Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root

Author(s): David A. Dickey and Wayne A. Fuller

Source: Econometrica , Jul., 1981, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Jul., 1981), pp. 1057-1072
Published by: The Econometric Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1912517

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1912517?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Econometric Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Econometrica

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Econometrica, Vol. 49, No. 4 (July, 1981)

LIKELIHOOD RATIO STATISTICS FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE

TIME SERIES WITH A UNIT ROOT

BY DAVID A. DICKEY AND WAYNE A. FULLER

Let the time series Y, satisfy Y, = a + pY,_ - + e,, where Y1 is fixed and the e, are
normal independent (0, a2) random variables. The likelihood ratio test of the hypothesis
that (a, p) = (0, 1) is investigated and a limit representation for the test statistic is pre-
sented. Percentage points for the limiting distribution and for finite sample distributions
are estimated. The distribution of the least squares estimator of a is also discussed. A
similar investigation is conducted for the model containing a time trend.

1. INTRODUCTION

LET Y, SATISFY THE MODEL

(1.1) Yt=a+pYt-I+et (t n),

where Y, is fixed and { et} is a

with mean 0 and variance a2, [
of p and a, conditional on Y1, are the least squares estimators

n -In

(1.2) p, = (Y,_l I9(1))2 E(,Y0)Y,I-(1)

% = Y(o) - pj(_ - ) 9

where (i) = (n - lEnt2Y+ for i= -1,0.

The statistic constructed by analogy to the regression "t statistic" for the
estimated a is
A IA

a, a,i /L

where

Sa e14\ - 1)1 + '' (2 t-1 Ye,)} ) j,

(1.) t e ot +;(n-- n) + (- t- (t = , ,. , )
An alternative model for Y 2 is

where Y1 is fixed and e, NI(0, 2). Let X denote the (n-1) x 3 matrix whose
ith row is (1,i - In, Y,) and let Y' = (Y2, Y3, . .. , Yn). Then the least squares
1057

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1058 D. A. DICKEY AND W. A. FULLER

estimator of 0 = (a, ,B, p)' is

(1.4) as = (&x, I3s,,$s)' = (XX)- x Y.

Let C, denote the ijth element of (X'X)'. Then the "regression t statistics" a

(1.5) Ta( = ClSe) a,

(1.6) TI7( = C22SeT) /39

where

(1.7) Se2T = (n-4)-1Y'[I-X(X'X)-IX']Y.

We shall study the likelihood ratio test of the hypothesis that (a, p) = (0, 1) for
model (1.2), the likelihood ratio test of the hypothesis that (a, 3, p) = (0,0, 1) for
model (1.3), and the likelihood ratio test of the hypothesis that (a, A, p) = (a, 0, 1)
for model (1.3). We also investigate the distributions of a,_,, Talk &a, 8, -,Tar, and T,,T
under the null model.
The likelihood ratio statistics are derived in Section 2 and the limiting
distributions presented in Section 3. Percentage points for the distributions
obtained by Monte Carlo methods are given in Section 4. In Section 5, it is
shown that the limit distributions of the test statistics are unchanged when
(1.1) and (1.3) is replaced by a stationary pth order autoregressive process whose
coefficients must be estimated. In Section 6 the powers of the likelihood ratio
tests (DI, 02 and 03 are compared to the powers of other test statistics. Sectio
contains an illustration of the use of the test statistics.

2. LIKELIHOOD RATIO STATISTICS

We construct the likelihood ratio statistics for the null hypothesis that the true
model is a random walk with zero drift. We consider first the test that (a, 3, p)
= (0,0, 1) in model (1.3) against the alternative that the null is not true. The
logarithm of the likelihood function for a sample of n observations from model
(1.3), conditional on Y1, is

log L = (n - l)log(27) - (n - l)log a

n

-(2a) E t Y- ,Bt -2 n)_ _-1 ]2.

t=2

Under the null hypothesis, Ho: (a, 3, p) = (0,0, 1), the likelih
with respect to a2 to obtain
n

aO2 = (n -l1)- Y-t_ 1)2.

t=2

Under the alternative hypothesis the maximum of the likelihood occurs at

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 LIKELIHOOD RATIO STATISTICS 1059

( 0, '), where O, was defined in (1.4) a

likelihood ratio is

(TO a] =I[ + 3(n -4) _'2]21

where

(2 = (3Se2 )'[(n - l)a -(n -4)Se,].

