Introduction

A well-conducted event study requires more than just running the pipeline. You should validate the data before estimation and diagnose the model after fitting. The EventStudy package provides three dedicated functions and a diagnostic plotting tool:

Function	When to use	What it checks
`validate_task()`	Before or after `prepare_event_study()`	Data integrity, windows, gaps
`model_diagnostics()`	After `fit_model()`	Residual normality, autocorrelation, model fit
`pretrend_test()`	After `fit_model()`	Pre-event abnormal returns
`plot_diagnostics()`	After `fit_model()`	Visual residual analysis

library(EventStudy)
library(dplyr)
library(ggplot2)

Setup: Running an Event Study

set.seed(42)
n <- 300
dates <- format(seq(as.Date("2014-06-01"), by = "day", length.out = n),
                "%d.%m.%Y")

firms <- c("FIRM_A", "FIRM_B", "FIRM_C", "FIRM_D")
firm_tbl <- purrr::map_dfr(firms, function(sym) {
  tibble(
    symbol   = sym,
    date     = dates,
    adjusted = 100 * cumprod(1 + rnorm(n, 0.0003, 0.015))
  )
})

index_tbl <- tibble(
  symbol   = "INDEX_1",
  date     = dates,
  adjusted = 1000 * cumprod(1 + rnorm(n, 0.0002, 0.012))
)

request_tbl <- tibble(
  event_id                = 1:4,
  firm_symbol             = firms,
  index_symbol            = rep("INDEX_1", 4),
  event_date              = rep(dates[200], 4),
  group                   = c("Group_A", "Group_A", "Group_B", "Group_B"),
  event_window_start      = rep(-10L, 4),
  event_window_end        = rep(10L, 4),
  shift_estimation_window = rep(-11L, 4),
  estimation_window_length = rep(150L, 4)
)

task <- EventStudyTask$new(firm_tbl, index_tbl, request_tbl)
params <- ParameterSet$new()

Step 1: Validate the Task

validate_task() checks data integrity before estimation. Run it right after creating the task or after calling prepare_event_study():

validate_task(task)
#> Validation passed: no issues found across 4 event(s).

What It Checks

The function performs five checks for each event:

1. Event Date Exists

The event date from the request table must appear in the stock data. Missing event dates typically indicate mismatched date formats or non-trading days:

# This would trigger a warning:
# [Event 1 / FIRM_A] Event date '32.02.2015' not found in data.

2. Sufficient Estimation Window

The estimation window must have enough observations for reliable model estimation. The default minimum is 30, but you can adjust it:

# Stricter requirement: at least 100 observations
validate_task(task, min_estimation_obs = 100)

# Lenient: at least 20
validate_task(task, min_estimation_obs = 20)

3. Time Series Gaps

Large gaps (> 5 calendar days) in the time series may indicate missing data, delistings, or trading halts:

# Warnings like:
# [Event 2 / FIRM_B] 1 gap(s) > 5 days found in time series.

4. Window Overlap

Estimation and event windows must not overlap, as this would contaminate the benchmark model:

# Warnings like:
# [Event 3 / FIRM_C] Estimation and event windows overlap by 5 observation(s).

5. Thin Trading

A high proportion of zero returns in the estimation window suggests illiquid securities, which violate the assumptions of most test statistics:

# Warnings like:
# [Event 4 / FIRM_D] 15.3% zero returns in estimation window (possible thin trading).

Using Validation Results

validate_task() returns the task invisibly and issues warning() calls for each problem. You can capture warnings programmatically:

task <- prepare_event_study(task, params)

warnings <- tryCatch(
  withCallingHandlers(
    validate_task(task),
    warning = function(w) {
      message("Issue: ", conditionMessage(w))
      invokeRestart("muffleWarning")
    }
  )
)

Step 2: Model Diagnostics

After fitting models, model_diagnostics() runs statistical tests on the estimation-window residuals:

task <- fit_model(task, params)

diag <- model_diagnostics(task)
diag
#> # A tibble: 4 x 9
#>   event_id firm_symbol is_fitted shapiro_p dw_stat ljung_box_p  acf1  sigma    r2
#>      <int> <chr>       <lgl>         <dbl>   <dbl>       <dbl> <dbl>  <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1        1 FIRM_A      TRUE          0.342    2.01       0.654 0.012 0.0149 0.032
#> 2        2 FIRM_B      TRUE          0.127    1.95       0.891 0.034 0.0162 0.028
#> ...

