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR
www.iiste.org
PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2 ML ML PC2 PC2 ML ML ML COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR
From Table 4, it can be observed that the best estimator for prediction when n = 30 is generally COR except At these instances, the estimator based on using PC2 is best when 2.01.0 ≤≤ ρ and
; otherwise, the best estimator is often ML and sparsely COR even though the two of them still
Autocorrelation
0.7 0.8 0.9 0.99
COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR PC2 COR COR PC2 PC2 COR COR PC2 PC2 COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR
1.0≤ρ and 9.0≥λ . At the former estimator based on using PC2 is best while ML is
The Best Estimator for Prediction at different level of Multicollinearity and Autocorrelation when
0.7 0.8 0.9 0.99
COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR PC2 PC2 COR COR COR PC2 COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR COR
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)Vol.3, No.13, 2012
When the sample size is large (n =100), the best estimator is generally COR except when 9.0≥λ . At these instances, the estimator based on
4.0 Conclusions
The effect of two major problems, MuCOR, ML and PC estimators of linear regression model has been jointly examined in this paper. the pattern of performances of COR and ML at each level of multicollineato be generally and evidently convex especially when generally concave. Moreover, the COR and ML estimators perform equivalently and betterperformances become much better as multicollinearity increases. The COR estimator is generally the best estimator for prediction except at high level of multicollinearity and low levels of autocorrelation. At these instances, the PC estimator is either best or competes with the COR estimator. is small (n=10) and multicollinearity level is not high, the OLS estimator is best at low level of autocorrelation whereas the ML is best at moderate levels of autocorrelation
References
Aitken, A. C. (1935): On least square and linear combinations oSociety, Edinburgh, 55: 42 – 48.
Ayinde, K. (2007). Equations to generate normal variates with desired Journal of Statistics and System, 2 (2), 99
Ayinde, K. (2007). A Comparative Study of the Performances of the OLS and Some GLS Estimators When Stochastic Regressors Are both Collinear and Correlated with Error
Ayinde, K. (2008). Performances of Some Estimators of Linear Model when Stochastic Regressors are correlated with Autocorrelated Error Terms.
Ayinde, K. and Adegboye, O. S. (2010)specified intercorrelation. Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 21(2), 183
Ayinde, K. and Ipinyomi, R. A. (2007)normally distributed regressors are stochastic,.
Ayinde, K. and Iyaniwura, J.O. (2008). fixed and stochastic regressors. Global Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 14(3)
Ayinde, K. and Oyejola, B. A. (2007). stochastic regressors are correlated with error terms
Beach, C. M. and Mackinnon, J. S. (1978)errors. Econometrica, 46, 51 – 57.
Bock, M. E., Yancey, T. A. and Judgeregression. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 234
Chartterjee, S., Hadi, A.S. and Price,Publication,.John Wiley and Sons..
Chipman, J. S. Efficiency of Least Squares Estimation of Linear Trend when residuals are autocorrelated, Econometrica, 47(1979),115 -127.
Cocharane, D. and Orcutt, G.H. (1949)error terms. Journal of American Statistical Association, 44,32
Durbin, J (1960). Estimation of Parameters in Time series RegreSociety B, 22, 139 -153.
Formy, T. B., Hill, R. C. and Johnson,Berlin, Heidelberg, London, Paris, Tokyo
Helland, I. S. (1988). On the structure of partial least squSimulations and Computations, 17, 581
Helland, I. S. (1990). Partial least squares regre17, 97 – 114.
Hoerl, A. E. (1962). Application of ridge analysis to
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 2855 (Online)
126
When the sample size is large (n =100), the best estimator is generally COR except when . At these instances, the estimator based on using PC2 is best.
The effect of two major problems, Multicollinearity and autocorrelation, on the predictive ability of the OLS, COR, ML and PC estimators of linear regression model has been jointly examined in this paper. the pattern of performances of COR and ML at each level of multicollinearity over the levels of autocorrelation to be generally and evidently convex especially when 30≥n and 0<λ while that of OLS and PC is generally concave. Moreover, the COR and ML estimators perform equivalently and betterperformances become much better as multicollinearity increases. The COR estimator is generally the best estimator for prediction except at high level of multicollinearity and low levels of autocorrelation. At these
s either best or competes with the COR estimator. Moreover when the sample size is small (n=10) and multicollinearity level is not high, the OLS estimator is best at low level of autocorrelation whereas the ML is best at moderate levels of autocorrelation.
Aitken, A. C. (1935): On least square and linear combinations of observations. Proceedings of
Equations to generate normal variates with desired intercorrelation matrix.Journal of Statistics and System, 2 (2), 99 –111.
