Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2603.03997

Bandwidth Selection for Spatial HAC Standard Errors

Abstract

Spatial autocorrelation in regression models can lead to downward biased standard errors and thus incorrect inference. The most common correction in applied economics is the spatial heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent (HAC) standard error estimator introduced by Conley (1999). A critical input is the kernel bandwidth: the distance within which residuals are allowed to be correlated. However, this is still an unresolved problem and there is no formal guidance in the literature. In this paper, I first document that the relationship between the bandwidth and the magnitude of spatial HAC standard errors is inverse-U shaped. This implies that both too narrow and too wide bandwidths lead to underestimated standard errors, contradicting the conventional wisdom that wider bandwidths yield more conservative inference. I then propose a simple, non-parametric, data-driven bandwidth selector based on the empirical covariogram of regression residuals. In extensive Monte Carlo experiments calibrated to empirically relevant spatial correlation structures across the contiguous United States, I show that the proposed method controls the false positive rate at or near the nominal 5% level across a wide range of spatial correlation intensities and sample configurations. I compare six kernel functions and find that the Bartlett and Epanechnikov kernels deliver the best size control. An empirical application using U.S. county-level data illustrates the practical relevance of the method. The R package SpatialInference implements the proposed bandwidth selection method.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alexander Lehner. 2026-03-04. Bandwidth Selection for Spatial HAC Standard Errors. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03997

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Summary Indices in Treatment Effect Estimation

This paper studies the practice of combining multiple outcomes into a summary index to estimate a causal effect. For common estimators and index constructions, the estimate equals a weighted sum of the estimated effects on the components, with weights that are implicit and rarely reported. The paper derives the weights and shows that, for inverse-covariance-weighted indices, they can be negative and unrestricted in magnitude, so the index effect can have the opposite sign to every component effect. The paper proposes two procedures for valid inference on the index effect: a variance estimator that accounts for the data-dependent weights, and a shifted t-test that requires no such correction. Conventional t-tests of the null of no effect remain valid. Contrary to common claims, summary indices do not generally improve power. Three published studies illustrate the results.

econ.EM

The "Rough" HAR Model

This paper proposes discrete-time approximations to rough continuous-time models of realized variance (RV). The leading rough models can be viewed as autoregressive processes driven by fractional Gaussian noise. We show that the Wold representation of this noise concentrates its dependence at the first lag when the Hurst parameter is below one half. Augmenting the autoregressive (AR) and heterogeneous autoregressive (HAR) models with a first-order moving-average (MA(1)) component therefore approximates the roughness, and the MA coefficient maps almost linearly into the Hurst parameter. We refer to these extensions as the "rough" AR and "rough" HAR models. Estimating them on the log RV of ten ETFs, we find negative MA coefficients for every asset, and the implied Hurst parameters align closely with the estimates from the continuous-time models. In the HAR literature, the negative MA(1) component is a significant feature that has been largely overlooked. In out-of-sample comparisons, the "rough" models outperform their classical counterparts for nearly every asset and horizon, with the largest gains at short horizons, and their accuracy is comparable to that of the rough continuous-time models but much easier to estimate by standard off-the-shelf software.

econ.EM

Match forecasts in UEFA club competitions: Elo ratings versus Transfermarkt valuations

The pre-season strengths of European football clubs are usually measured by two proxies in the literature. Football Club Elo Ratings provide strictly performance-based Elo ratings from the early days of the European Cups, while Transfermarkt valuations are crowd-based estimates of squad market values. This paper compares them by evaluating their ability to forecast the results of matches played in the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Europa League between the seasons 2020/21 and 2024/25. The two indicators yield almost identical out-of-sample accuracy when used separately. Combining the two measures leads to a modest improvement, but the best aggregation procedure is sensitive to the forecast target. Our results suggest that seeding based on Elo ratings would be (closely) optimal.

econ.EM