Thus, the likelihood ratio test rejects the null hypothesis for large values of
02' where '2 iS the usual regression "F test" of the hypothesis HO: (a, /,
(0,0,1).
In a similar manner, it can be shown that the likelihood ratio statistic for
testing HO: (a, p) = (0, 1) against HA: Not HO, for the model (1.1) is

[1 + 2(n 3)-'(DI 2
where

4?1 = (2S )'[(n - l)0- (n - 3)SJ.j

The likelihood ratio test of the hypothesis HO: (a, /3, p) = (a, 0, 1) in
(1.3) is a monotone function of

4> 2 Ser)[(-1 ) {2 _ (y(o) _ y( _ 1))2)}(-)S2

The statistics 02 and 0I3 are the common regression "F tests" one would
construct for the hypotheses. The null hypothesis for test D3 iS that the tim
is a random walk with drift a. It is easily demonstrated that the distribution of
the test statistic 03 does not depend upon a.

3. LIMITING DISTRIBUTIONS

Under the null hypotheses, the statistics introduced in Sections 1 and 2 can be
expressed as functions of a few sample statistics. Let

n t-1 2

(3.1) Fn = (n-1)-2 ej

Tn = (n- 1) 2 et= (n- 1)f(0),

t=2

t=2

n-1

n-i

Vn= (n - 51)/2 E (n -t)(t - I)e,.

t= 1

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1060 D. A. DICKEY AND W. A. FULLER

Then, for example,

(n -T)nTA = - (n-l)(5 -l)Wn

and

(n - l)(A, -1) = (In-W 2) 4 [(Tn + (n - 1)2e,)

-(n-1 1 et2] -TnWn}

-(rn- Wn2) {2(T2a2) TnWn} + OP(nA).

Because Tn and Wn are odd functions of (el, ~2., en) = en and Fn

even function of en, the distributions of a and TTa, are symmetric. Gi
a2= 1, Dickey and Fuller [7] have shown that [F, Tn,Wn, V,n(p, - 1)] con-
verges in distribution to (F, T, W, V, 8), where
00 00

r = yi2Zi2 T= 2
i=l i=l

00 00

W= 22-y
i=l i=l

(2i 2), -

and {Z,}j is a s
Therefore, given that (a, p) = (0, 1),

n 2a1- a,-- T- SW,

and

(3.3) Ta- (T- SW)(P - W2)2r-2,

because Sell converges in probability to a .

For model (1.3) with the assumption that 0' = (0,0, 1), we have

1 0 (n- 1) Wn

X'X = (n-1) 0 12-'n(n-2) 2(n-1)2Vn

(n-1)2Wn I(n-1)3Vn (n-1)F

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 LIKELIHOOD RATIO STATISTICS 1061

Letting D,, = diag[(n - 1)7, (n - 1), (n - 1)a], we obtain

l3~~~~~

(3.4) Dn 'X'XDn' - A,

(3.5) a-Dn1'(X'YX/XO ) f
where

1 0 W
0 1 ! v
A= ? 12 2
w Iv r
2

and f' [T, IT- W, (T2 -1)]. The matrix A is invertible with probability 1
and it is readily verified that

Q + W 2 6VW -w
(3.6) A-'=Q-[ 6VW 12Q + 36V2 -6Vj,
-W -6V I

where Q = -W2 -3 V2. Thus

aDn(A-_ 0) -A f
The third element of A -!f is the limit random variable for n ( - 1)
Dickey and Fuller [7]. Using the fact that S2 converges in probability to a2, we
obtain

A 2

,< Q2- ( Q

--r Q 1Q+3 V2) 2 (O, 1, O)A- ,

F1-* T2 + a2( W2)},

P2 9 tAI=-l[2+ 1(2TW)2 + 2

?39 -2- 1(f'A -!f- T2 = 2-'[ 12(l T T-W) ]

and

A W2-3V2) 2[(2T-W)(T-6V)-1].

The limiting distributions hold for any fixed Y1 and for e, a sequence of
independent identically distributed random variables.

