pages.stern.nyu.edupages.stern.nyu.edu/~dbackus/Identification/Kalman/JFV_LectureNo… ·...

State Space Models and Filtering

Jesus Fernandez-VillaverdeUniversity of Pennsylvania

1

State Space Form

• What is a state space representation?

• States versus observables.

• Why is it useful?

• Relation with filtering.

• Relation with optimal control.

• Linear versus nonlinear, Gaussian versus nongaussian.2

State Space Representation

• Let the following system:

— Transition equation

xt+1 = Fxt +Gωt+1, ωt+1 ∼ N (0, Q)

— Measurement equation

zt = H0xt + υt, υt ∼ N (0, R)

— where xt are the states and zt are the observables.

• Assume we want to write the likelihood function of zT = ztTt=1.3

The State Space Representation is Not Unique

• Take the previous state space representation.

• Let B be a non-singular squared matrix conforming with F .

• Then, if x∗t = Bxt, F ∗ = BFB−1, G∗ = BG, and H∗ =¡H0B

¢0, wecan write a new, equivalent, representation:

— Transition equation

x∗t+1 = F ∗x∗t +G∗ωt+1, ωt+1 ∼ N (0, Q)

— Measurement equation

zt = H∗0x∗t + υt, υt ∼ N (0, R)

4

Example I

• Assume the following AR(2) process:zt = ρ1zt−1 + ρ2zt−2 + υt, υt ∼ N

³0,σ2υ

´

• Model is not apparently not Markovian.

• Can we write this model in different state space forms?

• Yes!

5

State Space Representation I

• Transition equation:

xt =

"ρ1 1ρ2 0

#xt−1 +

"10

#υt

where xt =hyt ρ2yt−1

i0

• Measurement equation:zt =

h1 0

ixt

6

State Space Representation II


xt =

"ρ1 ρ21 0

#xt−1 +

"10

#υt

where xt =hyt yt−1

i0


h1 0

ixt

• Try B =

"1 00 ρ2

#on the second system to get the first system.

7

Example II

• Assume the following MA(1) process:zt = υt + θυt−1, υt ∼ N

³0,σ2υ

´, and Eυtυs = 0 for s 6= t.

• Again, we have a more conmplicated structure than a simple Markov-ian process.

• However, it will again be straightforward to write a state space repre-sentation.

8

State Space Representation I


xt =

"0 10 0

#xt−1 +

"1θ

#υt

where xt =hyt θυt

i0


h1 0

ixt

9

State Space Representation II


xt = υt−1

• where xt = [υt−1]0

• Measurement equation:zt = θxt + υt

• Again both representations are equivalent!10

Example III

• Assume the following random walk plus drift process:

zt = zt−1 + β + υt, υt ∼ N³0,σ2υ

´

• This is even more interesting.

• We have a unit root.

• We have a constant parameter (the drift).

11



xt =

"1 10 1

#xt−1 +

"10

#υt

where xt =hyt β

i0


h1 0

ixt

12

Some Conditions on the State Space Representation

• We only consider Stable Systems.

• A system is stable if for any initial state x0, the vector of states, xt,

converges to some unique x∗.

• A necessary and sufficient condition for the system to be stable is that:|λi (F )| < 1

for all i, where λi (F ) stands for eigenvalue of F .

13

Introducing the Kalman Filter

• Developed by Kalman and Bucy.

• Wide application in science.

• Basic idea.

• Prediction, smoothing, and control.

• Why the name “filter”?

14

Some Definitions

• Let xt|t−1 = E³xt|zt−1

´be the best linear predictor of xt given the

history of observables until t− 1, i.e. zt−1.

• Let zt|t−1 = E³zt|zt−1

´= H0xt|t−1 be the best linear predictor of zt

given the history of observables until t− 1, i.e. zt−1.

• Let xt|t = E³xt|zt

´be the best linear predictor of xt given the history

of observables until t, i.e. zt.

15

A Minimization Approach to the Kalman Filter II

• Kt is called the Kalman filter gain and it measures how much we

update xt|t−1 as a function in our error in predicting zt.

• The question is how to find the optimal Kt.

• The Kalman filter is about how to build Kt such that optimally updatext|t from xt|t−1 and zt.

• How do we find the optimal Kt?

18

Example I

Assume the following model in State Space form:

• Transition equationxt = µ+ υt, υt ∼ N

³0,σ2υ

´

• Measurement equationzt = xt + ξt, ξt ∼ N

³0,σ2ξ

´

• Let σ2ξ = qσ2υ.

21

Example II

• Then, if Σ1|0 = σ2υ, what it means that x1 was drawn from the ergodic

distribution of xt.

