HackerPapers

arXiv:2104.12597math.ST

Valid Heteroskedasticity Robust Testing

Benedikt M. Pötscher, David Preinerstorfer

Abstract

Tests based on heteroskedasticity robust standard errors are an important technique in econometric practice. Choosing the right critical value, however, is not simple at all: conventional critical values based on asymptotics often lead to severe size distortions; and so do existing adjustments including the bootstrap. To avoid these issues, we suggest to use smallest size-controlling critical values, the generic existence of which we prove in this article for the commonly used test statistics. Furthermore, sufficient and often also necessary conditions for their existence are given that are easy to check. Granted their existence, these critical values are the canonical choice: larger critical values result in unnecessary power loss, whereas smaller critical values lead to over-rejections under the null hypothesis, make spurious discoveries more likely, and thus are invalid. We suggest algorithms to numerically determine the proposed critical values and provide implementations in accompanying software. Finally, we numerically study the behavior of the proposed testing procedures, including their power properties.

arXiv comments
Minor changes; some references added; some minor errors corrected
Journal reference
Econom. Theory 41 (2025) 249-301
DOI
doi:10.1017/S0266466623000269
Subjects
math.STStatistics Theory econ.EMEconometrics stat.COComputation (Statistics) stat.MEMethodology (Statistics)

On Hacker News

Linked by 2 identifiable commenters in 2 comments across 1 thread, from Jul 2023 to Jul 2023.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

    • > I define science as anything that is scientifically rigorous That's not a definition, it's a circular statement with no information. Please provide a real and functional definition that can be used to identify whether a subject is scientifically rigorous or not. Your first…

      dahartView on HNParent context

    • > That's not a definition, it's a circular statement with no information. Common man do you want me to copy-paste the definition of science from wikipedia here? You can look it up yourself. My obvious statement is that the problem I see is that some stuff that people want to…

      xkcd1963View on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.