{"title":"汉密尔顿回归滤波器真的优于霍德里克-普雷斯科特去趋势法吗?","authors":"Reiner Franke, Jiri Kukacka, Stephen Sacht","doi":"10.1017/s136510052400018x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An article published in 2018 by J.D. Hamilton gained significant attention due to its provocative title, “Why you should never use the Hodrick-Prescott filter.” Additionally, an alternative method for detrending, the Hamilton regression filter (HRF), was introduced. His work was frequently interpreted as a proposal to substitute the Hodrick–Prescott (HP) filter with HRF, therefore utilizing and understanding it similarly as HP detrending. This research disputes this perspective, particularly in relation to quarterly business cycle data on aggregate output. Focusing on economic fluctuations in the United States, this study generates a large amount of artificial data that follow a known pattern and include both a trend and cyclical component. The objective is to assess the effectiveness of a certain detrending approach in accurately identifying the real decomposition of the data. In addition to the standard HP smoothing parameter of <jats:inline-formula> <jats:alternatives> <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\" mime-subtype=\"png\" xlink:href=\"S136510052400018X_inline1.png\"/> <jats:tex-math> $\\lambda = 1600$ </jats:tex-math> </jats:alternatives> </jats:inline-formula>, the study also examines values of <jats:inline-formula> <jats:alternatives> <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\" mime-subtype=\"png\" xlink:href=\"S136510052400018X_inline2.png\"/> <jats:tex-math> $\\lambda ^{\\star }$ </jats:tex-math> </jats:alternatives> </jats:inline-formula> from earlier research that are seven to twelve times greater. Based on three unique statistical measures of the discrepancy between the estimated and real trends, it is evident that both versions of HP significantly surpass those of HRF. Additionally, HP with <jats:inline-formula> <jats:alternatives> <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\" mime-subtype=\"png\" xlink:href=\"S136510052400018X_inline3.png\"/> <jats:tex-math> $\\lambda ^{\\star }$ </jats:tex-math> </jats:alternatives> </jats:inline-formula> consistently outperforms HP-1600.","PeriodicalId":18078,"journal":{"name":"Macroeconomic Dynamics","volume":"2012 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the Hamilton regression filter really superior to Hodrick–Prescott detrending?\",\"authors\":\"Reiner Franke, Jiri Kukacka, Stephen Sacht\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s136510052400018x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An article published in 2018 by J.D. Hamilton gained significant attention due to its provocative title, “Why you should never use the Hodrick-Prescott filter.” Additionally, an alternative method for detrending, the Hamilton regression filter (HRF), was introduced. His work was frequently interpreted as a proposal to substitute the Hodrick–Prescott (HP) filter with HRF, therefore utilizing and understanding it similarly as HP detrending. This research disputes this perspective, particularly in relation to quarterly business cycle data on aggregate output. Focusing on economic fluctuations in the United States, this study generates a large amount of artificial data that follow a known pattern and include both a trend and cyclical component. The objective is to assess the effectiveness of a certain detrending approach in accurately identifying the real decomposition of the data. In addition to the standard HP smoothing parameter of <jats:inline-formula> <jats:alternatives> <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\" mime-subtype=\\\"png\\\" xlink:href=\\\"S136510052400018X_inline1.png\\\"/> <jats:tex-math> $\\\\lambda = 1600$ </jats:tex-math> </jats:alternatives> </jats:inline-formula>, the study also examines values of <jats:inline-formula> <jats:alternatives> <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\" mime-subtype=\\\"png\\\" xlink:href=\\\"S136510052400018X_inline2.png\\\"/> <jats:tex-math> $\\\\lambda ^{\\\\star }$ </jats:tex-math> </jats:alternatives> </jats:inline-formula> from earlier research that are seven to twelve times greater. Based on three unique statistical measures of the discrepancy between the estimated and real trends, it is evident that both versions of HP significantly surpass those of HRF. Additionally, HP with <jats:inline-formula> <jats:alternatives> <jats:inline-graphic xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\" mime-subtype=\\\"png\\\" xlink:href=\\\"S136510052400018X_inline3.png\\\"/> <jats:tex-math> $\\\\lambda ^{\\\\star }$ </jats:tex-math> </jats:alternatives> </jats:inline-formula> consistently outperforms HP-1600.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18078,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Macroeconomic Dynamics\",\"volume\":\"2012 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Macroeconomic Dynamics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s136510052400018x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Macroeconomic Dynamics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s136510052400018x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
2018年,J.D. Hamilton发表的一篇文章因其具有煽动性的标题 "为什么你永远不应该使用霍德里克-普雷斯科特滤波器 "而备受关注。此外,还介绍了另一种去趋势方法--汉密尔顿回归滤波器(HRF)。他的研究成果经常被解释为建议用 HRF 代替霍德里克-普雷斯科特(HP)滤波器,因此对 HRF 的使用和理解与 HP 去趋势相似。本研究对这一观点提出了质疑,特别是在有关总产出的季度商业周期数据方面。本研究以美国的经济波动为重点,生成了大量人工数据,这些数据遵循已知模式,既包括趋势成分,也包括周期成分。目的是评估某种去趋势方法在准确识别数据真实分解方面的有效性。除了 $\lambda = 1600$ 的标准 HP 平滑参数外,本研究还考察了早期研究中大 7 到 12 倍的 $\lambda ^{\star }$ 值。根据对估计趋势和实际趋势之间差异的三种独特统计测量,可以明显看出,两种版本的 HP 都大大超过了 HRF。此外,使用 $\lambda ^{\star }$ 的 HP 始终优于 HP-1600。
Is the Hamilton regression filter really superior to Hodrick–Prescott detrending?
An article published in 2018 by J.D. Hamilton gained significant attention due to its provocative title, “Why you should never use the Hodrick-Prescott filter.” Additionally, an alternative method for detrending, the Hamilton regression filter (HRF), was introduced. His work was frequently interpreted as a proposal to substitute the Hodrick–Prescott (HP) filter with HRF, therefore utilizing and understanding it similarly as HP detrending. This research disputes this perspective, particularly in relation to quarterly business cycle data on aggregate output. Focusing on economic fluctuations in the United States, this study generates a large amount of artificial data that follow a known pattern and include both a trend and cyclical component. The objective is to assess the effectiveness of a certain detrending approach in accurately identifying the real decomposition of the data. In addition to the standard HP smoothing parameter of $\lambda = 1600$ , the study also examines values of $\lambda ^{\star }$ from earlier research that are seven to twelve times greater. Based on three unique statistical measures of the discrepancy between the estimated and real trends, it is evident that both versions of HP significantly surpass those of HRF. Additionally, HP with $\lambda ^{\star }$ consistently outperforms HP-1600.
期刊介绍:
Macroeconomic Dynamics publishes theoretical, empirical or quantitative research of the highest standard. Papers are welcomed from all areas of macroeconomics and from all parts of the world. Major advances in macroeconomics without immediate policy applications will also be accepted, if they show potential for application in the future. Occasional book reviews, announcements, conference proceedings, special issues, interviews, dialogues, and surveys are also published.