Diagnostic Tests Explained

Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test (`shapiro_p`)

Tests whether estimation-window residuals follow a normal distribution. Parametric test statistics (AR T-test, CAR T-test, Patell Z) assume normally distributed residuals.

p > 0.05: No evidence against normality (good)
p < 0.05: Residuals may not be normal

What to do if normality is rejected:

Use non-parametric test statistics (SignTest, GeneralizedSignTest, RankTest) instead of or alongside parametric tests
The violation may not matter with large samples (CLT applies to cross-sectional tests)

Durbin-Watson Statistic (`dw_stat`)

Tests for first-order autocorrelation in residuals. Values near 2 indicate no autocorrelation.

dw ≈ 2: No autocorrelation (good)
dw < 1.5: Positive autocorrelation
dw > 2.5: Negative autocorrelation

What to do if autocorrelation is detected:

Consider a GARCH model which can capture serial dependence in variance
Check for thin trading or data errors
Autocorrelation in residuals can inflate test statistics

Ljung-Box Test (`ljung_box_p`)

A more formal test for autocorrelation at multiple lags (up to 10 or floor(n/5), whichever is smaller).

p > 0.05: No significant autocorrelation (good)
p < 0.05: Residuals are autocorrelated

First-Order Autocorrelation (`acf1`)

The lag-1 autocorrelation coefficient of residuals. Values close to zero are desirable:

|acf1| < 0.1: Negligible autocorrelation
|acf1| > 0.2: Substantial autocorrelation

Sigma and R-squared (`sigma`, `r2`)

sigma: Residual standard error from the estimation window. Used to standardize abnormal returns in test statistics.
r2: Proportion of return variance explained by the model. Higher R² means more precise abnormal return estimates.

Diagnostics for a Single Event

diag_event1 <- model_diagnostics(task, event_id = 1)
diag_event1

Interpreting Diagnostics as a Table

A quick way to flag problematic events:

diag <- model_diagnostics(task)

# Flag events with potential issues
diag %>%
  mutate(
    normality_ok     = shapiro_p > 0.05,
    no_autocorr      = ljung_box_p > 0.05,
    dw_ok            = dw_stat > 1.5 & dw_stat < 2.5,
    all_ok           = normality_ok & no_autocorr & dw_ok
  ) %>%
  select(event_id, firm_symbol, normality_ok, no_autocorr, dw_ok, all_ok)

Step 3: Visual Diagnostics

plot_diagnostics() produces a four-panel residual analysis plot:

plot_diagnostics(task, event_id = 1)

The four panels are:

Residuals vs. Observation: Should show no pattern (random scatter around zero). Trends suggest model misspecification; funneling suggests heteroskedasticity.
Q-Q Plot: Points should fall on the diagonal line. Deviations at the tails indicate heavy-tailed or skewed residuals.
Residual Distribution: Histogram of residuals. Should be roughly bell-shaped and centered at zero.
ACF of Residuals: Autocorrelation at each lag. Bars exceeding the blue dashed lines (95% confidence bands) indicate significant autocorrelation.

Comparing Diagnostics Across Events

# Visual diagnostics for all events
for (eid in task$data_tbl$event_id) {
  plot_diagnostics(task, event_id = eid)
}

Step 4: Pre-trend Testing

The pre-trend test checks whether abnormal returns are already present before the event. Significant pre-event effects may indicate:

Information leakage
Confounding events
Model misspecification
The event date is incorrect

task <- calculate_statistics(task, params)

pretrend <- pretrend_test(task)
pretrend
#> # A tibble: 2 x 7
#>   group   n_pre_periods n_events mean_pre_ar sd_pre_ar t_stat p_value
#>   <chr>           <int>    <int>       <dbl>     <dbl>  <dbl>   <dbl>
#>   Group_A            10        2     0.00012   0.0142   0.168   0.868
#>   Group_B            10        2    -0.00034   0.0155  -0.221   0.826

Interpreting Results

mean_pre_ar: Average abnormal return in the pre-event window. Should be close to zero.
t_stat and p_value: t-test of H₀: mean pre-event AR = 0.
- p > 0.05: No evidence of pre-event effects (good)
- p < 0.05: Significant pre-event effects (investigate further)

Pre-trend Test by Group

pretrend_a <- pretrend_test(task, group = "Group_A")
pretrend_b <- pretrend_test(task, group = "Group_B")

What to Do When Pre-trends Are Detected

Check the event date. Is it the announcement date or the effective date? Information may leak before the official announcement.
Look for confounding events. Other news may have moved the stock in the pre-event window.
Extend the estimation window. A longer estimation window can improve the model fit and reduce spurious pre-event effects.
Try different models. Factor models (FF3, FF5) may capture systematic patterns that the Market Model misses.