• We have:K1 = σ2υ

1

1 + q∝ 1

1 + q.

• Therefore, the bigger σ2ξ relative to σ2υ (the bigger q) the lower K1and the less we trust z1.

22

The Kalman Filter Algorithm V

We also compute zt|t−1 and Ωt|t−1.

Why?

To calculate the likelihood function of zT = ztTt=1 (to follow).

27

Some Intuition about the optimal Kt

• Remember: Kt = Σt|t−1H³H0Σt|t−1H +R

´−1

• Notice that we can rewrite Kt in the following way:Kt = Σt|t−1HΩ−1

t|t−1

• If we did a big mistake forecasting xt|t−1 using past information (Σt|t−1large) we give a lot of weight to the new information (Kt large).

• If the new information is noise (R large) we give a lot of weight to theold prediction (Kt small).

30

The Kalman Filter First Iteration I

• Assume we know x1|0 and Σ1|0, thenÃx1z1|z0!N

Ã"x1|0H0x1|0

#,

"Σ1|0 Σ1|0HH0Σ1|0 H0Σ1|0H +R

#!

• Remember that:X|y,w ∼ N

³x∗ +ΣxyΣ


−1yy Σyx

´

34

The Kalman Filter First Iteration II

Then, we can write:

x1|z1, z0 = x1|z1 ∼ N³x1|1,Σ1|1

´where

x1|1 = x1|0 +Σ1|0H³H0Σ1|0H +R

´−1 ³z1 −H0x1|0

´and

Σ1|1 = Σ1|0 −Σ1|0H³H0Σ1|0H +R

´−1H0Σ1|0

35

• Therefore, we have that:

— z1|0 = H0x1|0

— Ω1|0 = H0Σ1|0H +R

— x1|1 = x1|0 +Σ1|0H³H0Σ1|0H +R

´−1 ³z1 −H0x1|0

´— Σ1|1 = Σ1|0 −Σ1|0H

³H0Σ1|0H +R

´−1H0Σ1|0

• Also, since x2|1 = Fx1|1 +Gω2|1 and z2|1 = H0x2|1 + υ2|1:

— x2|1 = Fx1|1

— Σ2|1 = FΣ1|1F 0 +GQG0

36

The Kalman Filter Algorithm

Given xt|t−1, Σt|t−1 and observation zt

• Ωt|t−1 = H0Σt|t−1H +R

• zt|t−1 = H0xt|t−1

• Σt|t = Σt|t−1 −Σt|t−1H³H0Σt|t−1H +R

´−1H0Σ

• xt|t = xt|t−1 + Σt|t−1H³H0Σt|t−1H +R

´−1 ³zt −H0xt|t−1

´039

• Σt+1|t = FΣt|tF 0 +GQGt|t−1

• xt+1|t = Fxt|t−1

40

Putting the Minimization and the Probabilistic Approaches Together

• From the Minimization Approach we know that:


´

• From the Probability Approach we know that:

xt|t = xt|t−1 + Σt|t−1H³H0Σt|t−1H +R

´−1 ³zt −H0xt|t−1

´

41

Initial conditions for the Kalman Filter

• An important step in the Kalman Fitler is to set the initial conditions.

• Initial conditions:

1. x1|0

2. Σ1|0

• Where do they come from?

44

Since we only consider stable system, the standard approach is to set:

• x1|0 = x∗

• Σ1|0 = Σ∗

where x solves

x∗ = Fx∗

Σ∗ = FΣ∗F 0 +GQG0

How do we find Σ∗?

Σ∗ = [I − F ⊗ F ]−1 vec(GQG0)45

Initial conditions for the Kalman Filter II

Under the following conditions:

1. The system is stable, i.e. all eigenvalues of F are strictly less than one

in absolute value.

2. GQG0 and R are p.s.d. symmetric

3. Σ1|0 is p.s.d. symmetric

Then Σt+1|t→ Σ∗.

46

Remarks

1. There are more general theorems than the one just described.

2. Those theorems are based on non-stable systems.

3. Since we are going to work with stable system the former theorem is

enough.

