Analysis of Stochastic Volatility Sequences Generated by Product Autoregressive Models

The classical methods of analysing time series by Box-Jenkins approach assume that the observed series uctuates around changing levels with constant variance. That is, the time series is assumed to be of homoscedastic nature. However, the nancial time series exhibits the presence of heteroscedasticity in the sense that, it possesses non-constant conditional variance given the past observations. So, the analysis of nancial time series, requires the modelling of such variances, which may depend on some time dependent factors or its own past values. This lead to introduction of several classes of models to study the behaviour of nancial time series. See Taylor (1986), Tsay (2005), Rachev et al. (2007). The class of models, used to describe the evolution of conditional variances is referred to as stochastic volatility modelsThe stochastic models available to analyse the conditional variances, are based on either normal or log-normal distributions. One of the objectives of the present study is to explore the possibility of employing some non-Gaussian distributions to model the volatility sequences and then study the behaviour of the resulting return series. This lead us to work on the related problem of statistical inference, which is the main contribution of the thesis

Model Diagnostics in the presence of measurement error

The problem of using information available from one variable X to make inferenceabout another Y is classical in many physical and social sciences. In statistics this isoften done via regression analysis where mean response is used to model the data. Onestipulates the model Y = µ(X) +ɛ. Here µ(X) is the mean response at the predictor variable value X = x, and ɛ = Y - µ(X) is the error. In classical regression analysis, both (X; Y ) are observable and one then proceeds to make inference about the mean response function µ(X). In practice there are numerous examples where X is not available, but a variable Z is observed which provides an estimate of X. As an example, consider the herbicidestudy of Rudemo, et al. [3] in which a nominal measured amount Z of herbicide was applied to a plant but the actual amount absorbed by the plant X is unobservable. As another example, from Wang [5], an epidemiologist studies the severity of a lung disease, Y , among the residents in a city in relation to the amount of certain air pollutants. The amount of the air pollutants Z can be measured at certain observation stations in the city, but the actual exposure of the residents to the pollutants, X, is unobservable and may vary randomly from the Z-values. In both cases X = Z+error: This is the so called Berkson measurement error model.In more classical measurement error model one observes an unbiased estimator W of X and stipulates the relation W = X + error: An example of this model occurs when assessing effect of nutrition X on a disease. Measuring nutrition intake precisely within 24 hours is almost impossible. There are many similar examples in agricultural or medical studies, see e.g., Carroll, Ruppert and Stefanski [1] and Fuller [2], , among others. In this talk we shall address the question of fitting a parametric model to the re-gression function µ(X) in the Berkson measurement error model: Y = µ(X) + ɛ; X = Z + η; where η and ɛ are random errors with E(ɛ) = 0, X and η are d-dimensional, and Z is the observable d-dimensional r.v.