A Comparative Study of the Performances of the OLS and Some GLS Estimators When Stochastic Regressors Are both Collinear and Correlated with Error Terms. Journal of Mathematics and Statistics, 3(4), 196
Performances of Some Estimators of Linear Model when Stochastic Regressors are with Autocorrelated Error Terms. European Journal of Scientific Research, 20 (3),
(2010). Equations for generating normally distributed random variables with Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 21(2), 183–203.
(2007). A comparative study of the OLS and some GLS estistochastic,.Trend in Applied Sciences Research, 2(4), 354
J.O. (2008). A Comparative study of the Performances of Some Estimators of Linear Model with Global Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 14(3), 363–369.
B. A. (2007). A comparative study of performances of OLS and some GLS estimators when stochastic regressors are correlated with error terms. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, 2, 215–
S. (1978). A Maximum Likelihood Procedure regression with
and Judge, G. G. (1973). Statistical consequences of preliminaJournal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 234 – 246.
and Price, B. (2000). Regression by Example, 3rd Edition, A
fficiency of Least Squares Estimation of Linear Trend when residuals are autocorrelated,
(1949). Application of Least Square to relationship containing autocorAmerican Statistical Association, 44,32–61.
Estimation of Parameters in Time series Regression Models. Journal of Royal Statistical
and Johnson, S. R. (1984). Advance Econometric Methods. SpringerBerlin, Heidelberg, London, Paris, Tokyo.
On the structure of partial least squares regression. Communication is Statistics, Simulations and Computations, 17, 581 – 607.
st squares regression and statistical methods. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics,
Application of ridge analysis to regression problems. Chemical Engineering Progress, 58, 54
www.iiste.org
When the sample size is large (n =100), the best estimator is generally COR except when 1.00 ≤≤ ρ and
lticollinearity and autocorrelation, on the predictive ability of the OLS, COR, ML and PC estimators of linear regression model has been jointly examined in this paper. Results reveal
rity over the levels of autocorrelation while that of OLS and PC is
generally concave. Moreover, the COR and ML estimators perform equivalently and better; and their performances become much better as multicollinearity increases. The COR estimator is generally the best estimator for prediction except at high level of multicollinearity and low levels of autocorrelation. At these
Moreover when the sample size is small (n=10) and multicollinearity level is not high, the OLS estimator is best at low level of autocorrelation
f observations. Proceedings of Royal Statistical
intercorrelation matrix. International
A Comparative Study of the Performances of the OLS and Some GLS Estimators When Stochastic tics and Statistics, 3(4), 196 –200.
Performances of Some Estimators of Linear Model when Stochastic Regressors are European Journal of Scientific Research, 20 (3), 558-571.
Equations for generating normally distributed random variables with
A comparative study of the OLS and some GLS estimators when Trend in Applied Sciences Research, 2(4), 354-359.
A Comparative study of the Performances of Some Estimators of Linear Model with
A comparative study of performances of OLS and some GLS estimators when –220.
A Maximum Likelihood Procedure regression with autocorrelated
Statistical consequences of preliminary test estimation in
Edition, A Wiley-Interscience
fficiency of Least Squares Estimation of Linear Trend when residuals are autocorrelated,
Application of Least Square to relationship containing autocorrelated
Journal of Royal Statistical
Springer-Verlag, New York,
Communication is Statistics,
Scandinavian Journal of Statistics,
Chemical Engineering Progress, 58, 54 – 59.
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)Vol.3, No.13, 2012
Hoerl, A. E. and Kennard, R. W.problems,.Technometrics, 8, 27 – 51.
Hildreth, C. and Lu, J.Y. (1960).University, Agricultural Experiment Statistical Bullet
Iyaniwura, J.O. and Nwabueze, J. C. (2004)trended independent variable. Journal of Nigeria Statistical Association,17, 20
Johnston, J. (1984). Econometric Metho
Kramer, W. (1980). Finite sample efficiency of OLS in linear regression model with autocorrelated errors,.Journal of American Statistical Association, 81, 150
Kleiber, C. (2001). Finite sample efficiency of Economic Letters, 72, 131 – 136.
Maddala, G. S. (2002). Introduction to Econometrics.
Marquardt, D. W. (1970). Generalized inverse, Ridge RegEstimation. Technometrics, 12, 591–
Massy, W. F. (1965). Principal Component Regression in eAmerican Statistical Association, 60, 234
Naes, T. and Marten, H. (1988). Principal Component Regression in NIR analysis: View points, Background Details Selection of components. Journal of Chemometrics, 2, 155
Neter, J. and Wasserman, W. ( 1974).