4. Last theorem gives us a way to find Σ as Σt+1|t→ Σ for any Σ1|0 westart with.

47

The Kalman Filter and DSGE models

• Basic Real Business Cycle model

maxE0

∞Xt=0

βt ξ log ct + (1− ξ) log (1− lt)

ct + kt+1 = kαt (eztlt)

1−α + (1− δ) k

zt = ρzt−1 + εt, εt ∼ N (0,σ)

• Parameters: γ = α,β, ρ, ξ, η,σ

48

Equilibrium Conditions

1

ct= βEt

(1

ct+1

³1 + αezt+1kα−1t+1 l

1−αt+1 − η

´)

1− ξ

1− lt=

ξ

ct(1− α) eztkαt l

−αt

ct + kt+1 = eztkαt l

1−αt + (1− η) kt

zt = ρzt−1 + εt

49

A Special Case

• We set, unrealistically but rather useful for our point, η = 1.

• In this case, the model has two important and useful features:

1. First, the income and the substitution effect from a productivity

shock to labor supply exactly cancel each other. Consequently, ltis constant and equal to:

lt = l =(1− α) ξ

(1− α) ξ + (1− ξ) (1− αβ)

2. Second, the policy function for capital is kt+1 = αβeztkαt l1−α.

50

A Special Case II

• The definition of kt+1 implies that ct = (1− αβ) eztkαt l1−α.

• Let us try if the Euler Equation holds:1

ct= βEt

(1

ct+1

³αezt+1kα−1t+1 l

1−αt+1

´)1

(1− αβ) eztkαt l1−α = βEt

(1

(1− αβ) ezt+1kαt+1l1−α

³αezt+1kα−1t+1 l

1−αt+1

´)1

(1− αβ) eztkαt l1−α = βEt

(α

(1− αβ) kt+1

)αβ

(1− αβ)=

βα

(1− αβ)

51

• Let us try if the Intratemporal condition holds1− ξ

1− l =ξ

(1− αβ) eztkαt l1−α (1− α) eztkαt l

−α

1− ξ

1− l =ξ

(1− αβ)

(1− α)

l

(1− αβ) (1− ξ) l = ξ (1− α) (1− l)

((1− αβ) (1− ξ) + (1− α) ξ) l = (1− α) ξ

• Finally, the budget constraint holds because of the definition of ct.

52

Transition Equation

• Since this policy function is linear in logs, we have the transition equa-tion for the model: 1

log kt+1zt

= 1 0 0logαβλl1−α α ρ

0 0 ρ

1log ktzt−1

+ 011

²t.

• Note constant.

• Alternative formulations.

53

Measurement Equation

• As observables, we assume log yt and log it subject to a linearly additivemeasurement error Vt =

³v1,t v2,t

´0.

• Let Vt ∼ N (0,Λ), where Λ is a diagonal matrix with σ21 and σ22, asdiagonal elements.

• Why measurement error? Stochastic singularity.

• Then:Ãlog ytlog it

!=

Ã− logαβλl1−α 1 0

0 1 0

! 1log kt+1zt

+ Ãv1,tv2,t

!.

54

The Solution to the Model in State Space Form

xt =

1log ktzt−1

, zt =Ãlog ytlog it

!

F =

1 0 0logαβλl1−α α ρ

0 0 ρ

, G = 011

, Q = σ2

H0 =Ã− logαβλl1−α 1 0

0 1 0

!, R = Λ

55

The Solution to the Model in State Space Form III

• Now, using zT , F,G,H,Q, and R as defined in the last slide...

• ...we can use the Ricatti equations to compute the likelihood functionof the model:

log `³zT |F,G,H,Q,R

´

• Croos-equations restrictions implied by equilibrium solution.

• With the likelihood, we can do inference!

56

What do we Do if η 6= 1?

We have two options:

• First, we could linearize or log-linearize the model and apply theKalman filter.

• Second, we could compute the likelihood function of the model usinga non-linear filter (particle filter).

• Advantages and disadvantages.

• Fernandez-Villaverde, Rubio-Ramırez, and Santos (2005).57

The Kalman Filter and linearized DSGE Models

• We linearize (or loglinerize) around the steady state.

• We assume that we have data on log output (log yt), log hours (log lt),and log investment (log ct) subject to a linearly additive measurement

error Vt =³v1,t v2,t v3,t

´0.

• We need to write the model in state space form. Remember thatbkt+1 = P bkt +Qzt

and blt = Rbkt + Szt58

Writing the Likelihood Function I

• The transitions Equation:

1bkt+1zt+1

= 1 0 00 P Q0 0 ρ

1bktzt

+ 001

²t.

• The Measurement Equation requires some care.