A Complete Diagnostic Workflow

Putting all four tools together in a systematic workflow:

# 1. Create task
task <- EventStudyTask$new(firm_tbl, index_tbl, request_tbl)

# 2. Validate data BEFORE estimation
validate_task(task)

# 3. Prepare and fit
params <- ParameterSet$new(return_model = MarketModel$new())
task <- prepare_event_study(task, params)

# 4. Validate AFTER preparation (now windows are assigned)
validate_task(task)

# 5. Fit models
task <- fit_model(task, params)

# 6. Numerical diagnostics
diag <- model_diagnostics(task)
print(diag)

# 7. Flag problematic events
problems <- diag %>%
  filter(shapiro_p < 0.05 | ljung_box_p < 0.05 | dw_stat < 1.5 | dw_stat > 2.5)

if (nrow(problems) > 0) {
  cat("Events with diagnostic issues:\n")
  print(problems %>% select(event_id, firm_symbol, shapiro_p, ljung_box_p, dw_stat))
} else {
  cat("All events pass diagnostic checks.\n")
}

# 8. Visual diagnostics for flagged events (or all events)
events_to_check <- if (nrow(problems) > 0) problems$event_id else diag$event_id[1]
for (eid in events_to_check) {
  plot_diagnostics(task, event_id = eid)
}

# 9. Calculate statistics and test pre-trends
task <- calculate_statistics(task, params)
pretrend <- pretrend_test(task)
print(pretrend)

Decision Guide

Diagnostic result	Severity	Action
Shapiro p < 0.05	Moderate	Add non-parametric tests (Sign, Rank)
DW < 1.5 or > 2.5	Moderate	Consider GARCH; check for thin trading
Ljung-Box p < 0.05	Moderate	Check data quality; consider GARCH
	acf1	> 0.2
R² very low (< 0.01)	Low	Normal for many stocks; consider factor models
R² very high (> 0.8)	Low	Verify data; possible look-ahead bias
Pre-trend p < 0.05	High	Investigate leakage, confounders, wrong event date
Estimation window < 30 obs	High	Extend window or drop event
Window overlap	Critical	Fix request table parameters
> 10% zero returns	Moderate	Possible illiquidity; consider non-parametric tests

References

Campbell, J. Y., Lo, A. W. & MacKinlay, A. C. (1997). The Econometrics of Financial Markets. Princeton University Press.
MacKinlay, A. C. (1997). Event Studies in Economics and Finance. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 13–39.
Kolari, J. W. & Pynnonen, S. (2010). Event study testing with cross-sectional correlation of abnormal returns. Review of Financial Studies, 23(11), 3996–4025.

Diagnostics and Validation for Event Studies

Simon Mueller

2026-10-09

Introduction

Setup: Running an Event Study

Step 1: Validate the Task

What It Checks

1. Event Date Exists

2. Sufficient Estimation Window

3. Time Series Gaps

4. Window Overlap

5. Thin Trading

Using Validation Results

Step 2: Model Diagnostics

Diagnostic Tests Explained

Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test (`shapiro_p`)

Durbin-Watson Statistic (`dw_stat`)

Ljung-Box Test (`ljung_box_p`)

First-Order Autocorrelation (`acf1`)

Sigma and R-squared (`sigma`, `r2`)

Diagnostics for a Single Event

Interpreting Diagnostics as a Table

Step 3: Visual Diagnostics

Comparing Diagnostics Across Events

Step 4: Pre-trend Testing

Interpreting Results

Pre-trend Test by Group

What to Do When Pre-trends Are Detected

A Complete Diagnostic Workflow

Decision Guide

References

Diagnostics and Validation for Event Studies

Simon Mueller

2026-10-09

Introduction

Setup: Running an Event Study

Step 1: Validate the Task

What It Checks

1. Event Date Exists

2. Sufficient Estimation Window

3. Time Series Gaps

4. Window Overlap

5. Thin Trading

Using Validation Results

Step 2: Model Diagnostics

Diagnostic Tests Explained

Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test (shapiro_p)

Durbin-Watson Statistic (dw_stat)

Ljung-Box Test (ljung_box_p)

First-Order Autocorrelation (acf1)

Sigma and R-squared (sigma, r2)

Diagnostics for a Single Event

Interpreting Diagnostics as a Table

Step 3: Visual Diagnostics

Comparing Diagnostics Across Events

Step 4: Pre-trend Testing

Interpreting Results

Pre-trend Test by Group

What to Do When Pre-trends Are Detected

A Complete Diagnostic Workflow

Decision Guide

References

Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test (`shapiro_p`)

Durbin-Watson Statistic (`dw_stat`)

Ljung-Box Test (`ljung_box_p`)

First-Order Autocorrelation (`acf1`)

Sigma and R-squared (`sigma`, `r2`)