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1062 D. A. DICKEY AND W. A. FULLER

TABLE I

EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 7;A FOR (a, p) = (0, 1) IN Yt = a + pYt-i + e,.

(Symmetric Distribution)

Sample Probability of a smaller value

size
n 0.90 0.95 0.975 0.99

25 2.20 2.61 2.97 3.41

50 2.18 2.56 2.89 3.28
100 2.17 2.54 2.86 3.22
250 2.16 2.53 2.84 3.19
500 2.16 2.52 2.83 3.18
00 2.16 2.52 2.83 3.18

s.e. 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.008

TABLE II

EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION OF TaT FOR (a, fi, p) = (0, 0, 1) IN Yt = a + 8it + pYt-l

(Symmetric Distribution)

Sample Probability of a smaller value

size
n 0.90 0.95 0.975 0.99

25 2.77 3.20 3.59 4.05

50 2.75 3.14 3.47 3.87
100 2.73 3.11 3.42 3.78
250 2.73 3.09 3.39 3.74
500 2.72 3.08 3.38 3.72
00 2.72 3.08 3.38 3.71

s.e. 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.008

TABLE III

EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 7;6, FOR (a, /3, p) = (0, 0, 1) IN Yt = a + 8it + pYt-l +

(Symmetric Distribution)

Sample Probability of a smaller value

size
n 0.90 0.95 0.975 0.99

25 2.39 2.85 3.25 3.74

50 2.38 2.81 3.18 3.60
100 2.38 2.79 3.14 3.53
250 2.38 2.79 3.12 3.49
500 2.38 2.78 3.11 3.48
00 2.38 2.78 3.11 3.46

s.e. 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.009

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 LIKELIHOOD RATIO STATISTICS 1063

TABLE IV

EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION OF (DI FOR (a, p) = (0, 1) IN Yt = a + pY,_ 1 + et

Sample Probability of a smaller value

size
n 0.01 0.025 0.05 0.10 0.90 0.95 0.975 0.99

25 0.29 0.38 0.49 0.65 4.12 5.18 6.30 7.88

50 0.29 0.39 0.50 0.66 3.94 4.86 5.80 7.06
100 0.29 0.39 0.50 0.67 3.86 4.71 5.57 6.70
250 0.30 0.39 0.51 0.67 3.81 4.63 5.45 6.52
500 0.30 0.39 0.51 0.67 3.79 4.61 5.41 6.47
00 0.30 0.40 0.51 0.67 3.78 4.59 5.38 6.43

s.e. 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05

TABLE V

EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 02 FOR (a, /3, p) = (0, 0, 1) IN Yt = a + 8t + pY_ I+ et

Sample Probability of a smaller value

size
n 0.01 0.025 0.05 0.10 0.90 0.95 0.975 0.99

25 0.61 0.75 0.89 1.10 4.67 5.68 6.75 8.21

50 0.62 0.77 0.91 1.12 4.31 5.13 5.94 7.02
100 0.63 0.77 0.92 1.12 4.16 4.88 5.59 6.50
250 0.63 0.77 0.92 1.13 4.07 4.75 5.40 6.22
500 0.63 0.77 0.92 1.13 4.05 4.71 5.35 6.15
oo 0.63 0.77 0.92 1.13 4.03 4.68 5.31 6.09

s.e. 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05

TABLE VI

EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION OF (D3 FOR (a, /3, p) = (a, 0, 1) IN Yt = a + 8t + pY,_ I + et

Sample Probability of a smaller value

size --
n 0.01 0.025 0.05 0.10 0.90 0.95 0.975 0.99

25 0.74 0.90 1.08 1.33 5.91 7.24 8.65 10.61

50 0.76 0.93 1.11 1.37 5.61 6.73 7.81 9.31
100 0.76 0.94 1.12 1.38 5.47 6.49 7.44 8.73
250 0.76 0.94 1.13 1.39 5.39 6.34 7.25 8.43
500 0.76 0.94 1.13 1.39 5.36 6.30 7.20 8.34
00 0.77 0.94 1.13 1.39 5.34 6.25 7.16 8.27

s.e. 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.015 0.020 0.032 0.058

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1064 D. A. DICKEY AND W. A. FULLER