59

Writing the Likelihood Function II

• Notice that byt = zt + αbkt + (1− α)blt• Therefore, using blt = Rbkt + Szt

byt = zt + αbkt + (1− α)(Rbkt + Szt) =(α+ (1− α)R) bkt + (1 + (1− α)S) zt

• Also since bct = −α5blt + zt + αbkt and using again blt = Rbkt + Sztbct = zt + αbkt − α5(R

bkt + Szt) =(α− α5R)

bkt + (1− α5S) zt

60

Writing the Likelihood Function III

Therefore the measurement equation is: log ytlog ltlog ct

= log y α+ (1− α)R 1 + (1− α)Slog l R Slog c α− α5R 1− α5S

1bktzt

+

v1,tv2,tv3,t

.

61

The Likelihood Function of a General Dynamic Equilibrium Economy

• Transition equation:St = f (St−1,Wt; γ)

• Measurement equation:Yt = g (St, Vt; γ)

• Interpretation.

62

Some Assumptions

1. We can partition Wt into two independent sequencesnW1,t

oandn

W2,t

o, s.t. Wt =

³W1,t,W2,t

´and dim

³W2,t

´+dim (Vt) ≥ dim (Yt).

2. We can always evaluate the conditional densities p³yt|Wt

1, yt−1, S0; γ

´.

Lubick and Schorfheide (2003).

3. The model assigns positive probability to the data.

63

Our Goal: Likelihood Function

• Evaluate the likelihood function of the a sequence of realizations ofthe observable yT at a particular parameter value γ:

p³yT ; γ

´

• We factorize it as:

p³yT ; γ

´=

TYt=1

p³yt|yt−1; γ

´

=TYt=1

Z Zp³yt|Wt

1, yt−1, S0; γ

´p³Wt1, S0|yt−1; γ

´dWt

1dS0

64

...thus

The problem of evaluating the likelihood is equivalent to the problem of

drawing from np³Wt1, S0|yt−1; γ

´oTt=1

66

Introducing Particles

•nst−1,i0 , w

t−1,i1

oNi=1

N i.i.d. draws from p³Wt−11 , S0|yt−1; γ

´.

• Each st−1,i0 , wt−1,i1 is a particle and

nst−1,i0 , w

t−1,i1

oNi=1

a swarm of

particles.

•½st|t−1,i0 , w

t|t−1,i1

¾Ni=1

N i.i.d. draws from p³Wt1, S0|yt−1; γ

´.

• Each st|t−1,i0 , wt|t−1,i1 is a proposed particle and

½st|t−1,i0 , w

t|t−1,i1

¾Ni=1

a swarm of proposed particles.

67

... and Weights

qit =pµyt|wt|t−1,i1 , yt−1, st|t−1,i0 ; γ

¶PNi=1 p

µyt|wt|t−1,i1 , yt−1, st|t−1,i0 ; γ

¶

68

A Proposition

Letnesi0, ewi1oNi=1 be a draw with replacement from

½st|t−1,i0 , w

t|t−1,i1

¾Ni=1

and probabilities qit. Thennesi0, ewi1oNi=1 is a draw from p

³Wt1, S0|yt; γ

´.

69

Importance of the Proposition

1. It shows how a draw½st|t−1,i0 , w

t|t−1,i1

¾Ni=1

from p³Wt1, S0|yt−1; γ

´can be used to draw

nst,i0 , w

t,i1

oNi=1

from p³Wt1, S0|yt; γ

´.

2. With a drawnst,i0 , w

t,i1

oNi=1

from p³Wt1, S0|yt; γ

´we can use p

³W1,t+1; γ

´to get a draw

½st+1|t,i0 , w

t+1|t,i1

¾Ni=1

and iterate the procedure.

70

Sequential Monte Carlo I: Filtering

Step 0, Initialization: Set tÃ 1 and initialize p³Wt−11 , S0|yt−1; γ

´=

p (S0; γ).

Step 1, Prediction: Sample N values

½st|t−1,i0 , w

t|t−1,i1

¾Ni=1

from the

density p³Wt1, S0|yt−1; γ

´= p

³W1,t; γ

´p³Wt−11 , S0|yt−1; γ

´.

Step 2, Weighting: Assign to each draw st|t−1,i0 , w

t|t−1,i1 the weight

qit.

Step 3, Sampling: Drawnst,i0 , w

t,i1

oNi=1

with rep. from

½st|t−1,i0 , w

t|t−1,i1

¾Ni=1

with probabilitiesnqit

oNi=1. If t < T set t Ã t + 1 and go to

step 1. Otherwise stop.

71

A “Trivial” Application

How do we evaluate the likelihood function p³yT |α,β,σ

´of the nonlinear,

nonnormal process:

st = α+ βst−1

1 + st−1+ wt

yt = st + vt

where wt ∼ N (0,σ) and vt ∼ t (2) given some observables yT = ytTt=1and s0.

