6
$\begingroup$

Could you please explain in simple terms how the table of critical values for the augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) test is created?

$\endgroup$
17
$\begingroup$

I am not sure an easy answer is possible here.

As can be found in many textbooks, the limiting null distribution of the "Dickey-Fuller t-statistic" is that of a nonstandard random variable which may be expressed through a functional of a Brownian motion $W$.

Denote by $\hat{\rho}_T$ the OLS estimate of a regression of $y_t$ on $y_{t-1}$, and by $t_T$ the standard t-ratio for the null that $\rho=1$.

In the simplest case without constant or trend in the test regression, we have

\begin{eqnarray*} t_T&=&\frac{\hat{\rho}_T-1}{s.e.(\hat{\rho}_T)}\\&=&\frac{T(\hat{\rho}_T-1)}{\{s^2_T\}^{1/2}}\left\{T^{-2}\sum_{t=1}^Ty_{t-1}^2\right\}^{1/2}\\ &\Rightarrow&\frac{1/2\{W(1)^2-1\}}{\int_0^1W(r)^2d r}\frac{1}{\sigma}\left\{\sigma^2\int_0^1W(r)^2dr\right\}^{1/2}\\ &=&\frac{W(1)^2-1}{2 \left\{\int_0^1W(r)^2dr\right\}^{1/2}} \end{eqnarray*} This random variable has no easy expression for its density or cdf, but can be simulated, noting that, for a suitable distribution of $u$ like the standard normal, $1/\sqrt{T}\sum_{t=1}^{[sT]}u_t$ will behave like $W(s)$ for $T$ "large", where $[sT]$ denotes the integer part of $sT$.

Hence, the DF distribution can be simulated as follows:

T <- 5000
reps <- 50000

DFstats <- rep(NA,reps)

for (i in 1:reps){
  u <- rnorm(T)
  W <- 1/sqrt(T)*cumsum(u)
  DFstats[i] <- (W[T]^2-1)/(2*sqrt(mean(W^2)))
}

The resulting (magenta) simulated (kernel-density estimated) distribution is given here, with the green standard normal for comparison:

plot(density(DFstats),lwd=2,col=c("deeppink2"))
xax <- seq(-4,4,by=.1)
lines(xax,dnorm(xax),lwd=2,col=c("chartreuse4"))

enter image description here

We see that the DF distribution is shifted to the left relative to the standard normal, and skewed.

The critical values are then, as usual, the quantiles of the null distribution of the test statistic, and can be retrieved via (note that we - typically - perform the DF test against the left-tailed alternative of stationarity that $|\rho|<1$)

CriticalValues <- sort(DFstats)[c(0.01,0.05,0.1)*reps]
> CriticalValues
[1] -2.571179 -1.943025 -1.611253

That is, these are the values such that 1%, 5% or 10% of the probability mass is to the left (=the rejection region) of them, producing the desired rejection rates.

Graphically (zooming in on the more relevant left part of the distribution):

plot(DFdensity,lwd=2,col=c("deeppink2"), xlim=c(-4,0))

xshade1 <- DFdensity$x[DFdensity$x <= CriticalValues[1]]
yshade1 <- DFdensity$y[DFdensity$x <= CriticalValues[1]]
polygon(c(xshade1[1],xshade1,CriticalValues[1]),c(0,yshade1,0),col="deeppink2", border = "deeppink2", lwd=2)

xshade2 <- DFdensity$x[DFdensity$x > CriticalValues[1] & DFdensity$x <= CriticalValues[2]]
yshade2 <- DFdensity$y[DFdensity$x > CriticalValues[1] & DFdensity$x <= CriticalValues[2]]
polygon(c(xshade2[1],xshade2,CriticalValues[2]),c(0,yshade2,0),col="deeppink4", border = "deeppink4", lwd=2)

xshade3 <- DFdensity$x[DFdensity$x > CriticalValues[2] & DFdensity$x <= CriticalValues[3]]
yshade3 <- DFdensity$y[DFdensity$x > CriticalValues[2] & DFdensity$x <= CriticalValues[3]]
polygon(c(xshade3[1],xshade3,CriticalValues[3]),c(0,yshade3,0),col="darkorchid4", border = "darkorchid4", lwd=2) 

enter image description here

Given that these are simulated critical values, these may thus differ slightly from those reported in published tables.

EDIT: In response to the comment below, for the case with constant we would modify the code as follows, following Dickey-Fuller unit root test with no trend and supressed constant in Stata

for (i in 1:reps){
  u <- rnorm(T)
  W <- 1/sqrt(T)*cumsum(u)
  W_mu <- W - mean(W)
  DFstats[i] <- (W_mu[T]^2-W_mu[1]^2-1)/(2*sqrt(mean(W_mu^2)))
}

In particular, the line W_mu <- W - mean(W) creates the demeaned Brownian motion $W^\mu(r)=W(r)-\int W(s)ds$. Its first element W_mu[1]^2corresponds to the initial entry of that demeaned Brownian motion, $W^\mu(0)^2$, from the link.

The link also deals with the expression for the trend case, which may therefore be simulated via

s <- seq(0,1,length.out = T)

for (i in 1:reps){
     u <- rnorm(T)
     W <- 1/sqrt(T)*cumsum(u)
     W_tau <- W - (4-6*s)*mean(W) - (12*s-6)*mean(s*W)
     DFstats[i] <- (W_tau[T]^2-W_tau[1]^2-1)/(2*sqrt(mean(W_tau^2)))
}
(CriticalValues <- sort(DFstats)[c(0.01,0.05,0.1)*reps])
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @ Christoph Hanck the above is the 1. type with no constant and without trend. what adjustment would have to be made to do the two other types of ADF test (2.with a constant and without trend 3. with a constant and a trend) $\endgroup$ – Michal Sep 20 '16 at 19:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Michal, OK, see the edit. $\endgroup$ – Christoph Hanck Sep 21 '16 at 6:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am sorry, the edit was of course for the case with constant and no trend, not with trend. I corrected that. I also tried to further explain the code. $\endgroup$ – Christoph Hanck Sep 21 '16 at 11:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are right about the right critical values, but for me it does produce these values: > (CriticalValues <- sort(DFstats)[c(0.01,0.05,0.1)*reps]) yields [1] -3.412332 -2.868623 -2.569988 $\endgroup$ – Christoph Hanck Sep 21 '16 at 12:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See the next edit! $\endgroup$ – Christoph Hanck Sep 21 '16 at 13:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.