4. SIMULATION

Tables I-VI contain percentiles for the null distributions of the "regression t
A A A

statistics" (TaL, Ta,r,

given in each table.
The empirical distributions of the statistics for finite samples were created
from statistics for samples generated by the model with Y, = 0 and Y, = Y-
e, t = 2,3, ... , n, for n = 25, 50, 100, 250, and 500. Three replicates of 50,000
samples were generated for n = 25, two for n = 50, 100, and 250, and one for
n = 500. The simulation of the limit case was conducted using the procedure
given in Dickey [6]. Three replicates of 50,000 were generated for the limit case.
For symmetric distributions, cells equidistant from zero were pooled to create a
symmetric histogram.
For each of the six estimators and for each sample size, the 0.01, 0.025, 0.05,
0.10, 0.90, 0.95, 0.975, and 0.99 percentage points of the distributions were
calculated. These empirical percentiles were then plotted against n. Based on the
plots, regression functions of the form P = a + /8ny were fitted to the percentiles
of the empirical distributions. Because several observations on each percentile
were available for n = 25, 50, 100, 250, and for the limit case, regression F tests
for lack of fit for the smoothing regressions were computed. Of the 36 lack of fit
statistics computed, 7 were significant at the 0.25 level, 2 at the 0.05 level, and
none at the 0.01 level. The regression smoothed percentiles are given in Tables I
through VI.
David [5, Section 2.5] gives a method for constructing distribution free
confidence intervals for the percentiles of a distribution based on empirical
percentiles. In Tables I through VI the number in the row labeled "s.e" is the
largest of the two half lengths of the 68.26% confidence intervals constructed for
n = 25 and for the limit case. These entries provide an upper bound for the
estimated standard errors of the regression smoothed percentiles.
The histogram 1TaI, for 50,000 samples with n = 25 is shown in Figure 1. Figure
2 contains the histogram for i-, constructed from 50,000 samples of size n = 25

F---- I I _ _
-6 -3 0 3 6

FIGURE 1.-Hist

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 LIKELIHOOD RATIO STATISTICS 1065

-6 ~~-3 0 6

FIGURE 2.-Histo

generated with 0' = (0,0, 1). The distributions are symmetric and the histograms
were constructed to be symmetric. The distributions of the T statistics are
distinctive in two respects; the distribution is bimodal and the "spread" of the
distribution is much larger than that of Student's t distribution.

5. DISTRIBUTIONS FOR HIGHER ORDER PROCESSES

In this section we demonstrate that the test statistics investigated in the

previous sections can be applied in higher order autoregressive processes. Con-
sider data generated by the model

(5.1) Y=0,
Yt =Yt - I + Zt (t = 2, 39 . . . ),
where

Zt =lZt- I + 02-2 +*** + Z + et

is a stationary autoregressive process and the et are NID(O, a2) random variables.
The model can also be written

Yt = pYt-1 + E 0(Y-i-Y, I) + et,

where p = I and Zt = Y--Y>_-. To simplify the presentation we assume,

without loss of generality, a 2= 1.
Consider the regression equation
p

Yt+p = a + /3[t - I(n -p + 1)] + pYt+p- + 9iZZ+p-i+ et+p

t = 1, 2, ... , n-p. Let Hn denote the (p + 3) X (p + 3) sums of squares and

products matrix needed to compute the regression, let Mn denote the square r

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1066 D. A. DICKEY AND W. A. FULLER

of the diagonal elements of H1, let Y'n = (a

the least squares estimator of 'yn. Then

Mn(Yn-Y,) =[MYn HTOMMnnMMn 7-

where
n-p

gn t - ( Is[ - (n -p + 1) ] Y+_l Zt+-lS*** Zt )'et+P.

t=1

Fuller [8, p. 374] has demonstrated that n -2 Yt is converging to n- 2

(l- X_l= )0 _ ej as t increases. By the results of Fuller, we have
n

n-1 YZt= Op(n-2),

t=2

E yt2 I1= Op (n 2)
t=2

n t - I t-(n +p - )] Zt+p-j= OP(n-2 2)

t=-

1: Yt_ lZt-1= Op(n).

t = 2

Therefore

plim Mn- 'HM-' = block diag(HI I, H22),

[1 0 -2
HI, 0 l rF-232 V 9
,r-2w W -232 v I

H22 is the p x p correlation matrix of the process Zt, and r, W, an

defined in (3.2). It follows that the limiting distribution of the vector c
the first three elements of M A(, -yn) is the same as the limiting dist

n 2an2 -t ( ( 1)]

discussed in Section 3. Similar results are easily obtained for the regression that
does not contain the time trend.