73

1. Let s0,i0 = s0 for all i.

2. Generate N i.i.d. draws½s1|0,i0 , w1|0,i

¾Ni=1

from N (0,σ).

3. Evaluate pµy1|w1|0,i1 , y0, s

1|0,i0

¶= pt(2)

Ãy1 −

Ãα+ β

s1|0,i0

1+s1|0,i0

+ w1|0,i!!.

4. Evaluate the relative weights qi1 =

pt(2)

Ãy1−

Ãα+β

s1|0,i0

1+s1|0,i0

+w1|0,i!!

PNi=1 pt(2)

Ãy1−

Ãα+β

s1|0,i0

1+s1|0,i0

+w1|0,i!!.

74

5. Resample with replacement N values of½s1|0,i0 , w1|0,i

¾Ni=1

with rela-

tive weights qi1. Call those sampled valuesns1,i0 , w

1,ioNi=1.

6. Go to step 1, and iterate 1-4 until the end of the sample.

75

A Law of Large Numbers

A law of the large numbers delivers:

p³y1| y0,α,β,σ

´' 1

N

NXi=1

pµy1|w1|0,i1 , y0, s

1|0,i0

¶and consequently:

p³yT¯α,β,σ

´'

TYt=1

1

N

NXi=1

p

µyt|wt|t−1,i1 , yt−1, st|t−1,i0

¶

76

Comparison with Alternative Schemes

• Deterministic algorithms: Extended Kalman Filter and derivations

(Jazwinski, 1973), Gaussian Sum approximations (Alspach and Soren-

son, 1972), grid-based filters (Bucy and Senne, 1974), Jacobian of the

transform (Miranda and Rui, 1997).

Tanizaki (1996).

• Simulation algorithms: Kitagawa (1987), Gordon, Salmond and Smith(1993), Mariano and Tanizaki (1995) and Geweke and Tanizaki (1999).

77

A “Real” Application: the Stochastic Neoclassical Growth Model

• Standard model.

• Isn’t the model nearly linear?

• Yes, but:

1. Better to begin with something easy.

2. We will learn something nevertheless.

78

The Model

• Representative agent with utility function U = E0P∞t=0 β

t

³cθt (1−lt)1−θ

´1−τ1−τ .

• One good produced according to yt = eztAkαt l1−αt with α ∈ (0, 1) .

• Productivity evolves zt = ρzt−1 + ²t, |ρ| < 1 and ²t ∼ N (0,σ²).

• Law of motion for capital kt+1 = it + (1− δ)kt.

• Resource constrain ct + it = yt.79

• Solve for c (·, ·) and l (·, ·) given initial conditions.

• Characterized by:Uc(t) = βEt

hUc(t+ 1)

³1 + αAezt+1kα−1t+1 l(kt+1, zt+1)

α − δ´i

1− θ

θ

c(kt, zt)

1− l(kt, zt)= (1− α) eztAkαt l(kt, zt)

−α

• A system of functional equations with no known analytical solution.

80

Solving the Model

• We need to use a numerical method to solve it.

• Different nonlinear approximations: value function iteration, perturba-tion, projection methods.

• We use a Finite Element Method. Why? Aruoba, Fernandez-Villaverdeand Rubio-Ramırez (2003):

1. Speed: sparse system.

2. Accuracy: flexible grid generation.

3. Scalable.81

Building the Likelihood Function

• Time series:

1. Quarterly real output, hours worked and investment.

2. Main series from the model and keep dimensionality low.

• Measurement error. Why?

• γ = (θ, ρ, τ ,α, δ,β,σ²,σ1,σ2,σ3)

82


kt = f1(St−1,Wt; γ) = etanh−1(λt−1)kαt−1l

³kt−1, tanh−1(λt−1); γ

´1−α ∗1− θ

1− θ(1− α)

³1− l

³kt−1, tanh−1(λt−1); γ

´´l³kt−1, tanh−1(λt−1); γ

´+ (1− δ) kt−1

λt = f2(St−1,Wt; γ) = tanh(ρ tanh−1(λt−1) + ²t)

gdpt = g1(St, Vt; γ) = etanh−1(λt)kαt l

³kt, tanh

−1(λt); γ´1−α

+ V1,t

hourst = g2(St, Vt; γ) = l³kt, tanh

−1(λt); γ´+ V2,t

invt = g3(St, Vt; γ) = etanh−1(λt)kαt l

³kt, tanh

−1(λt); γ´1−α ∗1− θ

1− θ(1− α)

³1− l

³kt, tanh

−1(λt); γ´´

l³kt, tanh

−1(λt); γ´

+ V3,tLikelihood Function

83

Priors for the Parameters

Priors for the Parameters of the ModelParameters Distribution Hyperparameters

θρταδβσ²σ1σ2σ3

UniformUniformUniformUniformUniformUniformUniformUniformUniformUniform

0,10,10,1000,10,0.050.75,10,0.10,0.10,0.10,0.1

85

Likelihood-Based Inference I: a Bayesian Perspective

• Define priors over parameters: truncated uniforms.