Nwabueze, J.C. (2005a). Performances of Estimators of linear model with autoindependent variable is normal. Journal of Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics, 9, 379
Nwabueze, J.C. (2005b). Performances of Estimators of linear model with autoexponential independent variable. Journal of Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics, 9, 385
Nwabueze, J.C. (2005c). Performances of Estimators of linear model windependent variable is autoregressive
Olasemi, K.A. (2011): Estimators of Linear Regression Model with AutocorrelatedStochastic Uniform Regressors”. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis. University of
Paris, S. J. and Winstein, C. B. (1954).Discussion Paper, Chicago.
Phatak, A. and Jony, S. D. (1997). The geometry of par
Rao, P. and Griliches, Z. (1969). Small sample properties of several twoof autocorrelation error. Journal of American Statistical Asso
Schumann, E. (2009): Generating Correlated Uniform Variates.
http://comisef.wikidot.com/tutorial:correlateduniformvariates
Theil, H.( 1971). Principle of Econom
Thornton, D. L. (1982). The appropriate autocorrelation transformation when autocorrelation process has a finite past. Federal Reserve Bank St. Louis, 82
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 2855 (Online)
127
R. W. (1970). Ridge regression biased estimation for non51.
. Demand relationships with autocorrelated disturbances.University, Agricultural Experiment Statistical Bulletin, 276 East Lansing, Michigan.
J. C. (2004). Estimators of Linear model with Autocorrelated error terms aJournal of Nigeria Statistical Association,17, 20 – 28.
metric Methods. 3rd Edition, New York, Mc, Graw Hill.
Finite sample efficiency of OLS in linear regression model with autocorrelated Journal of American Statistical Association, 81, 150 – 154.
Finite sample efficiency of OLS in linear regression model with long memory disturb
Introduction to Econometrics. 3rd Edition, John Willey and Sons Limited, England.
Generalized inverse, Ridge Regression, Biased Linear Estimation and Non – 612.
Principal Component Regression in exploratory statistical research.American Statistical Association, 60, 234– 246.
Principal Component Regression in NIR analysis: View points, Background Journal of Chemometrics, 2, 155 – 167.
). Applied Linear Model. Richard D. Irwin, Inc..
Performances of Estimators of linear model with auto-correlated error terms whenJournal of Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics, 9, 379
Performances of Estimators of linear model with auto-correlated error terms with Journal of Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics, 9, 385
Performances of Estimators of linear model with auto-correlated error terms when the independent variable is autoregressive. Global Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 11, 131
Olasemi, K.A. (2011): Estimators of Linear Regression Model with Autocorrelated Error term ic Uniform Regressors”. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis. University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
(1954). Trend estimators and serial correlation. Unpublished Cowles Commi
The geometry of partial least squares. Journal of Chemometrics, 11, 311
Small sample properties of several two-stage regression methods in the contJournal of American Statistical Association, 64, 251 – 272.
Schumann, E. (2009): Generating Correlated Uniform Variates.
http://comisef.wikidot.com/tutorial:correlateduniformvariates
Principle of Econometrics. New York, John Willey and Sons,.
propriate autocorrelation transformation when autocorrelation process has a finite past. Federal Reserve Bank St. Louis, 82 – 102.
www.iiste.org
Ridge regression biased estimation for non-orthogonal
ith autocorrelated disturbances. Michigan State
Estimators of Linear model with Autocorrelated error terms and
Finite sample efficiency of OLS in linear regression model with autocorrelated
OLS in linear regression model with long memory disturbances.
illey and Sons Limited, England.
ression, Biased Linear Estimation and Non – linear
xploratory statistical research. Journal of the
Principal Component Regression in NIR analysis: View points, Background
correlated error terms when Journal of Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics, 9, 379 – 384.
correlated error terms with Journal of Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics, 9, 385 – 388.
correlated error terms when the Global Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 11, 131 - 135.
Error term and Correlated Ibadan, Nigeria.
Trend estimators and serial correlation. Unpublished Cowles Commision,
Journal of Chemometrics, 11, 311 – 338.
stage regression methods in the context
propriate autocorrelation transformation when autocorrelation process has a finite
This academic article was published by The International Institute for Science,
Technology and Education (IISTE). The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open Access
Publishing service based in the U.S. and Europe. The aim of the institute is
Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.
More information about the publisher can be found in the IISTE’s homepage:
http://www.iiste.org
CALL FOR PAPERS
The IISTE is currently hosting more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals and
collaborating with academic institutions around the world. There’s no deadline for
submission. Prospective authors of IISTE journals can find the submission
instruction on the following page: http://www.iiste.org/Journals/
The IISTE editorial team promises to the review and publish all the qualified
submissions in a fast manner. All the journals articles are available online to the
readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than
those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Printed version of the
journals is also available upon request of readers and authors.
IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners
EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open
Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial
Library , NewJour, Google Scholar