search for: demeaning

Dears Sirs During my computational work I encountered unexpected behavior when calling "ar" function, namely # time series x<-ts(c(-0.2052083,-0.3764986,-0.3762448,0.3740089,0.2737568,2.8235722,- 1.7783313,0.2728676,-0.3273164),start=c(1978,3),frequency=4,end=c(1980,3)) # ar function res.ar<-ar(x,aic=TRUE,demean=F) # call "ar" again and ............

Full_Name: Steven McKinney Version: 2.6.0 OS: OS X Submission from: (NULL) (142.103.207.10) Function ar() in package "stats" is showing a quirky bug. Some calls to ar() run to completion, others throw an error. The bug is reproducible by several people on different machines, however, the ar() function itself ends up throwing the error sporadically. Several calls to ar() may be

Hello, I understand that the/ demean/ argument in the *ar()* function to fit an autoregressive model selects the best AR model fitted to the mean deleted observations. What is the purpose of using this demean procedure at all? Its seems silly as the post doesn't deal with R problems.... Thanks -- View this message in context:

..."fe" option, or areg with the "absorb" option and in both case the clustering is achieved with "vce(cluster id)" My question is : how could I do that with R ? An important point is that I have too many individuals, therefore I cannot include dummies and should use the demeaning "usual" procedure. I tried with the plm package with the "within" option, but R quikcly tells me that the memory limits are attained (I have over 10go ram!) while the dataset is only 700mo (about 50 000 individuals, highly unbalanced) I dont understand... plm do indeed demean th...

...quot;firm")%*%y_it)[1:10] dem_y_it[1:10] ----- ____________________________________ EBS Universitaet fuer Wirtschaft und Recht FARE Department Wiesbaden/ Germany http://www.ebs.edu/index.php?id=finacc&L=0 -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/Manual-two-way-demeaning-of-unbalanced-panel-data-Wansbeek-Kapteyn-transformation-tp4655202.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi there, we are beginners in R and we are trying to fit the following time series using ar(2): > x <- c(1.89, 2.46, 3.23, 3.95, 4.56, 5.07, 5.62, 6.16, 6.26, 6.56, 6.98, > 7.36, 7.53, 7.84, 8.09) The reason of choosing the present time series is that the we have previously calculated analitically the autoregressive coefficients using the direct inversion method as 1.1, 0.765, 0.1173.

Suppose I have longitudinal data and want to use the econometric strategy of "de-meaning" a model matrix by time. For sake of illustration 'mat' is a model matrix for 3 individuals each with 3 observations where ``1'' denotes that individual i was in group j at time t or ``0'' otherwise. mat <- matrix(c(1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,0),

...quot;fe" option, or areg with the "absorb" option and in both case the clustering is achieved with "vce(cluster id)" My question is : how could I do that with R ? An important point is that I have too many individuals, therefore I cannot include dummies and should use the demeaning "usual" procedure. I tried with the plm package with the "within" option, but R quikcly tells me that the memory limits are attained (I have over 10go ram!) while the dataset is only 700mo (about 50 000 individuals, highly unbalanced) I dont understand... plm do indeed demean th...

Dear R users I have two questions about estimating the spectral power of a time series: 1) I came across a funny thing with the following code: data(co2) par(mfrow=c(2,1)) co2.sp1<-spectrum(co2,detrend=T,demean=T,span=3) co2.sp2<-spectrum(co2[1:468],detrend=T,demean=T,span=3) The first plot displays the frequencies ranging from 0 to 6 whearas the second plot displays the same curve but

Hi everyone, I am doing panel data analysis using the 'plm' package. However, I have noticed that the plm() function reports a different value of R-squared from the R-squared of the lm() function with time-demeaned data. To be clear, I have tried to compute the within model both manually (run an OLS regression with time-demeaned data using lm()) and by using plm(). The two methods give me

Full_Name: Ian McLeod Version: 2.3.1 OS: Windows Submission from: (NULL) (129.100.76.136) > There is a simple bug in acf as shown below: > > z <- 1 > acf(z,lag.max=1,plot=FALSE) > Error in acf(z, lag.max = 1, plot = FALSE) : > 'lag.max' must be at least 1 > This is certainly a bug. There are two problems: (i) the error message is wrong since lag.max is

Dears Sirs During my computational work I encountered unexpected behaviour when calling "ar" function. I want to select the order p of the autoregressive approximation by AIC criterion and sometimes an error occurs. Example: # time series

Dear Philipp, this is just a tentative answer because debugging is really not possible without a reproducible example (or, at a very bare minimum, the output from traceback()). Anyway, thank you for reporting this interesting numerical issue; I'll try to replicate some similar behaviour on a similarly dimensioned artificial dataset when I have some time (which might not be soon). As for now,

Hello, I propose two small changes to spec.pgram to get modest speedup when dealing with input (x) having multiple columns. With plot = FALSE, I commonly see ~10-20% speedup, for a two column input matrix and the speedup increases for more columns with a maximum close to 45%. In the function as it currently exists, only the upper right triangle of pgram is necessary and pgram is not returned by

In the R Document, the usage of the acf() is as follow: acf(x, lag.max = NULL, type = c("correlation", "covariance", "partial"), plot = TRUE, na.action = na.fail, demean = TRUE, ...) But now I want to get the result picture like: plot(x,type="l") or plot(x,type="p") How can I do this with acf function? 仭仭仭仭仭仭仭仭仭仭仭仭仭仭仭仭佒伮 伬侎仯仭

I'm tring the functions to check the cointegration of a matrix. I'm using **Phillips & Ouliaris Cointegration Test** The function in *tseries* package is **po.test** and **ca.po** in *urca* The results with **URCA** are: > ca.po(prices, demean='none') ######################################## # Phillips and Ouliaris Unit Root Test #

Dear R users, I have an unbalanced panel with an average of I=100 individuals and a total of T=1370 time intervals, i.e. T>>I. So far, I have been using the plm package. I wish to estimate a FE model like: res<-plm(x~c+v, data=pdata_frame, effect="twoways", model="within", na.action=na.omit) ?where c varies over i and t, and v represents an exogenous impact on x

...6 *** demXunemp -0.0052977 0.0018648 -2.8410 0.00461 ** --- Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1 > ## same goes for waldtest(), lht() etc. but beware, things are probably complicated by the serial correlation induced by demeaning: see the references in the serial correlation tests section of the package vignette. Caveat emptor. ** 2nd solution ** Another possible strategy is screening for serial correlation first: again, see ?pbgtest, ?pdwtest and be aware of all the caveats detailed in the abovementioned section of the vi...

Hello, Thanks for the reply Rui and for pointing out that I forgot to attach my code. Please find attached in this email my code and data. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Pedro Gerhardt Gavronski. On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 5:50?AM Rui Barradas <ruipbarradas at sapo.pt> wrote: > > ?s 16:34 de 22/02/2024, Pedro Gavronski. escreveu: > > Hello, > > > > My name is Pedro

Hi, I'm trying to obtain confidence intervals for auto and cross correlation estimates. I've adapted code made available by Stock and Watson that uses the Bartlett Kernel and the delta method. In R it runs really, really slow because of the loops it uses and I have 9 series that I'd like to examine (81 total combinations). It was easy enough to replace one of the while loops with a