• Use a Random-walk Metropolis-Hastings to draw from the posterior.

• Find the Marginal Likelihood.

86

Likelihood-Based Inference II: a Maximum Likelihood Perspective

• We only need to maximize the likelihood.

• Difficulties to maximize with Newton type schemes.

• Common problem in dynamic equilibrium economies.

• We use a simulated annealing scheme.

87

An Exercise with Artificial Data

• First simulate data with our model and use that data as sample.

• Pick “true” parameter values. Benchmark calibration values for thestochastic neoclassical growth model (Cooley and Prescott, 1995).

Calibrated ParametersParameter θ ρ τ α δValue 0.357 0.95 2.0 0.4 0.02Parameter β σ² σ1 σ2 σ3Value 0.99 0.007 1.58*10−4 0.0011 8.66*10−4

• Sensitivity: τ = 50 and σ² = 0.035.

88

0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98

Likelihood cut at ρ

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Likelihood cut at τ

0.38 0.4 0.42

Likelihood cut at α

0.018 0.02 0.022

Likelihood cut at δ

7 8 9 10 11

x 10-3

Likelihood cut at σ

0.98 0.985 0.99

Likelihood cut at β

0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Likelihood cut at θ

Nonlinear

Linear

Pseudotrue

Figure 5.1: Likelihood Function Benchmark Calibration

0.94850.9490.9495 0.95 0.95050.9510.95150

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000ρ

1.996 1.998 2 2.002 2.0040

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000τ

0.3995 0.4 0.40050

2000

4000

α

0.01957 0.0196 0.019630

2000

4000

δ

6.99 6.995 7 7.005 7.01

x 10-3

0

5000σ

0.988 0.989 0.99 0.9910

5000β

0.3564 0.3568 0.3572 0.35760

5000θ

1.578 1.579 1.58 1.581 1.582 1.583 1.584

x 10-4

0

5000

σ1

1.116 1.117 1.118 1.119 1.12

x 10-3

0

2000

4000

σ2

8.645 8.65 8.655 8.66 8.665 8.67 8.675

x 10-4

0

2000

4000

σ3

Figure 5.2: Posterior Distribution Benchmark Calibration

0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98

Likelihood cut ρ

40 45 50 55

Likelihood cut τ

0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44

Likelihood cut α

0.016 0.018 0.02 0.022

Likelihood cut δ

0.03 0.035 0.04

Likelihood cut σ

0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99

Likelihood cut β

0.3 0.35 0.4

Likelihood cut θ

Nonlinear

Linear

Pseudotrue

Figure 5.3: Likelihood Function Extreme Calibration

0.9495 0.95 0.95050

2000

4000

6000

ρ

49.95 50 50.050

2000

4000

6000

τ

0.3996 0.3998 0.4 0.40020

2000

4000

6000

α

0.019555 0.019565 0.019575 0.0195850

2000

4000

6000

δ

0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.0350

2000

4000

6000

σ

0.989 0.9895 0.99 0.99050

2000

4000

6000

β

0.3567 0.3569 0.3571 0.35730

5000

θ

1.58 1.5805 1.581 1.5815 1.582 1.5825

x 10-4

0

5000

σ1

1.117 1.1175 1.118 1.1185 1.119

x 10-3

0

2000

4000

6000

σ2

8.655 8.66 8.665

x 10-4

0

2000

4000

6000

σ3

Figure 5.4: Posterior Distribution Extreme Calibration

0 1 2 3 4

x 105

0.4

0.6

0.8

1ρ

0 1 2 3 4

x 105

40

60

80τ

0 1 2 3 4

x 105

0.350.4

0.45

α

0 1 2 3 4

x 105

0.01

0.02

0.03δ

0 1 2 3 4

x 105

0.02

0.03

0.04σ

0 1 2 3 4

x 105

0.9

0.95

1β

0 1 2 3 4

x 105

0.35

0.4θ

0 1 2 3 4

x 105

0

0.05

σ1

0 1 2 3 4

x 105

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

σ2

0 1 2 3 4

x 105

0

0.02

0.04

σ3

Figure 5.5: Converge of Posteriors Extreme Calibration

0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 10

5000

10000ρ

1.68 1.7 1.72 1.74 1.760

5000

10000

15000τ

0.32 0.322 0.324 0.326 0.328 0.33 0.3320

1

2x 10

4 α

6.2 6.25 6.3 6.35 6.4

x 10-3

0

5000

10000δ

0.0198 0.02 0.0202 0.02040

5000

10000

15000σ

0.9964 0.9966 0.9968 0.997 0.9972 0.9974 0.99760

5000

10000

15000β

0.385 0.39 0.395 0.40

5000

10000θ

0.0435 0.044 0.0445 0.045 0.0455 0.046 0.04650

5000

10000

σ1

0.014 0.0145 0.015 0.0155 0.0160

5000

10000

σ2

0.037 0.0375 0.038 0.0385 0.039 0.0395 0.040

5000

10000

15000

σ3

Figure 5.6: Posterior Distribution Real Data

0.39 0.395 0.4 0.405 0.41

-7000

-6000

-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

Transversal cut at α

Exact100 Particles1000 Particles10000 Particles

