Economic Models - Convex Optimization
Economic Models - Convex Optimization Economic Models - Convex Optimization
Time Varying Responses 45 Hence (2) can be written as x i+1 = Ax i + Cũ i+1 + D˜z i+1 + e i+1 (3) Using the linear advance operator L, such that L k y i = y i+k and defining the vectors u, z and ε from then Eq. (3) can take the form u i = Lũ i z i = L˜z i ε i = Le i x i+1 = Ax i + Cu i + Dz i + ε i (4) which is a typical linear control system. We can formulate an optimal control problem of the general form T −1 min J = 1 2 ‖x T −ˆx T ‖ 2 Q T + 1 ∑ ‖x i −ˆx i ‖ 2 Q 2 i (5) subject to the system transition equation shown in Eq. (4). It is noted that T indicates the terminal time of the control period, {Q} is the sequence of weighing matrices and ˆx i (i = 1, 2,...,T)is the desired state and control trajectory, according to our formulation. The solution to this problem can be obtained according to the minimization principle by solving the Ricatti-type equations (Astrom and Wittenmark, 1995). K T = Q T (6) i =−(E i C ′ K i+1 C) −1 (E i C ′ K i+1 A) (7) K i = E i A ′ K i+1 A + ′ i (E iC ′ K i−1 A) + Q i (8) h T =−Q T ˆx T (9) h i = i (E i C ′ K i+1 D)z i + i (E i C ′ )h i+1 + (E i A ′ K i+1 D)z i + (E i A ′ )h i+1 − Q i ˆx i (10) g i =−(E i C ′ K i+1 C) −1 [(E i C ′ K i+1 D)z i + (E i C ′ )h i+1 ] (11) xi ∗ = [E i A + (E i C) i ] xi ∗ + (E iC) g i + (E i D)z i (12) u ∗ i = i xi ∗ + g i (13) i=1
46 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazaridis where u ∗ i (i = 0, 1,...,T − 1), the optimal control sequence and x∗ i+1 , the corresponding state trajectory, which constitutes the solution to the stated optimal control problem. In the above equations, i is the matrix of feedback coefficients and g i is the vector of intercepts. The notation E i denotes the conditional expectations, given all information up to the period i. Expressions like E i C ′ K i+1 C, E i C ′ K i+1 A, E i C ′ K i+1 D are evaluated, taking into account the reduced form coefficients of the econometric model and their covariance matrix, which are to be updated continuously, along with the implementation of the control rules. These rules should be re-adjusted according to “passive-learning” methods, where the joint densities of matrices A, C, and D are assumed to remain constant over the control period. 2.1. Updating Method of Reduced-Form Coefficients and Their Co-Variance Matrices Suppose we have a simultaneous-equation system of the form XB ′ + UƔ ′ = R (14) where X is the matrix of endogenous variable defined on E N × E n and B is the matrix of structural coefficients, which refer to the endogenous variables and is defined on E n ×E n . U is the matrix of explanatory variables defined on E N ×E g and Ɣ is the matrix of the structural coefficients, which refer to the explanatory variables, defined on E N × E g . R is the matrix of noises defined on E N ×E n . The reduced form coefficients matrix is then defined from: =−B −1 Ɣ. (14a) Goldberger et al. (1961) have shown that the asymptotic co-variance matrix, say of the vector ˆπ, which consists of the g column of matrix ˆ can be approximated by ˜ = [[ ˆ I g ] ⊗ ( ˆB ′ ) −1 ] ′ F [[ ˆ I g ] ⊗ ( ˆB ′ ) −1 ] (15) where ⊗ denotes the Kroneker product, ˆ and ˆB are the estimated coefficients by standard econometric techniques and F denotes the asymptotic co-variance matrix of the n + g columns of ( ˆB ˆƔ), which assumed to be consistent and asymptotically unbiased estimate of (BƔ).