6. EMPIRICAL POWER OF TESTS

Tables VII-IX were constructed to give information on the power of the tests.
In Table VII the power was computed for samples of size n = 100 generated for
model (1.1) with p = 0.8, 0.9, 0.95, 1.00, 1.02, and 1.05 and a = 0.0, 0.5, and 1.0.

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 LIKELIHOOD RATIO STATISTICS 1067

Fora=0pweiscmutdf3l.

Fora0pweiscmutdf1,l.

TABLEVI

EMPIRCALOWFTwoSDZ0.51(YX)

Ti0.465219 7 Staisc0.51
a p=0.89512
n(T-1)0.57346289 T0.718925634 n(-1)0.8672953 4 1.0 4D30.5721968 420.176593 0.671594.0 1 410.7839265

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1068 D. A. DICKEY AND W. A. FULLER

TABLE VIII

EMPIRICAL POWER OF Two SIDED SIZE 0.05 TESTS AGAINST THE STATIONARY ALTERNATIVE
FOR SAMPLES OF n = 50, 100, AND 250 (20,000 SAMPLES)

p = 0.8 p = 0.9 p=0.95 p=0.99 p= 1.0

n n n n n

Statistic 50 100 250 50 100 250 50 100 250 50 100 250 50 100 250

>1 0.25 0.80 1.0 0.09 0.24 0.94 0.05 0.09 0.37 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
>2 0.09 0.44 1.0 0.04 0.10 0.64 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05
4>3 0.17 0.59 1.0 0.08 0.16 0.78 0.06 0.07 0.23 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05
n(p - 1) 0.30 0.87 1.0 0.10 0.29 0.97 0.05 0.09 0.43 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
T9 0.20 0.74 1.0 0.07 0.19 0.91 0.04 0.06 0.31 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05
n(pA- 1) 0.14 0.57 1.0 0.06 0.14 0.78 0.05 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05
iT 0.11 0.48 1.0 0.05 0.11 0.69 0.04 0.05 0.16 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05

TABLE IX

EMPIRICAL POWER OF ONE SIDED SIZE 0.05 TESTS FOR SAMPLES OF SIZE 100( YI FIXED

p=0.8 p=0.9 p = 0.95 p=0.99 p= 1.00

a a a a a

Statistic 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00

d 0.97 0.95 0.89 0.53 0.31 0.03 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00
n(pA- 1) 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.46 0.42 0.29 0.19 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00
i 0.86 0.90 0.95 0.30 0.43 0.73 0.12 0.21 0.66 0.06 0.06 0.20 0.05 0.00 0.00
n(pA- 1) 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.24 0.20 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.06
iT 0.64 0.67 0.78 0.18 0.22 0.34 0.08 0.09 0.15 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05

For a = 0 power is computed from 10,000 samples.

For a #0 power is computed from 3000 samples.

The statistic (DI is the likelihood ratio test of (a, p) = (0, 1) against the alterna-
tive (a, p) 7P (0, 1) for model (1.1). The statistic )2 iS the likelihood ratio test of
(a, 3, p) = (0,0, 1) against the general alternative of model (1.3). Note that in
models (1.1) and (1.3) the initial value Y1 is fixed. Because the alternative is
broader for 02, 02 displays smaller power than J, in Table VII where t
parameter /3 = 0 for all examples of the table. Both 01l and 02 display bias
having power less than the size for p = 0.99. The power of both tests increases as
a increases.
The statistic I3 is the likelihood ratio test of (a, /, p) = (a, 0, 1) against th
general alternative of model (1.3). In Table VII the power of I3 is between tho
of (D, and (2 for p <.99. At p = 1.02 and a = 0, the power of I3 is considerab
less than the powers of (D and (2. No bias is evident in A3.
We have included in Table VII the statistics A, ,, A-n, and T discussed by
Fuller [8, Section 8.5]. The null distributions of the statistics A and T are
computed under model (1.1) with the assumption that (a, p) = (0, 1). The distri-
butions of the statistics for (a, 1), a 7 0 differ from those with a = 0. The null

