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 interpret...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Macroeconomic dynamics 2025-01, Vol.29, Article e14 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Macroeconomic dynamics |
container_volume | 29 |
creator | Franke, Reiner Kukacka, Jiri Sacht, Stephen |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S136510052400018X |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3145051621</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S136510052400018X</cupid><sourcerecordid>3145051621</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c312t-74f10487883d1285ef0f99f36e2d0d6f0e629004c1f898beb84e33785bdb8c293</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UM1KAzEQDqJgrT6AtwXPqzPJbjZ7EilqCwWFKnhbdjeTurXd1CQ99OY7-IY-iSkVPIin-fj-Bj7GzhEuEbC4mqGQOQLkPAMAVC8HbICZLFMFuTyMOMrpTj9mJ94vokUKXg7YbOKT8ErJuF51y2D7xNHckfddhCYy5CJTL5fbxG_W5DrrkmCTsdWua9--Pj4fo7m1ISSagqNed_38-pQdmXrp6eznDtnz3e3TaJxOH-4no5tp2grkIS0yg5CpQimhkaucDJiyNEIS16ClAZK8BMhaNKpUDTUqIyEKlTe6US0vxZBd7HvXzr5vyIdqYTeujy8rgVkOOUqO0YV7V-us945MtXbdqnbbCqHabVf92S5mxE-mXjWu03P6rf4_9Q3Qk3F1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3145051621</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is the Hamilton regression filter really superior to Hodrick–Prescott detrending?</title><source>Cambridge Journals</source><creator>Franke, Reiner ; Kukacka, Jiri ; Sacht, Stephen</creator><creatorcontrib>Franke, Reiner ; Kukacka, Jiri ; Sacht, Stephen</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1365-1005</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-8056</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S136510052400018X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Business cycles ; GDP ; Gross Domestic Product ; Regression analysis ; Time series</subject><ispartof>Macroeconomic dynamics, 2025-01, Vol.29, Article e14</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press</rights><rights>The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c312t-74f10487883d1285ef0f99f36e2d0d6f0e629004c1f898beb84e33785bdb8c293</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8680-2896 ; 0000-0002-1387-2591</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S136510052400018X/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,776,780,27903,27904,55606</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Franke, Reiner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kukacka, Jiri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sacht, Stephen</creatorcontrib><title>Is the Hamilton regression filter really superior to Hodrick–Prescott detrending?</title><title>Macroeconomic dynamics</title><addtitle>Macroecon. Dynam</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Business cycles</subject><subject>GDP</subject><subject>Gross Domestic Product</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Time series</subject><issn>1365-1005</issn><issn>1469-8056</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2025</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>IKXGN</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UM1KAzEQDqJgrT6AtwXPqzPJbjZ7EilqCwWFKnhbdjeTurXd1CQ99OY7-IY-iSkVPIin-fj-Bj7GzhEuEbC4mqGQOQLkPAMAVC8HbICZLFMFuTyMOMrpTj9mJ94vokUKXg7YbOKT8ErJuF51y2D7xNHckfddhCYy5CJTL5fbxG_W5DrrkmCTsdWua9--Pj4fo7m1ISSagqNed_38-pQdmXrp6eznDtnz3e3TaJxOH-4no5tp2grkIS0yg5CpQimhkaucDJiyNEIS16ClAZK8BMhaNKpUDTUqIyEKlTe6US0vxZBd7HvXzr5vyIdqYTeujy8rgVkOOUqO0YV7V-us945MtXbdqnbbCqHabVf92S5mxE-mXjWu03P6rf4_9Q3Qk3F1</recordid><startdate>20250101</startdate><enddate>20250101</enddate><creator>Franke, Reiner</creator><creator>Kukacka, Jiri</creator><creator>Sacht, Stephen</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>IKXGN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8680-2896</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1387-2591</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20250101</creationdate><title>Is the Hamilton regression filter really superior to Hodrick–Prescott detrending?</title><author>Franke, Reiner ; Kukacka, Jiri ; Sacht, Stephen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c312t-74f10487883d1285ef0f99f36e2d0d6f0e629004c1f898beb84e33785bdb8c293</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2025</creationdate><topic>Business cycles</topic><topic>GDP</topic><topic>Gross Domestic Product</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Time series</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Franke, Reiner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kukacka, Jiri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sacht, Stephen</creatorcontrib><collection>Cambridge Journals Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Macroeconomic dynamics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Franke, Reiner</au><au>Kukacka, Jiri</au><au>Sacht, Stephen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is the Hamilton regression filter really superior to Hodrick–Prescott detrending?</atitle><jtitle>Macroeconomic dynamics</jtitle><addtitle>Macroecon. Dynam</addtitle><date>2025-01-01</date><risdate>2025</risdate><volume>29</volume><artnum>e14</artnum><issn>1365-1005</issn><eissn>1469-8056</eissn><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
$\lambda = 1600$
, 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.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S136510052400018X</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8680-2896</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1387-2591</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1365-1005 |
ispartof | Macroeconomic dynamics, 2025-01, Vol.29, Article e14 |
issn | 1365-1005 1469-8056 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3145051621 |
source | Cambridge Journals |
subjects | Business cycles GDP Gross Domestic Product Regression analysis Time series |
title | Is the Hamilton regression filter really superior to Hodrick–Prescott detrending? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T12%3A43%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20the%20Hamilton%20regression%20filter%20really%20superior%20to%20Hodrick%E2%80%93Prescott%20detrending?&rft.jtitle=Macroeconomic%20dynamics&rft.au=Franke,%20Reiner&rft.date=2025-01-01&rft.volume=29&rft.artnum=e14&rft.issn=1365-1005&rft.eissn=1469-8056&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S136510052400018X&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3145051621%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3145051621&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S136510052400018X&rfr_iscdi=true |