Undergrad Autocorrelation Error Interpretation

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around interpreting coefficients in a Generalized Least Squares (GLS) model after addressing autocorrelation using the Cochrane-Orcutt procedure. The user seeks clarification on how to interpret the relationship between variables X (wages and working hours) and Y (productivity) in the new model. It is noted that the GLS equation reflects changes in Y based on changes in X variables, requiring prior values for accurate interpretation. Additionally, a suggestion is made to consider using the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) for adjusting t-statistics, as it is a common econometric approach. Understanding these interpretations is crucial for accurate economic analysis.
pham anh
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello, I have a question on Autocorrelation of OLS model.
So I encountered a autocorrelation error, and use Cochrane - Orcutt Two-step Procedure(CORC) to fix it. And my OLS became GLS. And I have no idea how to interpret the coefficient on my initial X and Y with the new model. I mean something like, if X rise by 1 unit then Y rise by 3 units. Below are my real output
32739761_1896324580418118_637276870739492864_n.jpg
32739761_1896324580418118_637276870739492864_n.jpg
Please help me, thank you so much.
fyi: Y is outputs per hour ( productivity), X1 is wages/ week, X2 is working hours/week
 

Attachments

  • 32739761_1896324580418118_637276870739492864_n.jpg
    32739761_1896324580418118_637276870739492864_n.jpg
    12.1 KB · Views: 842
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Is the left hand side of the GLS autocorrelation fixed model correct? Shouldn't that be ##Y-0.71*Y(-1)##?
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane–Orcutt_estimation )

And a small correction: 248*(1-0.71) = 71.92

With that in mind, the equation only gives you values for the change of ##Y## based on the change of the ##X_i##s. So if you want to apply it to current values of ##Y## and ##X_i##s, you would have to include the data from the prior time ( ##Y(-1)## and ##X_i(-1)##s ).
 
Last edited:
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
37K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K