Hi
I would like to estimate an AR(1)ARCH(1) model. The program I attached does this in two ways. One way is with the built in command and the other is by creating an LogL object. I set the options of these procedures so that they are exactly the same. Unfortunately I do get slightly different results and I do not see why. Does somebody have an idea?
Best
s
Manual versus built in Maximum Likelihood: Different results
Moderators: EViews Gareth, EViews Moderator
Manual versus built in Maximum Likelihood: Different results
- Attachments
-
- ar1arch1.prg
- Program
- (1.41 KiB) Downloaded 345 times
-
- ar1arch1.wf1
- Workfile
- (40.75 KiB) Downloaded 291 times
Re: Manual versus built in Maximum Likelihood: Different res
Oh I forgot to mention the following.
One difference I can see in the output is the derivs option. For the built in command it says "accurate mixed (linear)" and for the manual method it says "accurate numeric". For the built in command I have set the derivs option to accurate numeric derivatives and always use numeric. For the manual built in I use the default.
Hope this helps..
Best
s
One difference I can see in the output is the derivs option. For the built in command it says "accurate mixed (linear)" and for the manual method it says "accurate numeric". For the built in command I have set the derivs option to accurate numeric derivatives and always use numeric. For the manual built in I use the default.
Hope this helps..
Best
s
-
EViews Gareth
- Fe ddaethom, fe welon, fe amcangyfrifon
- Posts: 13604
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:38 pm
Re: Manual versus built in Maximum Likelihood: Different res
I think the most likely cause is presample variance issues. If you change your estimation command to this:
you get much closer to the logl.
Code: Select all
equation eq1.arch(1,0,showopts,m=1000,c=1e-8,s=0,z,derivs="an", backcast=0.000001) y c ar(1)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
