A COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SUPREMUM-NORM GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS WITH ESTIMATED PARAMETERS

Abstract

Goodness-of-fit tests based on parametric empirical processes have nonstandard limiting distributions when the null hypothesis is composite — that is, when parameters of the null model are estimated. Several analytic solutions to this problem have been suggested, including the calculation of adjusted critical values for these nonstandard distributions and the transformation of the empirical process such that statistics based on the transformed process are asymptotically distribution-free. The approximation methods proposed by Durbin (1985, Journal of Applied Probability 22(1), 99–122) can be applied to conduct inference for tests based on supremum-norm statistics. The resulting tests have quite accurate size, a fact that has gone unrecognized in the econometrics literature. Some justification for this accuracy lies in the similar features that Durbin’s approximation methods share with the theory of extrema for Gaussian random fields and for Gauss-Markov processes. These adjustment techniques are also related to the transformation methodology proposed by Khmaladze (1981, Theory of Probability and Its Applications26(2), 240–257) through the score function of the parametric model. Simulation experiments suggest that in small samples, Durbin-style adjustments result in tests that have higher power than tests based on transformed processes, and in some cases they have higher power than parametric bootstrap procedures.