0.97 0.98 0.99 1 1.01

-7000

-6000

-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

Transversal cut at β


0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97

-220

-200

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

Transversal cut at ρ


6.85 6.9 6.95 7 7.05 7.1 7.15

x 10-3

-220

-200

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

Transversal cut at σε


Figure 6.1: Likelihood Function

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 100000

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

110000 particles

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

120000 particles

0 1 2 3

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

130000 particles

0 1 2 3 4

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

140000 particles

0 1 2 3 4 5

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

150000 particles

0 2 4 6

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

160000 particles

Figure 6.2: C.D.F. Benchmark Calibration

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 100000

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

110000 particles

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

120000 particles

0 1 2 3

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

130000 particles

0 1 2 3 4

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

140000 particles

0 1 2 3 4 5

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

150000 particles

0 2 4 6

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

160000 particles

Figure 6.3: C.D.F. Extreme Calibration

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 100000

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

110000 particles

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

120000 particles

0 1 2 3

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

130000 particles

0 1 2 3 4

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

140000 particles

0 1 2 3 4 5

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

150000 particles

0 2 4 6

x 104

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

160000 particles

Figure 6.4: C.D.F. Real Data

Posterior Distributions Benchmark CalibrationParameters Mean s.d.


0.3570.9502.0000.4000.0200.9890.007

1.58×10−41.12×10−28.64×10−4

6.72×10−53.40×10−46.78×10−48.60×10−51.34×10−51.54×10−59.29×10−65.75×10−86.44×10−76.49×10−7

89

Maximum Likelihood Estimates Benchmark CalibrationParameters MLE s.d.


0.3570.9502.0000.4000.0020.9900.007

1.58×10−41.12×10−38.63×10−4

8.19×10−60.0010.020

2.02×10−62.07×10−51.00×10−60.0040.0070.0070.005

90

Posterior Distributions Extreme CalibrationParameters Mean s.d.


0.3570.95050.000.4000.0200.9890.035

1.58×10−41.12×10−28.65×10−4

7.19×10−41.88×10−47.12×10−34.80×10−53.52×10−68.69×10−64.47×10−61.87×10−82.14×10−72.33×10−7

91

Maximum Likelihood Estimates Extreme CalibrationParameters MLE s.d.


0.3570.95050.0000.4000.0190.9900.035

1.58×10−41.12×10−38.66×10−4

2.42×10−66.12×10−30.022

3.62×10−77.43×10−61.00×10−50.0150.0170.0140.023

92

Convergence on Number of Particles

Convergence Real DataN Mean s.d.

100002000030000400005000060000

1014.5581014.6001014.6531014.6661014.6881014.664

0.32960.25950.18290.16040.14650.1347

93

Posterior Distributions Real DataParameters Mean s.d.


0.3230.9691.8250.3880.0060.9970.0230.0390.0180.034

7.976× 10−40.0080.0110.001

3.557× 10−59.221× 10−52.702× 10−45.346× 10−44.723× 10−46.300× 10−4

94

Maximum Likelihood Estimates Real DataParameters MLE s.d.


0.3900.9871.7810.3240.0060.9970.0230.0380.0160.035

0.0440.7081.3980.0190.160

8.67×10−30.2240.0600.0610.076

95

Logmarginal Likelihood Difference: Nonlinear-Linear

p Benchmark Calibration Extreme Calibration Real Data0.1 73.631 117.608 93.650.5 73.627 117.592 93.550.9 73.603 117.564 93.55

96

Nonlinear versus Linear Moments Real DataReal Data Nonlinear (SMC filter) Linear (Kalman filter)

outputhoursinv

Mean s.d1.950.360.42

0.0730.0140.066

Mean s.d1.910.360.44

0.1290.0230.073

Mean s.d1.610.340.28

0.0680.0040.044

97

A “Future” Application: Good Luck or Good Policy?

