Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2607.17275

Two Gaussians, Too Many: A bootstrap-based approach to assess identifiability in non-Gaussian structural Vector Autoregressions

Abstract

Standard pre-tests of normality on reduced-form innovations are insufficient to detect two or more Gaussian shocks and hence, the failure of identification in non-Gaussian SVARs. We instead propose a bootstrap-based approach to evaluate the asymptotic validity of this condition by measuring the divergence between the conditional bootstrap distribution of a maximum likelihood estimator and its limiting distribution under valid identification. We show that, under valid identification and certain regularity conditions, the conditional bootstrap distribution of the impact matrix is asymptotically normal, so the diagnostic reduces to a test of normality of the bootstrap replications. The diagnostic remains valid in the single-Gaussian case, where the shape parameter of the Gaussian shock lies on the boundary, and the full-parameter information is singular; this establishes its validity across the entire null. Under the null of valid identification, the diagnostic induces no pre-testing bias as bootstrap replications and sample size diverge jointly at an appropriate rate. The joint divergence ensures that the test statistic, conditional on the data, is asymptotically pivotal, so conditioning on the diagnostic does not distort subsequent inference. Monte Carlo simulations with Normal-Inverse Gaussian shocks show that the diagnostic attains near-exact nominal size under valid identification and detects the failure due to multiple Gaussian shocks with power increasing in the sample size. Under weak identification with a near-Gaussian shock, conditioning on the bootstrap diagnostic, unlike on residual-based normality pre-tests, preserves the probability coverage of the estimates. Based on estimates of a SVAR model in the macroeconomic and financial uncertainty literature, we demonstrate its potential as a practical, robust tool for validating non-Gaussian identification without pre-testing bias.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Paritosh Shankarrao Junare. 2026-07-19. Two Gaussians, Too Many: A bootstrap-based approach to assess identifiability in non-Gaussian structural Vector Autoregressions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17275

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Evidence Aggregation for Treatment Choice

Consider a planner who has limited knowledge of the policy's causal impact on a certain local population of interest due to a lack of data, but does have access to the publicized intervention studies performed for similar policies on different populations. How should the planner make use of and aggregate this existing evidence to make her policy decision? Following Manski (2020; Towards Credible Patient-Centered Meta-Analysis, \textit{Epidemiology}), we formulate the planner's problem as a statistical decision problem with a social welfare objective, and solve for an optimal aggregation rule under the minimax-regret criterion. We investigate the analytical properties, computational feasibility, and welfare regret performance of this rule. We apply the minimax regret decision rule to decide whether to enact an active labor market policy based on 14 randomized control trial studies.

econ.EM

Beta-Sorted Portfolios

Beta-sorted portfolios---portfolios comprised of assets with similar covariation with selected risk factors---are a popular tool in empirical finance to analyze models of (conditional) expected returns. Despite their widespread use, little is known of their econometric properties in contrast to comparable procedures such as two-pass regressions. We formally investigate the properties of beta-sorted portfolio returns by casting the procedure as a two-step nonparametric estimator with a nonparametric first step and a beta-adaptive portfolio construction. Our framework rationalizes the well-known estimation algorithm with precise economic and statistical assumptions on the general data-generating process. We provide conditions which ensure valid estimation and inference allowing for a range of hypotheses of interest in financial applications. We show that the rate of convergence of the estimator changes depending on the value of beta. We demonstrate that valid inference depends critically on the object of interest and discuss drawbacks of the widely used Fama-MacBeth variance estimator. To address these limitations, we propose a new variance estimator. We demonstrate the usefulness of our theoretical results in two empirical applications, including one in which we introduce a novel risk factor that captures the business credit cycle and show that it predicts both the cross-sectional and time-series behavior of U.S. stock returns.

econ.EM

Difference-in-Differences with Unpoolable Data

Difference-in-differences (DID) is commonly used to estimate treatment effects but is infeasible in settings where data are unpoolable due to privacy concerns or legal restrictions on data sharing, particularly across jurisdictions. In this study, we identify and relax the assumption of data poolability in DID estimation. We propose an innovative approach to estimate DID with unpoolable data (UN-DID) which can accommodate covariates, multiple groups, and staggered adoption. Through analytical proofs and Monte Carlo simulations, we show that UN-DID and conventional DID estimates of the average treatment effect and standard errors are equal and unbiased in settings without covariates. With covariates, both methods produce estimates that are unbiased, equivalent, and converge to the true value. The estimates differ slightly but the statistical inference and substantive conclusions remain the same. Two empirical examples with real-world data further underscore UN-DID's utility. The UN-DID method allows the estimation of cross-jurisdictional treatment effects with unpoolable data, enabling better counterfactuals to be used and new research questions to be answered.

econ.EM