- Page 18: Contributors Victoria Miroshnik, is
- Page 21 and 22: xx Introduction type of model is ve
- Page 23 and 24: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 25 and 26: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 27 and 28: 4 Olav Bjerkholt Among these was al
- Page 29 and 30: 6 Olav Bjerkholt method, searching
- Page 31 and 32: 8 Olav Bjerkholt context, but one o
- Page 33 and 34: 10 Olav Bjerkholt be modified in th
- Page 35 and 36: 12 Olav Bjerkholt through a number
- Page 37 and 38: 14 Olav Bjerkholt memoranda. These
- Page 39 and 40: 16 Olav Bjerkholt hopelessly ineffe
- Page 41 and 42: 18 Olav Bjerkholt References Arrow,
- Page 43 and 44: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 45 and 46: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 47 and 48: 24 Alexis Lazaridis A straightforwa
- Page 49 and 50: 26 Alexis Lazaridis where ⎛ ⎞ j
- Page 51 and 52: 28 Alexis Lazaridis Estimating the
- Page 53 and 54: 30 Alexis Lazaridis 5.1. Testing fo
- Page 55 and 56: 32 Alexis Lazaridis by applying the
- Page 57 and 58: 34 Alexis Lazaridis Nevertheless, t
- Page 59 and 60: 36 Alexis Lazaridis Table 2. Residu
- Page 61 and 62: 38 Alexis Lazaridis Table 3. Critic
- Page 63 and 64: 40 Alexis Lazaridis Figure 4. The s
- Page 65 and 66: 42 Alexis Lazaridis Perron, P and T
- Page 67: 44 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 71 and 72: 48 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 73 and 74: 50 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 75 and 76: 52 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 77 and 78: 54 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 79 and 80: 56 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 81 and 82: 58 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 83 and 84: 60 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 85 and 86: 62 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 87 and 88: 64 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 89 and 90: 66 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 91 and 92: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 93 and 94: 70 Andrew Hughes Hallet have, there
- Page 95 and 96: 72 Andrew Hughes Hallet other. The
- Page 97 and 98: 74 Andrew Hughes Hallet success in
- Page 99 and 100: 76 Andrew Hughes Hallet with a hori
- Page 101 and 102: 78 Andrew Hughes Hallet control inf
- Page 103 and 104: 80 Andrew Hughes Hallet Table 2. Fi
- Page 105 and 106: 82 Andrew Hughes Hallet country 13
- Page 107 and 108: 84 Andrew Hughes Hallet Given this
- Page 109 and 110: 86 Andrew Hughes Hallet 5.4. Instit
- Page 111 and 112: 88 Andrew Hughes Hallet Substitutin
- Page 113 and 114: 90 Andrew Hughes Hallet This is alw
- Page 115 and 116: 92 Andrew Hughes Hallet (d) Since E
- Page 117 and 118: 94 Andrew Hughes Hallet Table 3. Ex
Time Varying Responses 45<br />
Hence (2) can be written as<br />
x i+1 = Ax i + Cũ i+1 + D˜z i+1 + e i+1 (3)<br />
Using the linear advance operator L, such that L k y i = y i+k and defining<br />
the vectors u, z and ε from<br />
then Eq. (3) can take the form<br />
u i = Lũ i<br />
z i = L˜z i<br />
ε i = Le i<br />
x i+1 = Ax i + Cu i + Dz i + ε i (4)<br />
which is a typical linear control system.<br />
We can formulate an optimal control problem of the general form<br />
T −1<br />
min J = 1 2 ‖x T −ˆx T ‖ 2 Q T<br />
+ 1 ∑<br />
‖x i −ˆx i ‖ 2 Q<br />
2<br />
i<br />
(5)<br />
subject to the system transition equation shown in Eq. (4).<br />
It is noted that T indicates the terminal time of the control period, {Q}<br />
is the sequence of weighing matrices and ˆx i (i = 1, 2,...,T)is the desired<br />
state and control trajectory, according to our formulation.<br />
The solution to this problem can be obtained according to the minimization<br />
principle by solving the Ricatti-type equations (Astrom and<br />
Wittenmark, 1995).<br />
K T = Q T (6)<br />
i =−(E i C ′ K i+1 C) −1 (E i C ′ K i+1 A) (7)<br />
K i = E i A ′ K i+1 A + ′ i (E iC ′ K i−1 A) + Q i (8)<br />
h T =−Q T ˆx T (9)<br />
h i = i (E i C ′ K i+1 D)z i + i (E i C ′ )h i+1<br />
+ (E i A ′ K i+1 D)z i + (E i A ′ )h i+1 − Q i ˆx i (10)<br />
g i =−(E i C ′ K i+1 C) −1 [(E i C ′ K i+1 D)z i + (E i C ′ )h i+1 ] (11)<br />
xi ∗ = [E i A + (E i C) i ] xi ∗ + (E iC) g i + (E i D)z i (12)<br />
u ∗ i = i xi ∗ + g i (13)<br />
i=1