• U.S. economy has become less volatile over the last 20 years (Stockand Watson, 2002).

• Why?

1. Good luck: Sims (1999), Bernanke and Mihov (1998a and 1998b)

and Stock and Watson (2002).

2. Good policy: Clarida, Gertler and Galı (2000), Cogley and Sargent

(2001 and 2003), De Long (1997) and Romer and Romer (2002).

3. Long run trend: Blanchard and Simon (2001).

98

How Has the Literature Addressed this Question?

• So far: mostly with reduced form models (usually VARs).

• But:

1. Results difficult to interpret.

2. How to run counterfactuals?

3. Welfare analysis.

99

Why Not a Dynamic Equilibrium Model?

• New generation equilibrium models: Christiano, Eichebaum and Evans(2003) and Smets and Wouters (2003).

• Linear and Normal.

• But we can do it!!!

100

Environment

• Discrete time t = 0, 1, ...

• Stochastic process s ∈ S with history st = (s0, ..., st) and probability

µ³st´.

101

The Final Good Producer

• Perfectly Competitive Final Good Producer that solves

maxyi(st)

µZyi³st´θdi¶1θ −

Zpi³st´yi³st´di.

• Demand function for each input of the form

yi³st´=

pi³st´

p (st)

1

θ−1y³st´,

with price aggregator:

p³st´=

ÃZpi³st´ θθ−1 di

!θ−1θ

.

102

The Intermediate Good Producer

• Continuum of intermediate good producers, each of one behaving as

monopolistic competitor.

• The producer of good i has access to the technology:

yi³st´= max

½ez(s

t)kαi³st−1

´l1−αi

³st´− φ, 0

¾.

• Productivity z³st´= ρz

³st−1

´+ εz

³st´.

• Calvo pricing with indexing. Probability of changing prices (before

observing current period shocks) 1− ζ.

103

Consumers Problem

Est

∞Xt=0

βt

εc³st´ ³c ³st´− dc ³st−1´´σc

σc− εl

³st´ l ³st´σl

σl+ εm

³st´m ³

st´σm

σm

p³st´ ³c³st´+ x

³st´´+M

³st´+Zst+1

q³st+1

¯st´B³st+1

´dst+1 =

p³st´ ³w³st´l³st´+ r

³st´k³st−1

´´+M

³st−1

´+B

³st´+ Π

³st´+ T

³st´

B³st+1

´≥ B

k³st´= (1− δ) k

³st−1

´− φ

x³st´

k³st−1

´+ x ³st´ .

104

Government Policy

• Monetary Policy: Taylor rulei³st´= rgπg

³st´

+a³st´ ³

π³st´− πg

³st´´

+b³st´ ³y³st´− yg

³st´´+ εi

³st´

πg³st´= πg

³st−1

´+ επ

³st´

a³st´= a

³st−1

´+ εa

³st´

b³st´= b

³st−1

´+ εb

³st´

• Fiscal Policy.105

Stochastic Volatility I

• We can stack all shocks in one vector:ε³st´=³εz³st´, εc

³st´, εl

³st´, εm

³st´, εi

³st´, επ

³st´, εa

³st´, εb

³st´´0

• Stochastic volatility:

ε³st´= R

³st´0.5

ϑ³st´.

• The matrix R³st´can be decomposed as:

R³st´= G

³st´−1

H³st´G³st´.

106

Stochastic Volatility II

• H³st´(instantaneous shocks variances) is diagonal with nonzero ele-

ments hi³st´that evolve:

log hi³st´= log hi

³st−1

´+ ςiηi

³st´.

• G³st´(loading matrix) is lower triangular, with unit entries in the

diagonal and entries γij³st´that evolve:

γij³st´= γij

³st−1

´+ ωijνij

³st´.

107

Where Are We Now?

• Solving the model: problem with 45 state variables: physical capital,

the aggregate price level, 7 shocks, 8 elements of matrix H³st´, and

the 28 elements of the matrix G³st´.

• Perturbation.

• We are making good progress.

108

pages.stern.nyu.edupages.stern.nyu.edu/~dbackus/Identification/Kalman/JFV_LectureNo… ·...

Documents

Transcript of pages.stern.nyu.edupages.stern.nyu.edu/~dbackus/Identification/Kalman/JFV_LectureNo… ·...