Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Econometrics›DF-GLS Test: GLS-Detrended Dickey-Fuller Unit-Root Test
Hypothesis testUnit-root tests

DF-GLS Test: GLS-Detrended Dickey-Fuller Unit-Root Test

Dickey-Fuller GLS (ERS) Unit-Root Test · Also known as: Elliott-Rothenberg-Stock test, ERS unit-root test, GLS-detrended Dickey-Fuller test, DF-GLS birim kök testi

The DF-GLS test, introduced by Elliott, Rothenberg, and Stock (1996), is a modified augmented Dickey-Fuller procedure that applies generalized least squares (GLS) detrending before the standard unit-root regression. By removing deterministic components under a local alternative rather than the null hypothesis, the test achieves near-optimal power for detecting stationarity in time series, making it the preferred unit-root test in applied econometrics when a trend or intercept is present.

ScholarGate
  1. Hypothesis test
  2. v1
  3. 1 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

DF-GLS Test
Augmented Dickey-Fuller…ERS Point-Optimal TestKPSS Test

When to use it

Use the DF-GLS test when your time series appears to have a deterministic intercept or linear trend and you need a more powerful alternative to the ADF test. It is especially valuable in small to moderate samples (T < 150) where the ADF test is known to have low power. The test assumes errors are weakly dependent and homoskedastic; under severe heteroskedasticity or structural breaks consider complementary tests such as KPSS or the Zivot-Andrews test. When multiple series are tested, combine with the KPSS to cross-validate stationarity conclusions.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Substantially higher power than the ADF test against near-unit-root alternatives, particularly in small samples.
  • Near-optimal in the sense of Elliott et al. (1996): it approaches the Gaussian power envelope for unit-root tests.
  • Flexible lag selection via MAIC controls size distortions from residual autocorrelation.
  • Available in virtually every major econometric software package (Stata, EViews, R, Python).
Limitations
  • Critical values depend on whether a constant or a constant-plus-trend is included; misspecification of deterministics can distort inference.
  • Like all unit-root tests, it cannot distinguish a unit root from a near-integrated process without very large samples.
  • Assumes no structural break in the deterministic component; breaks can severely reduce power.
  • One-sided test structure means it does not directly test for explosive roots (α > 0).

Frequently asked

How does DF-GLS differ from the standard ADF test?

Both tests run an augmented Dickey-Fuller regression and use its t-statistic, but DF-GLS first removes the deterministic component by GLS using a near-unit-root design point rather than OLS under the unit-root null. This pre-filtering substantially raises power against stationary alternatives close to the unit circle, which is where macroeconomic series typically lie.

Which lag-length selector should I use with DF-GLS?

Elliott et al. (1996) and subsequent Monte Carlo studies recommend the modified Akaike information criterion (MAIC) proposed by Ng and Perron (2001). Standard AIC and BIC tend to under-select lags when applied to GLS-detrended series, causing over-rejection of the null. Most software packages implement MAIC as an option alongside automatic lag selection.

Should I include a constant, a trend, or both in the DF-GLS test?

The choice should reflect the data-generating process of the series. For variables expected to fluctuate around a fixed mean (e.g., interest rate spreads), include only a constant (c̄ = −7). For variables with a deterministic trend (e.g., log real GDP), include a constant and trend (c̄ = −13.5). Misspecification of this component changes both the local alternative and the critical values, potentially invalidating inference.

Sources

  1. Elliott, G., Rothenberg, T. J., & Stock, J. H. (1996). Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica, 64(4), 813–836. DOI: 10.2307/2171846 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 2). Dickey-Fuller GLS (ERS) Unit-Root Test. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/econometrics/df-gls

Related methods

Augmented Dickey-Fuller TestERS Point-Optimal TestKPSS Test

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Augmented Dickey-Fuller TestEconometrics↔ compare
  • ERS Point-Optimal TestEconometrics↔ compare
  • KPSS TestEconometrics↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

ERS Point-Optimal Test

Similar methods

Panel DF-GLSERS Point-Optimal TestRobust ADF Unit Root TestAugmented Dickey-Fuller TestAugmented Dickey-Fuller unit root testFourier GLSStructural Break ADF Unit Root TestPhillips-Perron Test

Related reference concepts

EconometricsLikelihood-Ratio TestsMathematical and Quantitative MethodsFinancial EconometricsEconometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: GeneralMaximum Likelihood Estimation

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — DF-GLS Test (Dickey-Fuller GLS (ERS) Unit-Root Test). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/econometrics/df-gls · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Elliott, Rothenberg & Stock
Year
1996
Type
One-sided t-test on GLS-detrended series
Subfamily
Unit-root tests
Null Hypothesis
Series has a unit root (I(1))
Asymptotic Basis
Local-to-unity asymptotic theory
Related methods
Augmented Dickey-Fuller TestERS Point-Optimal TestKPSS Test
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account