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 LIKELIHOOD RATIO STATISTICS 1069

distributions of the statistics 3 pT, and

they maintain their size for p = I and a #0 O. The tests used for Table VII were
constructed from p,,, p,,T, and T b'y removing equal areas from the two tails of
the distribution. The tests T,, and T, are generally less powerful than the corre-
sponding tests P1 and (D2 when p < 1.
Table VIII contains the estimated power for the test statistics against the
stationary first order autoregressive time series. The tests are the two sided tests
of Table VII. The observations for p 1 for the samples of Table VIII were
generated using the model

Y, = pYt-I + et (t = 23, * ... ,n),

Y = -p2)-2e (t=1),
where the et are NID(0, 1) random variables. The power was computed for
20,000 samples of each of the three sample sizes. Generally speaking pL is
most powerful of the tests considered. The test I3 is the most powerful of
tests that permit the null model to contain drift.
Table IX contains the power for one sided tests when the true model is (1.1)
with p < 1. Included in this table is the von Neumann ratio

n -1n
d = n[E Y-n] ( Yt-t l)29
t=l ~~t=2

where
n

Yn=n-l .
t= 1

Sargan [15] gives percentiles for d when Yt is generated by model (1.1) with
(a, p) = (0, 1). For sample sizes 50 and 100 and significance level 0.05 we use the
percentiles from Sargan's paper. The jth percentile of the limit distribution for d
is the reciprocal of the (100-j)th percentile in the table of Anderson and
Darling [2, p. 203]. For finite sample sizes not considered by Sargan, we use the
asymptotic percentiles as critical values for the power calculations of Table IX.
Fuller [9] has constructed modifications of the statistic d that are applicable to
higher order autoregressive processes and to model (1.3). The methods used to
generate the samples of Table IX are those used to generate the samples of Table
VII with p < 1. The statistic d is an appropriate test when the alternative is that
Y, is a stationary first order autoregressive time series. It displays good power for
this alternative (that is, when a = 0 and p < 1). The statistic n(p - 1) is only
slightly less powerful than d for a = 0 and maintains somewhat better power for
a & 0. For p < 1 and a # 0 the estimator P is closer to one on the average than
the corresponding estimator associated with a = 0. Therefore, the tests A andT,
display poor power for values of p close to one and a #0 O. Because the estimator
p, converges to p for p < 1, there is some sample size for any p < 1 for which the

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1070 D. A. DICKEY AND W. A. FULLER

TABLE X
MODELS AND TEST STATISTICS

Test
Null Model Alternative Model Statistic

Yt= YA_I+e, Yt =i+pYtAI+e, (1

Yt = Yt- I + et Yt = ai + At + pYt- I + et (D2
Yt=a+ Yt-5+et Y,=a+8t+pYt-I+et 4'3
Y= +pYt- I +e

Yt = a +,_t + pY,I+e, A A
Yt = c + Yt- I t Y + e, PY 1 t " PTas
Yt = Yt - I + et Yt = a + pYt- I + et d
P < I

aPoor power for Y, not stationary, a =, 0, small n, and p less than, but close to one.

statistics will have power greater than the size. Because the null distributions are
derived under the assumption that (a, p) = (0, 1), there is no sample size for
which the tests d, p, and are appropriate if the alternative includes a :# 0 and
p= 1.
The test statistics discussed in this section and the hypotheses for which they
are appropriate are summarized in Table X.

7. EXAMPLE

To illustrate the use of the tables we study the logarithm of the quarterly
Federal Reserve Board Production Index 1950-1 through 1977-4. We assume
that the time series is adequately represented by the model

(7.1) Yt =,Bo + Pi1t + aI Y>-1 + a2(YA I- Yt2) + ev,

where e, are independent identically distributed (0, a2) random variables. The
ordinary least squares estimates are

Yt- Yt- = 0.52 + 0.00120t - 0.119 Yt -+ 0.498 Yt_I- Yt-2)

(0.15) (0.00034) (0.033) (0.081)
R.S.S. = 0.056448,

Y-Y,-I= 0.0054 + 0.447 (Yt - I Yt -2), R.S.S. = 0.063211,

(0.0025) (0.083)

Yt -Yt-i= 0.511 (Yt_, -Yt2), R.S.S.=0.065966,

(0.079)
where R.S.S. denotes the residual sum of squares. The numbers in parentheses
are the quantities output as "standard errors" by the regression program.
To test the hypothesis that 80 = /31 = 0 and al = 1 against the general alterna-

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 LIKELIHOOD RATIO STATISTICS 1071

tive (7.1) we compute

- = 0.065966 - 0.056448 = 5-95

3(0.000533)

where 0.000533 = 0.056448/106 is the residual mean square for the full model
regression. As there are 110 observations in the regression the 97.5 per cent point
of the distribution of (12, as given in Table V, is 5.59. Therefore the hypothesis
Po= ,B = 0 and a1 = 1 is rejected at the 2.5 per cent level.
To test the hypothesis that f,3 = 0 and a1 = 1 against the general alternative
(7.1) we compute

(, = 0.063211 - 0.056448 = 6.34.

3 2(0.000533)

The 95 per cent point of the distribution is given in Table VI as 6.49 and the
90 per cent point as 5.47. Therefore at the 5 per cent level one could accept the
hypothesis that the second order autoregressive process has a unit root with
possible drift under the maintained hypothesis that the process is second order.
The null hypothesis would be rejected at the 10 per cent level. We note that on
the basis of Table 8.5.2 of Fuller [8] the statistic

;.-0.119. 6
TT= 0.033
0? 9- 3.61

would lead to rejection of the hypothesis of a unit root at the 10 per cent level if
a two sided test is performed. If the alternative is that both roots are less than
one in absolute value the hypothesis of a unit root is rejected at the 5 per cent
level.

North Carolina State University

and
Iowa State University

Manuscript received June, 1978; final revision received April, 1980.

REFERENCES

[1] ANDERSON, T. W.: "On Asymptotic Distributions of Estimates of Parameters of Stochastic

Difference Equations," Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 30(1959), 676-687.
[2] ANDERSON, T. W., AND D. A. DARLING: "Asymptotic Theory of Certain 'Goodness of Fit'
Criteria Based on Stochastic Processes," Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23(1952), 193-212.
[3] Box, G. E. P., AND G. M. JENKINS: Time Series Analysis Forecasting and Control. San Francisco:
Holden-Day, 1970.
[4] BULMER, M. G.: "The Statistical Analysis of Density Dependency," Biometrics, 31(1975),
901-911.
[5] DAVID, H. A.: Order Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970.
[6] DICKEY, D. A.: "Estimation and Hypothesis Testing in Nonstationary Time Series," Iowa State
University Ph.D. thesis, 1976.

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1072 D. A. DICKEY AND W. A. FULLER

[7] DICKEY, D. A., AND W. A. FULLER: "Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time
Series with a Unit Root," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(1979), 427-431.
[8] FULLER, W. A.: Introduction to Statistical Time Series. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976.
[9] : "Testing the Autoregressive Process for a Unit Root," Report to the U.S. Census
Bureau, 1979.
[10] HASZA, D.: "Estimation in Nonstationary Time Series," Iowa State University Ph.D. thesis,
1977.
[11] MANN, H. B., AND A. WALD: "On Stochastic Limit and Order Relationships," Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 14(1943), 217-226.
[12] RAo, M. M.: "Consistency and Limit Distributions of Estimators of Parameters in Explosive
Stochastic Difference Equations," Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(1961), 195-218.
[13] : "Asymptotic Distribution of An Estimator of the Boundary Parameter of an Unstable
Process," Annals of Statistics, 6(1978), 185-190.
[14] RUBIN, H.: "Consistency of Maximum-Likelihood Estimates in the Explosive Case," in Statisti-
cal Inference in Dynamic Economic Models, ed. by T. C. Koopmans, 1950.
[15] SARGAN, J. D.: "The Durbin-Watson Ratio of the Gaussian Random Walk," London School of
Economics manuscript, 1973.

This content downloaded from

213.55.221.4 on Wed, 04 May 2022 21:37:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms