Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity of Residential Electricity Demand: Evidence from a Distributional Regression Approach
Extracted source text · arXiv 2503.07213
\documentclass[11pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,amsfonts,amstext,upgreek}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{mathtools}
%\usepackage[longnamesfirst]{natbib}
\usepackage{natbib}
% \bibpunct[, ]{(}{)}{,}{a}{}{,}%
\def\bibfont{\small}%
\def\bibsep{\smallskipamount}%
\def\bibhang{24pt}%
\def\newblock{\ }%
\def\BIBand{and}%
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{cancel}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttable}
\appto\TPTnoteSettings{\linespread{1}\footnotesize} % small text if *not* flushleft
\makeatletter %small text if flushleft
\g@addto@macro\TPT@defaults{\linespread{1}\footnotesize}
\makeatother
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\sisetup{group-digits = true,
group-separator = {,}, % default: \, (thinspace)
round-mode = places,
round-precision = 3 }
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{thrmappendix}
\usepackage{alltt}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{accents}
%\usepackage{hypernat}
\usepackage{mathtools,dsfont}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\definecolor{blue(pigment)}{rgb}{0.2, 0.2, 0.6}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
filecolor=magenta,
urlcolor=cyan,
citecolor=blue(pigment),
}
\usepackage[capitalize,noabbrev]{cleveref}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage[inline,shortlabels]{enumitem}
\newtoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}\toggletrue{SUPPLEMENTAL}
\togglefalse{SUPPLEMENTAL} %COMMENT OUT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
\newcommand{\Supplemental}[2]{\iftoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}{#1}{#2}}
\newtoggle{BLINDED}\toggletrue{BLINDED}
\togglefalse{BLINDED} %COMMENT OUT FOR BLINDED VERSION
\newcommand{\Blinded}[2]{\iftoggle{BLINDED}{#1}{#2}}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.8in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.01in}
\newcommand{\nn}{\text{norm}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\text{extr}}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newtheorem{axi}{Axiom}[section]
\renewcommand{\theassumption}{A\arabic{assumption}}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[]
\newtheorem{lemma}[]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[]
\newtheorem{example}{Example}[]
\newcommand{\pconv}{\xrightarrow{p}}
\newcommand{\dconv}{\xrightarrow{d}}
\newcommand{\avgt}{\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T}
\newcommand{\avgn}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}}
\newcommand{\tr}{^{\top}}
\newcommand{\KK}{{\rm K}}
\newcommand{\HH}{{\rm F}}
\newcommand{\PP}{{\rm P}}
\newcommand{\QQ}{{\rm Q}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\DeclareMathOperator{\op}{op}
\newcommand{\ASD}[1]{\{\scalebox{0.85}{$\hspace{-0.1em}#1\hspace{-0.1em}$}\}}
\crefformat{footnote}{#2\footnotemark[#1]#3} %cleveref
\crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\Crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{equation}{}{}
\Crefname{equation}{Equation}{Equations}
%
\crefformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}
\crefrangeformat{enumi}{(#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\crefmultiformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
\Crefformat{enumi}{Part (#2#1#3)}
\Crefrangeformat{enumi}{Parts (#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\Crefmultiformat{enumi}{Parts (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
%
\crefname{assumption}{}{}
\Crefname{assumption}{Assumption}{Assumptions}
\newcommand{\creflastconjunction}{, and\nobreakspace} %Oxford comma
\newcommand{\crefrangeconjunction}{--}
\DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `dirname #1`/`basename #1 .tif`.png}
\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.png}
\graphicspath{ {./Figures/} }
\newcommand{\citeposs}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}
\newcommand{\matf}[1]{#1} %matrix formatting
\newcommand{\vecf}[1]{#1} %vector formatting
% \newcommand{\matf}[1]{\underline{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}}} %matrix formatting
% \newcommand{\vecf}[1]{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}} %vector formatting
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{Var}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Cov}{Cov}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Corr}{Corr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\const}{const.}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ran}{ran}
\DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{rank}
\DeclareMathOperator{\spn}{span}
\DeclareMathOperator{\HS}{HS}
\newcommand{\Varp}[1]{\Var\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Covp}[1]{\Cov\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Corrp}[1]{\Corr\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\WP}{\textrm{ w.p.\ }}
\newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{\Hnull}{{\mathbb H}_0}\newcommand{\Halt}{{\mathbb H}_1}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sgn}{sgn}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{E}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{Q}
\let\Pr\relax \DeclareMathOperator{\Pr}{P} %comment out if Pr desired
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\plim}{plim}
\DeclareMathOperator{\1}{\mathds{1}}
\newcommand{\Ind}[1]{\1\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\Normal}{\mathrm{N}}
\newcommand{\Normalp}[2]{\Normal\left(#1,#2\right)}
\newcommand{\BetaDist}{\textrm{Beta}}
\newcommand{\DirDist}{\textrm{Dir}}
\newcommand{\UnifDist}{\textrm{Unif}}
\newcommand{\weaklyto}{\rightsquigarrow}
\newcommand{\diff}{d} %differential operator: easy to change to upright if needed.
%(partial) derivatives:
\newcommand{\pD}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
\newcommand{\pDD}[2]{\frac{\partial^2 #1}{\partial #2^2}}
\newcommand{\D}[2]{\frac{\diff #1}{\diff #2}}
\newcommand{\DD}[2]{\frac{\diff^2 #1}{\diff #2^2}}
\newcommand{\independenT}[2]{\mathrel{\rlap{$#1#2$}\mkern2mu{#1#2}}}
\newcommand\independent{\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}}
\newcommand{\indep}{\independent}
\providecommand{\absbig}[1]{\left\lvert#1\right\rvert}
\providecommand{\normbig}[1]{\left\lVert#1\right\rVert}
\providecommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert}
\providecommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert}
\newcommand\commWK{\textcolor{blue}}
\newcommand\commKS{\textcolor{black}}
\newcommand\commnote{\textcolor{green}} %% make this invisible later
\newcommand{\ZZ}{\mathrm{Z}}
\newcommand{\zz}{z}
\let\originalleft\left
\let\originalright\right
\renewcommand{\left}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}
\renewcommand{\right}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}
\newcommand{\temden}{\phi}
\newcommand{\temcdf}{\\Phi}
%Bibliography spacing fix
\let\oldthebibliography=\thebibliography
\let\endoldthebibliography=\endthebibliography
\renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1]{%
\begin{oldthebibliography}{#1}%
\setlength{\parskip}{0ex}%
\setlength{\itemsep}{0ex}%
}%
{%
\end{oldthebibliography}%
}
% \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\roman{enumi}}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\theenumi)}
\allowdisplaybreaks[3]
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\onehalfspacing
\title{Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity of Residential Electricity Demand: Evidence from a Distributional Regression Approach\thanks{We deeply appreciate Hyunjin Yang (KEPCO) and Sungro Lee (KOGAS) for generously providing residential electricity demand and local temperature data in the Republic of Korea. Kyungsik Nam's research was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2025.}}
% We deeply appreciate all valuable comments from ... and to participants of the ... for useful feedback.
\author{Kyungsik Nam\thanks{Assistant Professor, Division of Climate Change, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 17035, Republic of Korea. E-mail: \texttt{ksnam@hufs.ac.kr}}, \,\, Won-Ki Seo\thanks{Senior Lecturer, School of Economics, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: \texttt{won-ki.seo@sydney.edu.au}}}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\noindent We estimate the temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand during extreme temperature events using the distribution-to-scalar regression model. Rather than relying on simple averages or individual quantile statistics of raw temperature data, we construct distributional summaries, such as probability density, hazard rate, and quantile functions, to retain a more comprehensive representation of temperature variation. This approach not only utilizes richer information from the underlying temperature distribution but also enables the examination of extreme temperature effects that conventional models fail to capture. Additionally, recognizing that distribution functions are typically estimated from limited discrete observations and may be subject to measurement errors, our econometric framework explicitly addresses this issue. Empirical findings from the hazard-to-demand model indicate that residential electricity demand exhibits a stronger nonlinear response to cold waves than to heat waves, while heat wave shocks demonstrate a more pronounced incremental effect. Moreover, the temperature quantile-to-demand model produces largely insignificant demand response estimates, attributed to the offsetting influence of two counteracting forces.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{0.4\baselineskip}
\vfill
\noindent JEL Classification: C51, C53, Q41 \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Key words and phrases}: Functional regression, electricity demand, temperature sensitivity, distributional data
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\setcounter{page}{0} \thispagestyle{empty}
\baselineskip19.5pt
\pagenumbering{arabic}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newpage
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec_Intro}
\noindent Accurately estimating electricity demand during extreme weather events is vital for ensuring energy security and enhancing grid reliability. For energy practitioners and policymakers, precise demand estimation is crucial for balancing supply and demand, preventing power outages, and ensuring that the energy infrastructure can withstand increased loads during such critical periods. As climate change drives more frequent and severe weather events, the importance of precise demand estimation has grown significantly, making it a cornerstone of sustainable energy management.
%WKNOTE: Grid reliablity? Must be something in the literature.
\indent The relationship between temperature and electricity demand is inherently nonlinear, as demand typically rises sharply during hot or cold conditions. Traditional approaches to modeling this relationship rely on nonlinear temperature variables such as Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD). However, these methods have notable limitations, including the need to arbitrarily define threshold temperatures. To address this limitation, nonlinear econometric models or density-based approaches that incorporate the full temperature distribution as an explanatory variable have been investigated. These methodologies effectively capture the seasonal dynamics of electricity demand while allowing the threshold temperature to be estimated endogenously within the model.
\indent Nonetheless, unexpected spikes in electricity demand during extreme temperature events present crucial challenges for grid stability, necessitating more advanced econometric modeling techniques. Residential electricity demand, in particular, exhibits heightened sensitivity to temperature extremes, increasing unpredictably under such conditions. Existing nonlinear and density-based econometric approaches often fail to adequately capture these nonlinear demand responses, leading to significant underestimation during critical periods. As climate change amplifies temperature extremes, reassessing and refining demand estimation methodologies is essential for ensuring grid stability and optimizing operational efficiency.
\indent Beyond the inherent challenges of modeling nonlinear temperature-demand relationships, a significant source of error arises from measurement and estimation inaccuracies. In particular, constructing a representative temperature regressor from high-frequency or regional raw data introduces estimation errors, leading to biased and inconsistent demand response estimates. Additionally, the density-based approach assumes that nonparametrically estimated temperature distributions represent true distributions. This assumption further amplifies estimation bias, as errors in the temperature distribution can distort demand response projections. These errors are particularly problematic during extreme temperature events, where precise demand forecasting is crucial for ensuring energy security and grid stability.
\indent Building on the foundational work of \cite{engle1986semiparametric}, a substantial body of literature has applied the cointegration framework for analyzing electricity demand, with noticeable contributions from \cite{engle1989merging}, \cite{silk1997short}, \cite{beenstock1999demand}, \cite{chang2014time}, \cite{chang2016disentangling}, and \cite{chang2021forecasting}, among others. Subsequently, the literature has focused on incorporating nonlinear temperature variables, such as HDD and CDD, or employing nonlinear econometric methods to evaluate the impact of temperature fluctuations on electricity demand, including \cite{sailor1997sensitivity}, \cite{henley1997non}, \cite{henley1998residential}, \cite{valor2001daily}, \cite{pardo2002temperature}, and \cite{apadula2012relationships}. In particular, smooth transition, panel threshold, and switching regression models have been employed to capture nonlinear demand responses (\citealp{moral2005modelling}; \citealp{bessec2008non}). The nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature has been further explored through various advanced methodologies. Notably, artificial neural networks have been applied to improve load forecasting accuracy (\citealp{teixeira2017}; \citealp{caro2020}; \citealp{sharma2020}), while machine learning approaches have been employed to enhance short-run demand predictions (\citealp{al2019short}; \citealp{sultana2022}).
\indent Rather than analyzing the overall effects of weather variables, recent literature has increasingly focused on the impact of extreme temperatures on peak electricity demand. Early studies employed seasonal autoregressive moving average models with conditional heteroskedasticity to model fluctuations in peak demand (\citealp{sigauke2011prediction}; \citealp{rallapalli2012forecasting}). Later research incorporated tail-quantile estimation and extreme value theory to improve the accuracy of predicting extreme peak demand (\citealp{sigauke2013extreme}; \citealp{chan2015extreme}; \citealp{sigauke2017modelling}; \citealp{sigauke2020modelling}). More recently, density-based functional approaches have emerged to analyze these extreme effects across sectors, providing deeper insights into the nonlinearity between temperature and electricity demand (\citealp{chang2016new}; \citealp{miller2022modeling}).
\indent Compared to the existing literature, we investigate distribution-to-scalar regression models that effectively account for the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand, even in the presence of measurement errors and extreme temperature events—an aspect that has not been comprehensively explored. By addressing the complexities introduced by measurement errors, our approach provides a more robust estimation, setting it apart from traditional techniques that may overlook these critical factors. Furthermore, our approach differs significantly from existing studies by focusing on the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand to changes in temperature distribution, rather than just temperature levels. This allows for a more comprehensive analysis, capturing the broader distributional effects of temperature fluctuations, particularly during extreme temperature events.
\indent Accordingly, we incorporate both density and hazard rate functions (as distributional summaries of temperature), each offering distinct advantages, to construct a comprehensive analytical framework. The density-based approach provides direct interpretability within a compositional data framework, facilitating a clear assessment of temperature's impact on electricity demand across the entire temperature distribution. In contrast, the hazard rate is particularly well-suited for analyzing extreme temperature events, as it incorporates the conditional probability of such occurrences to some extent, thereby enhancing the precision of demand estimations under extreme conditions. %Additionally, we examine the quantile-to-demand model, which is a popular approach as a way to use distributional information and also %which may be effective in capturing heterogeneous support within the temperature distribution but
% conceptually aligns with other distributional predictors.
To ensure that distributional information is properly incorporated into our econometric framework, we will consider relevant transformations of the temperature densities and hazard rates (see Section \ref{sec_method_1}).
% In this paper, we will consider the Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) and log-hazard-type transformations of temperature distributions as functional data, ensuring that
For comparison, we additionally consider the quantile-to-demand model, which is not only a popular approach for utilizing distributional information (see, e.g., \citealp{yang2020quantile}) but also aligns conceptually with density- or hazard-based models. %Notably, these methodologies have not been compared in the existing literature.
\indent The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec_method} outlines the econometric methodology used to estimate the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand while addressing measurement errors. Section \ref{Sec_Data} describes the residential electricity demand and local temperature data from the Republic of Korea. Section \ref{Sec_Empirics} presents the empirical temperature response functions based on density-, hazard-, and quantile-based approaches under hypothetical scenarios and two historical extreme temperature events. This section also includes a discussion of the estimation results derived from these three distributional predictors. Finally, Section \ref{Sec_conclude} provides concluding remarks, with proofs provided in the Appendix.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Econometric methodology}\label{sec_method}
%\subsection{Distributional predictors and measurement errors}
\subsection{Distributional predictors}
\label{sec_method_1}
We let $y_t$ represent electricity demand, a practical measurement of which for our empirical study is detailed in Section \ref{Sec_Data}, and let $X_t^\circ$ be a function that summarizes the distributional properties of temperature. A possible (and popular) candidate for $X_t^\circ$ may be the probability density function (PDF) of temperature, denoted hereafter $\temden_t$. However, as well documented in the literature, directly using the PDF as a predictor is not advisable in applications of statistical methods developed within a standard Hilbert space setting for functional data analysis. As proposed by \cite{petersen2016}, we thus consider appropriate transformations of $\temden_t$. % which are known to be
There are various potential choices for $X_t^\circ$, but in this paper, we mainly focus on the following: (i) the Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation and (ii) the Log-Hazard-Rate (LHR) transformation of $\temden_t$. Assuming that the PDF of temperature, $\temden_t$, is supported on $[a,b]$, the CLR transformation $X_t^\circ$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqclr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log \temden_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \log \temden_t (s) ds, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
Under some mathematical conditions on the underlying PDF $\temden_t$, the transformation from $\temden_t$ to its CLR not only embeds the probability densities on $[a,b]$ into a linear subspace of the $L^2[a,b]$-Hilbert space (the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions on $[a,b]$) but also is invertible; see e.g., \cite{Egozcue2006} and \cite{Boogaart2014}. It is known that the inverse CLR transformation is given by $X_t^\circ (r) \mapsto \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) \big/ \int_{a}^b \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) dr$ for $r \in [a,b]$, which recovers $\temden_t$. The CLR transformation of $\temden_t$ has been considered a standard choice in models involving distributional functional data, as discussed in several recent articles to be mentioned shortly.
As an alternative, we also consider the LHR transformation of $\temden_t$, which is given as follows: for some small positive $\delta>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqlhr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log \left(\frac{\temden_t(r)}{1-\Phi_t(r)}\right) , \quad r\in [a,b-\delta],
\end{equation}
where $\Phi_t(s)$ is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) given by $\Phi_t(s)=\int_{0}^s \phi_t(r)dr$. Note that $h_t(r)=\phi_t(r)/(1-\Phi_t(r))$ is the so-called hazard rate of $\phi_t$ and for this to be well defined, we need to restrict the support into $[a,b-\delta]$ for some small positive $\delta$. It is known that the LHR is also invertible transformation of $\phi_t$ into a linear space under appropriate conditions (see \citealp{petersen2016}).
It appears to be more common to consider the CLR transformation or its similar alternatives in the literature on density-valued functional data (see, e.g., \citealp{kokoszka2019forecasting, SEO2019, seong2021functional}), and this is partly a reason that we also consider it in the present paper. On the other hand, cases using the LHR transformation seem scarce in the literature, to the best of the authors' knowledge, except for \cite{petersen2016}, who proposed the LHR as a way to avoid potential issues when directly using the PDF. %, as is common in more conventional literature.
As a slight and obvious modification of the LHR, we define the following, obtained by replacing the hazard rate ($\phi_t(r)/(1-\Phi_t(r))$) with the reversed hazard rate (see \citealp{block1998reversed}), defined by $\phi_t(r)/\Phi_t(r)$, as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqrlhr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log \left(\frac{\phi_t(r)}{\Phi_t(r)}\right), \quad r\in [a+\delta,b].
\end{equation}
We hereafter call the above as the Log-Reversed-Hazard-Rate (LRHR) transformation.
%Suppose that the temperature PDF was changed from $\phi_{\text{pre}}$ into $\phi_{\text{post}}$ by a certain perturbation given to the PDF, and their CLRs are given by $X^\circ_{\text{pre}}$ and $X^\circ_{\text{post}}$, respectively. Then in the CLR model, we can easily find the additive perturbation $\zeta$ corresponding to the perturbation given to the PDF (this is simply given by $\zeta = X^\circ_{\text{post}} - X^\circ_{\text{pre}}$; see Section \ref{Sec_Empirics}), in the CLR domain, and thus can analyze the effect of the perturbation as $f(\zeta)$. Similarly in the LHR (resp.\ LRHR) model, we can analyze the effect of any perturbation applied to the hazard rate (resp.\ reversed hazard rate). Thus, there is no significant difference in implementation of statistical inference in these three models.
In the sequel, we will consider a functional linear model connecting the electricity demand $y_t$ with the distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$. It is worth noting that while the CLR, LHR, and LRHR transformations characterize the temperature distribution, they differ in how they summarize distributional information. In the CLR model, the distributional predictor is fully characterized by the PDF $\phi_t(s)$, which can be approximated as the average change of the distribution function of temperature on a small interval $[s,s+\Delta)$ for small $\Delta>0$, i.e, $\phi_t(s)\approx \Delta^{-1}\mathbb{P}(s \leq S_t < s+\Delta)$, where $S_t$ denote the random variable of temperature level at time $t$. On the other hand, the hazard (resp.\ reversed) rate may be approximately understood as ${\Delta}^{-1}{\mathbb{P}(s \leq S_t < s+\Delta | S_t \geq s)} = {\Delta}^{-1}{\mathbb{P}(s \leq S_t < s+\Delta)}/{\mathbb{P}(s \geq S_t)}$ (resp.\ $\Delta^{-1}{\mathbb{P}(s-\Delta < S_t \leq s | S_t\leq s)}={\Delta}^{-1}{\mathbb{P}(s \leq S_t < s+\Delta)}/{\mathbb{P}(S_t\leq s)}$). For any $s$, ${\mathbb{P}(S_t \geq s)}$ (resp.\ ${\mathbb{P}(S_t\leq s)}$) indicates the exposure probability of the temperature being higher (lower) than $s$ at time $t$, and thus the hazard (resp.\ reversed hazard) rate, which we consider, may be understood as the PDF weighted by this exposure probability. If we consider any small density shock, which is particularly concentrated on the upper (lower) tail of the temperature PDF and hence may have a significant impact on the electricity demand despite its small magnitude,\footnote{We are mainly interested in the effect of extreme temperature events on electricity demand, and such events are expected to happen with low probability; thus those will only make small changes in the PDF in the lower or upper tails.} then the LHR (resp.\ LRHR) will be much more responsive to this change than the PDF. It is thus expected that the LHR (resp.\ LRHR) will have a higher tendency to comove with electricity demand, particularly during extremely high (resp.\ low) temperature events, and hence, the model involving the LHR (resp.\ LRHR) may be more suitable for capturing and explaining the effect of extreme temperature events at high (resp.\ low) quantiles on electricity demand.
In the literature on density-valued functional data, it seems to be popular to regard the quantile function corresponding to $\phi_t$ as a distributional summary (see e.g., \citealp{yang2020quantile}) and use it for statistical inference. We also briefly discuss this choice of distributional predictor in Section \ref{sec_more}.
%\footnote{To examine temperature sensitivity during extreme temperature events, it may be essential to consider the cumulative temperature effect. This phenomenon refers to a situation where prolonged exposure to high or low temperatures leads to increased demand for cooling or heating, respectively, even when the actual temperature level remains constant. Thus, a seemingly paradoxical rise in electricity demand may be attributed to extended periods of extreme temperatures, which exacerbate the need to maintain indoor temperature conditions. For instance, during a heatwave, electricity demand increases not only due to the immediate high temperatures but also because prolonged exposure to elevated temperatures intensifies cooling demand. In this context, the PDF, which reflects the relative frequency of temperatures without considering the aforementioned exposure probability, may have a lower tendency to comove with electricity demand, particularly during extreme temperature events. \label{foottem1}}
%\indent \commKS{To examine the temperature sensitivity during extreme temperature events, it is essential to consider the cumulative temperature effect. This phenomenon refers to the situation where prolonged exposure to high or low temperatures leads to increased demand for cooling or heating, respectively, even when the actual temperature level remains constant. This seemingly paradoxical rise in electricity demand can be attributed to extended periods of extreme temperatures, which exacerbate the need to maintain indoor climate conditions. For instance, during a heatwave, electricity demand increases not only due to the immediate high temperatures, but also because the prolonged exposure to elevated temperatures intensifies the cooling demand. In this context, the PDF alone, which reflects the relative frequency of temperatures across the entire temperature range, is insufficient to capture the sharp spikes in cooling demand associated with extreme temperature events. In contrast, an LHR-based distribution would more effectively capture this cumulative temperature effect. At fixed time $t$, this can be understood through the relationship:
%\[\Phi_t(r) + \Delta \phi_t(r) = \Phi_t(r + \Delta)\]
%where \( r \) represents a certain extreme high-temperature level. As such, \( X_t^\circ(r) \) would increase due to the positive PDF increment, \( \Delta \phi_t(r) \), across $r$. Given the exponentially increasing pattern of LHR during heatwaves, a higher value of \( X_t^\circ(r) \) indicates that in the corresponding month $t$, the probability of the temperature staying around $r$ is higher than for any temperature below $r$, thereby generating the cumulative temperature effect. This framework can be similarly applied to cold wave events. Just as for heatwaves, the LRHR-based distribution would more accurately capture the cumulative effect of cold temperatures, emphasizing how sustained periods of low temperatures increase heating demand.} %Thus, the LHR-based distribution more accurately reflects the increased electricity demand under extreme temperature conditions.}
\subsection{Measurement errors}
In practice, $\phi_t$ and $\Phi_t$ cannot directly be observed, and thus the distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$, considered in Section \ref{sec_method_1} is not observable. For empirical analysis, it must be constructed from the raw temperature data. For example, in the CLR case, we may replace $\phi_t$ or $\log \phi_t$ with its relevant nonparametric estimate in \eqref{eqclr} (as in \citealp{SEO2019}). However, this replacement necessarily introduces estimation/smoothing errors, and in this case, it is well known that standard estimation methods for functional linear models may lead to inconsistent estimation of the model; see \citet[Section 7]{Benatia2017}, \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}, and \cite{seong2021functional} for a more detailed discussion. Section \ref{sec_cons_dist} details how the distributional predictors used in our empirical analysis are constructed.
Subsequently, we discuss econometric methods for studying the distributional impact of temperature on electricity demand that are robust to these estimation/smoothing errors, which naturally exist, in the distributional predictor.
\subsection{Model and estimator} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some notation. We let $\mathcal H$ denote $L^2[a,b]$ (i.e., the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$) with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the Function-to-Scalar Regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the Distribution-to-Scalar Regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{\phi_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $\phi_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents an additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and satisfies $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated (meaning that $\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x \rangle u_t] \neq 0$ for some $x\in \mathcal H$) and thus $X_t$ is endogenous.
As is well documented in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition ($\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x\rangle u_t]=0$ for every $x\in \mathcal H$), inconsistent and invalidates the inferential methods based on those estimators (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate the distributional coefficient $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV approach, considered in \cite{seong2021functional} for Function-to-Function Regression (FFR) models, to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional Instrumental Variable (IV), which satisfies the following:
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}(x)&:=\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t], x \rangle (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0 \quad \text{for some $x\in\mathcal H$},\\
C_{Zu}(x)&:=\mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x\rangle u_t]=0 \quad \text{for every nonzero $x\in\mathcal H$}. \label{eqreg3a} %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
$C_{XZ}$ (resp.\ $C_{Zu}$) defined above is called the (cross-)covariance operator of $X_t$ and $Z_t$ (resp.\ $Z_t$ and $u_t$). The conditions given in \eqref{eqreg3} and \eqref{eqreg3a} consist of only the minimal requirements for the IV $Z_t$ in our DSR model. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of the Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ tends to exhibit time series dependence in the considered empirical model, we may let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of the IV considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle X_t-\bar{X}_T,x\rangle (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle Z_t-\bar{Z}_T,x \rangle (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $C_{XZ}^\ast$ (defined by $C_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x \rangle(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, the composite map $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its nonnegative eigenvalues (hereafter denoted $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$) and the corresponding eigenvectors (denoted $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$). That is,
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} \hat{g}_j = \hat{\lambda}_j^2 \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation*}
where $\hat{\lambda}_1^2\geq \hat{\lambda}_2^2 \geq \ldots \geq 0$. The eigenelements of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of the Appendix. If $\KK$ is determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of the Appendix for more detailed discussion). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts, $\widehat C_{Zy}$ and $\widehat C_{XZ}$, respectively, and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
%;\footnote{An alternative equivalent expression is $\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$.}
%Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
Through our study of the asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is presented without the mathematical details intentionally; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest to practitioners to make inference on $f(\zeta)$, which may be understood as the effect of an additive distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$ on $y_t$. %\footnote{Assuming that $X_t^\circ$ changes to $X_t^\circ + \zeta$ by the additive perturbation $\zeta$, the effect on $y_t$ simply given by $f(X_{t}^\circ+\zeta) - f(X_t^\circ) = f(\zeta)$ due to the linearity of $f$.};
{Specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following result, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, is established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u = T^{-1} \sum_{t=1}^T \hat{u}_t^2$ with $\hat{u}_t = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$ and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
The result \eqref{eqlocal} may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% If $X^\circ$ represents the distributional predictor, constructed from $\phi$,
% Noting that $f(X^\circ)$ may be understood as the integral transformation $f(X^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \psi_f(r) X^{\circ}(r) dr$ for some uniquely identified integral kernel $\psi_f$, which only depends on $f$. If $\zeta \in \mathcal H$ is any additive perturbation given to the distributional predictors, then its effect is given by
It is well known that $f(\zeta)$ for any $\zeta$ may be understood as the integral transformation %$f(X^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \psi_f(r) X^{\circ}(r) dr$ for some uniquely identified integral kernel $\psi_f$, which only depends on $f$. If $\zeta \in \mathcal H$ is any additive perturbation given to the distributional predictors, then its effect is given by
\begin{equation*}
f(\zeta) = \int_{a}^b \psi_f(r) \zeta (r) dr
\end{equation*}
for some uniquely identified function $\psi_f \in \mathcal H$. $\psi_f(s)$ is sometimes interpreted as the temperature effect when the distributional predictor $X^\circ$ hypothetically concentrated at a point $s$ (\citealp{chang2014time}). It might be of interest to practitioners to implement statistical inference on $\psi_f(s)$, but in our setup, it is not possible to implement direct statistical inference with a perturbation which is fully concentrated at a point.\footnote{In the standard $L^2[a,b]$-Hilbert space setting, such a function is essentially equivalent to the zero function.} However, it is, instead, possible to consider a weighted average of $\psi_f(s)$ near $s$. For example, if we let $\zeta_s(r) = w_h(|r-s|)/{\int_{a}^{b} w_h(|r-s|)dr}$, then statistical inference on the following quantity is feasible based on the asymptotic normality result \eqref{eqlocal}:
\begin{equation} \label{eqkernel}
f(\zeta_s) = \frac{\int_{a}^{b} w_h(|r-s|) \psi_f(r) dr}{\int_{a}^{b} w_h(|r-s|)dr} \eqqcolon \tilde{\psi}_f(s),
\end{equation}
where $w_h(|r-s|)$ is the standard kernel function defined near $s$ with bandwidth $h$. The above $\tilde{\psi}_f(s)$ is dependent on the choice of kernel function, but it may be understood as the local weighted average of $\psi_f$ near $s$ for any reasonable choice of the kernel function. We hereafter call $\tilde{\psi}_f(s)$ as the kernel-weighted temperature response function.
% It is well known that the response function $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ in \eqref{eqreg1} can be rewritten as
% \begin{equation}
% f(\cdot) = \langle \psi_f, \cdot \rangle,
% \end{equation}
% for some unique element $\psi_f \in \mathcal H$. $\psi_f$ may be called the total response function (TRF) in our case. $\psi_f(r)$ may approximately be understood as the temperature response when the distributional predictor $X^\circ$ hypothetically concentrated at a point $s$. According to (Park's paper here), $\psi_f$ may be called the total response function (TRF) in our case. However, it is not directly possible to implement statistical inference using our method for this hypothetical situation where there is a point mass at $s$.
%\subsection{TMP SECTION : WK WILL REWRITE}\label{Sec_addition}
% (WK: the PDF of temperature is about the rate of change of the marginal cdf while the hazard is the rate of change of the conditional cdf. If we consider $s$ which is away from the center of the distribution, the rate of change tends to be minor. However, the hazard function boost up the small rate of change far away from the center by considering the conditional probability. ... THus the LHR is expected to be more sensitively capture changes in the upper tails of the distributions...(?) While the LRHR is expected to be more sensitively capture changes in the lower tails of the distributions (?))
% Though the CLR, LHR and LRHR are different representations of the temperature distribution we can find a corresponding change making the LHR changed from $h_{\text{pre}}$ $\Delta \phi$ be a change in the probability density function. Then in the CLR model, we may consider the change in the CLR domain given by In the CLR model, we can consider any
% $P(S \in [s, s+\Delta]) = \phi(s) \Delta$\\
% $P(S \in [s, s+\Delta]|S> s) = h(s) \Delta$\\
% $P(S \in [s-\Delta, s]|S< s) = h(s) \Delta$
%Let $\phi$ (resp.\ $\Phi$) denote the temperature PDF (resp.\ CDF).
%Statistical inference can be made for this choice of $\theta_f(s)$.
%\begin{equation}
% f(X^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \theta_f(r) X^{\circ}(r) dr,
% \end{equation}
% where $\theta_f$ is the integral kernel corresponding to $f$. Then $\theta_f(r)$ may approximately be understood as the temperature response when the CLR $X^\circ$ hypothetically concentrated at $s$.
% \commWK{(POSSIBLE DIFFERENCES IN CLR, LHR and LRHR models)}
%If $\zeta_s$ represents an additive perturbation given to the CLR of $\phi$, then the effect of this perturbation is given by
% \begin{equation}
% f(X^\circ + \zeta_s) - f(X^\circ) = f(\zeta_s) = \int_{a}^b \theta_f(r) \zeta_s (r) dr.
% \end{equation}
% If we let $\zeta_s = \eta^{-1} 1\{s \leq r <s+\eta\}$ for some small enough $\eta > 0$, then from the mean value theorem (WK note: smoothness condition requred),
% \begin{equation}
% f(\zeta_s) = \frac{1}{\eta}\int_{s}^{s+\eta} \theta_f(r) dr \approx \theta_h(s).
% \end{equation}
% \begin{equation}
% f(X^\circ + \zeta_s) - f(X^\circ) = f(\zeta_s) = \frac{1}{w(s+\eta)-w(\eta)}\int_{s}^{s+\eta} \theta_f(r) dw(r)
% \end{equation}
% \begin{equation}
% \theta_f(s) \approx f(\zeta_s).
% \end{equation}
% Thus $\theta_f(s)$ may be understood as the effect of a pertubation
% Then $\theta_f(r)$ may approximately be understood as the temperature response when the CLR $X^\circ$ stays
% Then $\theta_f(s)$ for $s\in [-20,40]$ may approximately be understood as the temperature response of electricity demand when the relatative density stays at level $s$.
% To be more specific, let $\phi$ (resp.\ $\Phi$) denote the temperature PDF (resp.\ CDF). If $X^\circ$ represents the CLR of $\phi$, then $f$ can be written as
% \begin{equation}
% f(X^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \theta_f(r) X^{\circ}(r) dr,
% \end{equation}
% thus $\zeta_s = 1\{0<s$ is perturbation given to $X^\circ$ near $s \in [-20,40]$, then the effect of this perturbation is given by $f(\zeta_s)$.
% If $f$ is smooth enough, then $f(s+\delta) \approx f(s) + \int_{s}^{s+\delta} f(r) dr$ and then Then the effect of this perturbation is given by $f(\zeta_s)$,
% then the function $f(s)$ in our DSR model, using the CLR predictor, quantifies the impact on electricity demand resulting from $1\%$ change in the relative density value at $s$.\footnote{For sufficiently small $\eta$, any change $\Delta X^{\circ}$ in the CLR can be approximated as
%\begin{equation}
% \Delta X^{\circ} := X^\circ (s+\eta) - X^\circ(s) \approx \frac{\phi(s+\eta)-\phi(s)}{\phi(s)} - \int_{a}^b \frac{\phi(s+\eta)-\phi(s)}{\phi(s)} dr,
%\end{equation}
%where the first term captures the change in relative density value at $s$, and the second term serves as a correction ensuring that the density after the change satisfies the unit integral constraint.}
%Denoting $S$ as a random variable representing temperature, $\Delta \phi(s)/\phi(s)$ can be approximated as follows for small $\eta > 0$:
%\begin{equation} \label{eqprob1}
%\mathbb{P}(S \in [s, s+\eta])/{\eta} \quad \text{or} \quad \mathbb{P}(S \in [s-\eta, s])/{\eta}.
%\end{equation}
% the quantity $f(s)$ in our DSR model using the CLR predictor measures the temperature effect on electricity demand when there is a small change $\Delta$ in the CLR $\Delta X^\circ$ of the temperature.\footnote{Strictly speaking, this is slightly different from the ordinary case where a marginal relative change $\Delta \phi_t(s)/\phi_t(s)$ at $\phi_t(s)$ is considered with all the other things fixed.
% In the CLR framework to deal with proper density-valued functional data, any marginal increase in the PDF near $s$ cannot occur independently since its occurrence means that the resulting density after the increase must violate the unit integral requirement of a proper density. We we consider in the CLR model is actually $\Delta \phi_t(r)/\phi_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \Delta \phi_t(r)/\phi_t(r) dr$, where the second term represents the correction made to satisfy the unit integral requirement. must involve decrease in the density values on the other region accordingly. More specifically, in the model with the CLR predictor, any change in $X_t^\circ$ is given by $\Delta X_{t}^\circ(r) \approx \Delta \phi_t(r)/\phi_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \Delta \phi_t(r)/\phi_t(r) dr$, where the second term reflects the correction made to satisfy the unit integral requirement.} It is straightforward to see that, for small enough $\Delta X^\circ$
% \begin{equation}
% \Delta X^\circ(s) \approx \frac{\Delta \phi(s)}{\phi(s)} - \int_{a}^b \frac{\Delta \phi(s)}{\phi(s)} dr,
% \end{equation}
% and this represent a relative change in the density value at $s$
% Let $\Delta X$, $\phi$ and $\Phi$, respectively, represent the transformation
% In the case with the CLR predictor, the quantity $f(s)$ in our DSR model approxiamtely measures the temperature effect on electricity demand when there is a small change $\Delta$ in the CLR of the temperature distribution, say $phi(s)$, at $s \in [-20,40]$, which is approximately
% \begin{equation}
% \Delta X^\circ(r) \approx \Delta \phi(s) / \phi(phi)
% \end{equation}$\Delta X_{t}^\circ(s)$ in $\Delta X_{t}^\circ(s)$ and it is obvious to see that
% \begin{equation} \label{eq001add}
% \Delta X_{t}^\circ(r) \approx \frac{\Delta \phi_t(r)}{\phi_t(r)} - \int_{a}^b \frac{\Delta \phi_t(r)}{\phi_t(r)} dr
% \end{equation}
% may be interpreted as the temperature effect on electricity demand when there exists $1\%$ change in the density value at $s$. That is, in this case, what we consider is a perturbation in the marginal PDF $\phi_t$, which can be approximated as follows: for small $\Delta > 0$,
% \begin{equation}
%\mathbb{P}(S \in [s, s+\Delta])/{\Delta},
% \end{equation}
% where $S$ represents the random variable of temperature.
%In the former (resp. latter) case $f(s)$ may be interpreted as the effect of a more relative occurrence of temperature $s$ or slightly higher (resp.\ lower). However, in practice, this may not be quite satisfactory for practitioners who want to study the temperature effect on extreme temperature conditions since it does not take the temperature conditions into account. For example, if we concern a high-temperature condition in practice, we are not very interested in the consequence of more relative occurrence of temperature $35$°C (or slightly higher) when the temperature is low (such as in non-Summer seasons), but more interested in more relative occurrence of it when the temperature is already high enough. Conversely, if we concern a low-temperature condition, we may be more interested in the consequence of more relative occurrence of a certain low temperature when the temperature is already low enough. In this aspect, the models using the LHR and LRHR have advantages.
%In the model involving the LHR (resp.\ LRHR), $f(s)$ measures the temperature effect of a small change in the log hazard rate (resp.\ log reverse hazard rate), with similar algebra, it is straightforward to see that $f(s)$ now measures the temperature effects of increase in the following quantities:
%\begin{equation} \label{eqprob2}
% \mathbb{P}(S \in [s, s+\eta] | S \geq s)/\eta %\text{and} \quad \mathbb{P}(S \in [s-\Delta, s] | X < s)/\Delta,
% \end{equation}
% in the LHR case and
%\begin{equation} \label{eqprob2}
% \mathbb{P}(S \in [s-\eta, s] | S \leq s)/\eta %\text{and} \quad \mathbb{P}(S \in [s-\Delta, s] | X < s)/\Delta,
% \end{equation}
% in the LRHR case. That is, in the former (resp.\ latter) case, $f(s)$ captures the temperature effect of more relative occurrence of temperature near $s$ conditional on $S\geq s$ (resp. $S\leq s$). We belive that these are more valuable information for practitioners. (\commWK{ADD 1-2 sentences about WHY (SOMETHING FROM EMPIRICAL PERSPECTIVE?})
% \commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)}.
\section{Data}\label{Sec_Data}
\subsection{Raw data and temperature densities} \label{Sec_Data_1}
\noindent To investigate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we analyze an extensive dataset that includes residential electricity demand (in GWh) and local temperature (in degrees Celsius) readings from the Republic of Korea. The dataset spans from January 1999 to December 2023, with 300 monthly observations. The residential electricity demand data is provided by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), the state-owned utility responsible for electricity sales across the country. Due to the inherent variability in the number of days within each month, we have normalized the raw monthly electricity demand by dividing it by the number of effective days per month. This adjustment produces a metric known as electricity demand per effective day, as discussed in \cite{chang2014time}, which underscores the importance of accounting for temporal differences in energy demand analysis.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth, width=0.8\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Y_Graph.png}
\caption{Natural log of residential electricity demand per effective day and its 12-month moving average (top), and their deviation process (bottom), from January 1999 to December 2023.}
\label{Fig:Y_Graphs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent \cite{chang2016new} found no empirical evidence suggesting that non-climate variables significantly influence the demand response to temperature in the residential sector. Building on this finding, and to isolate the short-run fluctuations in residential electricity demand, we calculate the deviation from the 12-month moving average of the natural logarithm of electricity demand per effective day, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Y_Graphs}. This deviation serves as a proxy for the short-run component of electricity demand, allowing us to focus on the short-run effects of temperature changes while filtering out the long-run effects of income and electricity price. By employing this detrending approach, we ensure that our analysis effectively captures the nonlinear responses of residential electricity demand to temperature fluctuations, independent of other non-climate factors (\citealp{chang2016new}).
%(heterogeneous support problem with density generation)
\indent To model the seasonality, we retrieve the hourly temperature data from the KMA National Climate Data Center.\footnote{Downloaded from https://data.kma.go.kr/cmmn/main.do on July 1, 2024.} We then construct the monthly temperature PDF over the common support, $[-20,40]$, using hourly temperature observations from the five largest cities (Seoul, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan) covering the territory of the Republic of Korea.\footnote{Instead of estimating the range of the common support, we adopt the common support of $[-20,40]$ with a grid difference, $0.1$, as provided in the literature (\citealp{chang2014time}; \citealp{chang2016new}).} To represent the temperature PDF of the Republic of Korea, we calculate the weighted average of the estimated time series for these five PDFs, assigning weights based on the annual proportion of electricity sales in each of the five regions: the Seoul Metropolitan Area (Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi), Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan.\footnote{The combined annual electricity consumption of the five regions accounts for approximately 55.3\% of the national total on average during the period from 1999 to 2021. Due to data availability constraints, the proportions for the years 2022 and 2023 have been substituted with the values from 2021.}\footnote{The annual regional consumption data was obtained from the Korea Energy Statistics Information System (KESIS) and can be accessed at \url{https://www.kesis.net/sub/subChart.jsp?report_id=33150&reportType=0} (data downloaded on July 1, 2024).}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.4\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc0.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.55\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates of the temperature PDF in the Republic of Korea (left) and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics (right). The red lines indicate August 2017 and August 2018, while the blue lines represent January 2020 and January 2021.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip} illustrates the time series of temperature PDFs, estimated using Gaussian kernel and Silverman's rule of thumb bandwidth, and the dynamics of their descriptive statistics. Note that the generated monthly temperature PDFs exhibit significant heterogeneity, particularly between summer and winter. The time series of monthly temperature distributions in the Republic of Korea from 1999 to 2023 reveals stable seasonal cycles in the mean temperature, reflecting consistent annual patterns. However, the standard deviation indicates increasing variability, particularly post-2010, suggesting a growing spread in temperature values around the mean. The skewness exhibits seasonal fluctuations, with positive skewness during warmer months indicating a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, and negative skewness during colder months reflecting an increase in extreme low temperatures. However, this skewness does not show a clear trend of increasing asymmetry over time but rather indicates a recurring seasonal pattern. The kurtosis remains relatively stable but experiences significant spikes, particularly after 2010. These spikes suggest periods with more frequent and intense extreme temperature events. Thus, while the skewness reflects consistent seasonal variability, the spikes in kurtosis indicate a rise in temperature extremes, likely influenced by climate change.
\subsection{Construction of the distributional predictors} \label{sec_cons_dist}
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, distributional predictors in practice need to be estimated from the raw data. For the CLR transformations, we use the estimated densities, denoted hereafter as $\hat{\phi}_t$, obtained in Section \ref{Sec_Data_1} (see Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}), and construct $X_t$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqclr2} X_t(r) = \log \hat{\phi}_t(r) - \int_{-20}^{40} \log \hat{\phi}_t (s) ds.\footnote{As is common in the literature (see e.g., Section 5.2, \citealp{seoshang22}), a small value of $10^{-3}$ is added to the entire temperature PDF $\hat{\phi}_t$ to implement the log transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.}
\end{equation}
For the model using the LRH and LRHR predictors, $X_t$ can be constructed as
\begin{equation}\label{eqlhr2}
X_t(r) = \log \left(\frac{\hat{\phi}_t(r)}{1-\widehat{\Phi}_t(r)}\right) \quad \text{and} \quad X_t(r) = \log \left(\frac{\hat{\phi}_t(r)}{\widehat{\Phi}_t(r)}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{\Phi}_t(r) = \int_{0}^{r} \hat{\phi}_t(s)ds$. However, in practical computation for the LHR predictor, instead of $1-\widehat{\Phi}_t(s)$, we take the maximum of a small positive constant ($10^{-3}$ in the subsequent analysis) and $1-\widehat{\Phi}_t(s)$ in \eqref{eqlhr2}, which is done to avoid the case where $1-\widehat{\Phi}_t(s)$ equals zero, and hence the hazard rate is undefined. The LRHR predictor is similarly constructed by taking the maximum of a small positive constant and $\widehat{\Phi}_t(s)$.\footnote{As an alternative, we also considered adding 0.001 to $1-\widehat{\Phi}_t(s)$ or $\widehat{\Phi}_t(s)$, but we found that the estimation results change little.} Note that this convenient method of constructing the LHR and LRHR results in the constructed predictors not perfectly matching their theoretical counterparts (\eqref{eqlhr} and \eqref{eqrlhr}). However, for our analysis, we only require that the constructed predictors serve as reasonable proxies, and thus, this does not invalidate the empirical results that will be discussed.
% we estimate it directly from the raw temperature data by replacing population quantiles with sample quantiles. Specifically, if \( x_{[j]} \) for \( j=1,\ldots,N_t \) are the ordered (smallest to largest) raw temperature observations at time \( t \), we define \[ X_t(r) = x_{[N_t r]} \quad \text{if \( N_t r \) is an integer,} \] for \( r \in [0,1] \). For \( r \in [0,1] \) where \( N_t r \) is not an integer, we employ a linear interpolation scheme to estimate values proportionally between neighboring data points.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Empirical Investigation}\label{Sec_Empirics}
\noindent In this section, we estimate the DSR model \eqref{eqreg2} with potential endogeneity, using the distributional predictors described in \eqref{eqclr2} and \eqref{eqlhr2}. % with $\hat{\phi}_t$ illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}.
For the computation of our estimator with finite samples, we represent the distributional predictor using 80 orthonormal Fourier basis functions on the support.\footnote{Moderate changes in the number of basis functions result in only minor numerical differences in the estimation results.} Noting that measurement errors mostly arise from smoothing \( X_t \) from its discrete realizations, we assume that these errors are serially uncorrelated. Under this assumption, and given that the sequence of \( X_t^\circ \) (and also \( X_t \)) is serially correlated, the lagged variable \( X_{t-\kappa} \) for \( \kappa \geq 1 \) may serve as a candidate IV for our empirical analysis. Similar approaches were previously adopted in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020} and \cite{seong2021functional} concerning dependent functional data. Since our approach relies on a high degree of dependence, where possible, of the IV on the endogenous distributional predictor \( X_t \), as in standard IV methods (see Section \ref{sec_app_est_1} for more details), it is not advisable to use a large value of \( \kappa \), as this could make \( X_{t-\kappa} \) only weakly correlated with \( X_t \). Therefore, we choose to set \( \kappa \) to 1. We believe that this selection allows us to account for potential errors in the density/quantile estimation process or data quality while enhancing the robustness and reliability of our analysis. Lastly, in our estimation procedure, $\KK$ (see \eqref{eqest}) is set to 3.\footnote{Following the results given in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of the Appendix and Remark \ref{rem1}, we set $\KK=1+\max_{j\geq 1}\{\tilde{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for $\alpha = 0.01 \times T^{-0.2}$, where $\tilde{\lambda}_j^2=\lambda_j^2/\sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2$ and this is to obtain a choice of $\KK$ which is independent of the scale of $X_t$ and $Z_t$; see Section S5 of \cite{seong2021functional}.} %Our estimator $\hat{f}$ is visualized in Figure \commWK{(SOMETHING)}.
\indent We hereafter focus on statistical inference regarding the impact of temperature events on electricity demand, given by $f(\zeta)$, where $\zeta$ denotes the distributional shocks applied to the distributional predictor. This quantity is estimated using our proposed estimator, $\hat{f}(\zeta)$, and is accompanied by an asymptotically valid confidence interval constructed based on the results in \eqref{eqlocal}. Taking advantage of the distributional flexibility of our DSR model, we examine hypothetical scenarios and two historical events for the specification of $\zeta$, as detailed in the following section.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Functional Shocks for Cold Wave and Heat Wave}\label{Sec_Est_Shocks}
\noindent In this paper, we present two temperature response functions. The first is the kernel-weighted temperature response function (see \eqref{eqkernel}), which serves as a benchmark and is similar to those estimated by \cite{chang2014time} and \cite{chang2016new}. It captures the point-wise temperature sensitivity across the extreme temperature domain. The second is derived from historical extreme temperature events. While the benchmark temperature response function provides intuitive insights into temperature sensitivity by isolating the effects of temperature changes from distributional shifts, the response function based on historical extreme events enhances the practical relevance of extreme temperature fluctuations.
\indent More specifically, the key distinction between these two approaches lies in their treatment of distributional changes. The analysis of historical extreme events explicitly accounts for shifts in the distribution as normal temperature distributions transition toward extreme ones. In contrast, the benchmark temperature response function hypothetically assumes that the temperature stays at a specified level without consideration of the distributional shift that appeared in the past. Although we provide representative cases of extreme temperature events, the specific distributional characteristics of past cold or heat waves may not necessarily recur. Therefore, the difference between the benchmark response function and the date-specific response function can be interpreted as the additional distributional effect unique to that date.
\indent To estimate the benchmark response function, $\tilde{\psi}_f(s)$ (see \eqref{eqkernel}), we employ Gaussian kernel, which is truncated on the support; more specifically, for each temperature level \( s \), $w_h(|r-s|)$ is defined as follows:
\[
w_h(|r-s|) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp\left\{-0.5\left(\frac{|r-s|}{h}\right)^2\right\} \times {1}\{ -20 \leq s \leq 40\},
\]
where the bandwidth \( h \) is set to span 15°C around \( s \) to align with the range of density increases observed in cold (17.3°C) and heat (12.2°C) wave shocks, as illustrated by the black lines of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}.
%The estimated the benchmark kernel-weighted temperature response function $\tilde{\psi}_f(s)$ (see \eqref{eqkernel}) is then interpreted as the weighted average of \( f \) around \( s \). However, near the endpoints of the domain \([-20,40]\), the standard Gaussian kernel integral (without adjustment by \( c_s \)) approaches 0.5, resulting in an improper weighted average for \( \hat{f}(g_s) \). To address this issue, we introduce \( c_s \) to adjust the kernel, ensuring accurate estimation of \( f(s) \) while slightly shifting the evaluation points away from the boundaries.
\indent For the response function based on historical extreme events, we consider two significant extreme weather events that occurred in the Republic of Korea during the sample period.\footnote{See e.g., \url{https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Hottest-Day-Korean-History} and \url{https://watchers.news/2021/01/11/historic-cold-wave-and-heavy-snow-hit-south-korea/}.} In August 2018, the Republic of Korea experienced one of its most intense heat waves on record, with temperatures soaring to an average of 29.2°C, the highest since record-keeping began in 1907. This extreme heat led to the residential electricity demand of 8,851.04 GWh during that month, underscoring the strain placed on the energy grid by cooling needs. Similarly, January 2021 was marked by a significant cold wave, with temperatures plunging to an average of -6.1°C, well below the seasonal norm. During this period, residential electricity demand also spiked to 7,163.28 GWh as households increased heating usage to cope with the severe cold.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.98\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock0.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates comparing January 2021 (solid) and January 2020 (dotted) on the left, and August 2018 (solid) and August 2017 (dotted) on the right, with the black lines representing their vertical differences.}
\label{Fig:Func_shock2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrates the year-over-year changes in monthly temperature PDFs associated with extreme weather events, specifically the heat wave of August 2018 and the cold wave of January 2021. In the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, the blue solid line represents the temperature PDF for January 2021, compared to the blue dashed line for January 2020, with the black line showing the (vertical) difference between the two PDFs, capturing the effect of the cold wave. Similarly, in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, the red solid line represents the temperature PDF for August 2018, while the red dashed line shows the temperature PDF for August 2017, with the black line indicating the difference between these two PDFs.
\indent The temperature distributions during the 2018 heat wave and the 2021 cold wave exhibit distinct shifts, indicative of extreme weather conditions. The August 2018 distribution is significantly right-skewed, suggesting a higher frequency of exceptionally high temperatures, with a pronounced right tail representing extreme heat events. In contrast, the January 2021 distribution is heavily left-skewed, highlighting the prevalence of unusually low temperatures, with a long left tail representing severe cold conditions. These graphs reveal significant changes in temperature distributions during these historical extreme events, illustrating how both the heat wave and cold wave deviated sharply from the typical conditions of the preceding months.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.54\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Shock_stat_change3.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.31\textwidth, width=0.45\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Shock_stat_change.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\caption{Temperature PDFs for cold waves and heat waves (left), showing the transition from the reference to event periods, and the evolution of descriptive statistics (right).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Our empirical analysis aims to provide practitioners with insights into the potential increase in future electricity demand when similar extreme temperature events occur. By understanding extreme temperature events as potential perturbations in the distributional predictor \( X_t \), we can estimate their impact on electricity demand. We henceforth refer to the function \( \zz_{\ee}(s) \), corresponding to the black line in the left (resp.\ right) panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, as the observed cold wave (resp.\ heat wave). This function is computed by subtracting \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) from \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \), where \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) denotes the reference (normal) temperature PDF in January 2020 (resp.\ August 2017), and \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) denotes the extreme temperature PDF in January 2021 for the cold wave (resp.\ August 2018 for the heat wave). Consequently, \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) = \ZZ_{\nn}(s) + \zz_{\ee}(s) \). %The effect of these heat and cold waves on electricity demand is given by \( f(\zeta_{\ee}) \) in our model, which is consistently estimated by \( \hat{f}(\zeta_{\ee}) \), obviously.
\indent Due to the flexibility of our model in the choice of potential perturbations, we may also consider fractions of these observed heat and cold waves and their effects on electricity demand; specifically, we let
\begin{equation} \label{eqfraction}
\zz_a(s) = a \times \zz_{\ee}(s), \quad a = \frac{1}{M}, \frac{2}{M}, \ldots, 1,
\end{equation}
for some large positive integer \( M \). Note that these fractions of observed heat or cold waves satisfy (i) \( |\zz_a(s)| \leq |\zz_{\ee}(s)| \) and (ii) \( \int_{-20}^{40} \zz_a(s) \, ds = 0 \) for all considered values $a$. Thus, adding these fractions of heat or cold waves to the reference PDF \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) results in a new PDF, hereafter denoted as \( \ZZ_a(s)\) (i.e., \(\ZZ_a(s) = \ZZ_{\nn}(s) + \zz_a(s)) \). Since the application of \( \zz_a(s) \) induces a globally more moderate shock compared to that of \( \zz_{\ee}(s) \), \( \ZZ_a(s) \) represents less extreme temperature conditions than the extreme temperature PDF \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) observed in January 2021 for the cold wave or August 2018 for the heat wave. Thus, \( \zz_a(s) \) can naturally be interpreted as a possible, but less extreme, heat or cold wave. Observe also that, as $a$ grows, $\ZZ_a(s)$ constructed from $\zz_a(s)$ moves away from the normal temperature PDF ($\ZZ_{\nn}(s)$) and closer to the extreme temperature PDF ($\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$) by a constant functional increment $(1/M) \times \zz_{\ee}(s)$ at each step; the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} illustrates $\ZZ_a$ for a few selected values of $a$.
%(WKNOTE:DELETED) Further note that \( \zeta_{\ee}(s) \) illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} spans the range $[-20, 19]$ for cold waves, with a sign change at -2.7°C, and $[14, 40]$ for heat waves, with a sign change at 27.8°C. We estimate the temperature effect by examining the likelihood of temperatures within the range $[-20, -2.7]$ for cold waves and $[27.8, 40]$ for heat waves, where the likelihood follows an inverted U-shape. The maximum likelihood occurs at -7.4°C for cold waves and 33.4°C for heat waves. Subsequently, we identify nonlinearities by introducing functional shocks of varying magnitudes, $\zeta_m(s)$.
%(WKNOTE:DELETED) The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} shows the change in the first four standardized moments, caused by the considered fractions of heat and cold waves, during the transition of $\ZZ_a(s)$ from the reference PDF $\ZZ_{\nn}(s)$ to the extreme one $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$ in each scenario. As may well be expected from our construction of $\ZZ_a(s)$, the means of $\ZZ_a(s)$ linearly increase or decrease toward more extreme values ($26.02 \rightarrow 28.54$ in the heat wave scenario and $2.31 \rightarrow -1.53$ in the cold wave scenario) as $\ZZ_a(s)$ gets closer to $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$. On the other hand, other descriptive statistics shift in a nonlinear manner as $\ZZ_a(s)$ moves from $\ZZ_{\nn}$ to $\ZZ_{\ee}$. In the cold wave scenario, the variance increases substantially from January 2020 to January 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating a wider dispersion of temperatures in 2021. However, decreases in skewness ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$) and kurtosis ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$) suggest that the distribution becomes more symmetrical and less peaked, with fewer extreme cold events. In contrast, in the heat wave scenario, we observe a smaller increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), accompanied by rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$) and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), indicating a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth, width=0.42\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_Shock1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth, width=0.42\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_Shock2.png} \\
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth, width=0.42\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_Shock3.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth, width=0.42\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_Shock4.png}
\caption{Estimated LRHR and LHR functions for cold waves (top left) and heat waves (top right). The transition from the reference to event periods by functional LRHR and LHR shocks is depicted in the bottom panels.} %, transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines).}
\label{Fig:HtoD_Shocks}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Similarly, Figure \ref{Fig:HtoD_Shocks} illustrates the corresponding year-over-year changes in monthly temperature LRHR and LHR for these cold and heat wave events, respectively. Specifically, in January 2021, the LRHR gradually increased as temperatures decreased, peaking at -19.5°C, which represents the highest conditional probability of occurrence at this temperature. This indicates that, given temperatures had already dropped below -19.5°C, the likelihood of further decreases to even lower temperatures was greatest. This peak highlights -19.5°C as a critical threshold during the cold wave events. In contrast, January 2020 exhibited a peak LRHR at -7.6°C, reflecting a focus on milder cold conditions and a rapid decline in LRHR at more extreme lows. Similarly, in August 2018, the LHR peaked at 39.5°C, indicating the dominance of intense heatwave conditions. In comparison, August 2017 exhibited a peak at 36.4°C, indicating a milder concentration of high-temperature events. It is worth noting that the exponentially increasing pattern of the monthly temperature LHR in August 2018 (LRHR in January 2021) indicates that the probability of the temperature staying around 39.5°C (-19.5°C) is higher than for any temperature below (above) this value. This would demonstrate the cumulative temperature effect on electricity demand during peak times to some extent (see Section \ref{sec_more}). The bottom left (resp.\ right) panel of the figure illustrates the transition from the normal temperature LHR (resp.\ LRHR) to the extreme temperature LHR (resp.\ LRHR).
%illustrate the progression of cold wave and heat wave shocks, transformed into their respective LRHR and LHR functions.% Positive Shock values near 33°C highlight the increased likelihood of extreme heat in 2018, while negative Shock values below 30°C suggest that 2017 experienced more moderate warm conditions.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.66\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.33\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock_Progress.png}
\caption{Estimated quantile functions for cold waves (left) and heat waves (middle), and the transition from the reference to event periods by functional quantile shocks (right).} %, transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Given that the quantile function corresponding to the temperature distribution can serve as a distributional summary, it may be of interest to practitioners to examine changes in quantile functions during the considered extreme temperature events. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} shows the quantile functions corresponding to the normal and extreme temperature distributions and also illustrates the cold wave event, expressed as a quantile shock. As shown, the impact is most pronounced in the lower quantiles, particularly those associated with the coldest temperatures. This reflects that the January 2021 cold wave caused a significant downward shift in the quantile function compared to January 2020, with the most substantial changes at the lowest quantiles. In the middle panel, the quantile shocks associated with the August 2018 heat wave exhibit a relatively uniform increase across the quantiles, with a more pronounced effect at both extremes. This implies that the heat wave not only elevated overall temperature levels but also disproportionately intensified occurrences at both the lower and upper quantiles. The fractions of observed cold and heat waves, expressed as quantile shocks, can be constructed as in \eqref{eqfraction}. These quantile shocks are used to illustrate the transition from the normal temperature quantile function to the extreme one in each scenario, as shown in the right panel of the figure. %of the fractions of the observed cold and heat waves as quantile shocks, with the fractions similarly constructed according to \eqref{eqfraction}.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Density-to-Demand Model}\label{DtoD_Rlt}
\noindent In this section, we analyze the impact of extreme temperature events on residential electricity demand using the PDF-based DSR model, hereafter referred to as the density-to-demand model. We first apply this model to estimate point-wise temperature sensitivity through the benchmark response function. Subsequently, we analyze the effects of observed heat and cold wave fractions on electricity demand using the CLR predictor. Note that we generate the relevant functional shocks $\zeta_a$, corresponding to \( \zz_a(s) \), in the CLR domain. This can be implemented by applying the CLR transformation to both the reference PDF \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) and \( \ZZ_a(s) \), and then computing the subtraction of the former from the latter in each of the heat and cold wave scenarios.\footnote{If $\mathrm{X}_{\ee}$ (resp.\ $\mathrm{X}_{a})$ is the CLR corresponding to $\ZZ_{\ee}$ (resp.\ $\ZZ_{a})$, then $\zeta_a=\mathrm{X}_{\ee} - \mathrm{X}_{a}$.} The effect of $\zeta_a$ on electricity demand is then given by $f(\zeta_a)$. %The computed functional shocks are plotted in Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}.
%\begin{figure}[t]
%\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
%\caption{CLR transformations of temperature PDFs for the specified periods (left), and the transition from the reference and event periods by of functional shocks (right).} %, transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
%\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}
%\end{center}
%\end{figure}
\indent In the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}, we present our benchmark response function on the range $s \in [-15,35]$ and its 95\% confidence interval. Consistent with the findings of \cite{chang2016new}, the estimated temperature response function exhibits a nonlinear U-shaped pattern across the temperature domain. However, the estimates with $\kappa=1$ reveal a more pronounced degree of nonlinearity. Note also that, unlike existing approaches, our approach explicitly accounts for the interdependence of temperature changes, ensuring that adjustments at one level are accompanied by compensatory changes in other temperatures to maintain the unit integral requirement of a PDF.\footnote{The function $f(\zeta_s)$, where $\zeta_s$ is defined near $s$, represents the effect of an additional perturbation applied to the distributional predictor $X_t$, as indicated by $f(X_t+\zeta_s) - f(X_t)$. If $X_t$ is the PDF itself, $X_t+\zeta_s$ may not be a valid PDF, as it could violate the unit integral requirement. However, this issue does not arise if $X_t$ is the CLR transformation of a PDF and $\zeta_s$ is a shock expressed in the CLR.}
%The functional perturbation $\zeta_a$ corresponding to $\zz_a$ is constructed as the difference between the distributional predictors, associated with $\ZZ_{\ee}$ and $\ZZ_{a}$ for $a \in [0,1]$,
%\footnote{For each \( s \), we consider the adjusted Gaussian kernel \( g_s = \frac{c_s}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp\left(-0.5\left(\frac{x-s}{h}\right)^2\right) \), where $h$ is the bandwidth parameter and \( c_s \) is a constant specific to \( s \), introduced to ensure that \( \int g_s(r) \, dr = 1 \) for every \( s \); as the black lines of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrate the increase in density across the range of 12.2°C (17.3°C) associated with heat (cold) wave shocks, we apply a bandwidth $h$ of 15°C. \( \hat{f}(g_s) \) is then interpreted as the weighted average of \( f \) around \( s \). Note that if \( s \) approaches the left or right endpoint of \( [-20, 40] \), the integral of the standard Gaussian kernel (without the adjustment by \( c_s \)) approaches 0.5. Therefore, \(\hat{f}(g_s)\) closer to either of the end point is not interpreted as weight average of \(f(s)\) near \(s\). We thus introduce the constant \( c_s \) and estimate \( f(s) \) slightly away from the endpoints in this procedure.}
%As the black lines of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrate the increase in density across the range of 12.2°C (17.3°C) associated with heat (cold) wave shocks, we apply a bandwidth of 15°C.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.41\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/DtoD_TRF.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.58\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Empirical_rlt1.png}
\caption{Estimated PDF-based benchmark response function with 95\% confidence intervals (left), and PDF-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top middle and top right) and heat wave (bottom middle and bottom right) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$.}
\label{Fig:Empirical_rlts}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The right two panels of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} present the estimated response of electricity demand on the $y$-axis with respect to $a$, denoting the fraction parameter defined in \eqref{eqfraction}, of $\ZZ_a(s)$, depicted on the $x$-axis. As earlier discussed, $\ZZ_a(s)$ approaches $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$ with a constant functional increment as $a$ increases. The solid lines show the estimates, $\hat{f}(\zeta_a)$, which can be interpreted as the estimated demand responses to progressively but constantly intensifying heat or cold wave shocks, as described in Section \ref{Sec_Est_Shocks}. The dotted lines indicate the 95\% confidence intervals for $f(\zeta_a)$ based on the asymptotic normality result given in \eqref{eqlocal}.
\indent The empirical results from the estimation with $\kappa = 1$, which is designed to account for potential measurement errors, indicate an increase in electricity demand response as the considered shock gets closer to the observed cold or heat wave. For comparison, we also report estimation results without accounting for potential endogeneity, with the $y$-axis scaled to half of that in the case of $\kappa=1$ to enhance visualization. Similar to the benchmark response function, the empirical results for observed heat and cold wave fractions with $\kappa=0$ exhibit a similar upward trend. However, the magnitude is substantially lower compared to the case with $\kappa=1$. Since the estimation results for $\kappa=0$ do not account for endogeneity, we focus on interpreting the estimation results with $\kappa=1$ as our main empirical findings. % Moreover, this increase is more pronounced in the cold wave scenario, compared to the heat wave scenario.
\indent Note that the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} provides statistical insights into how the considered cold and heat wave events change temperature distributions. As the considered cold wave shock approaches the observed severe cold wave, the mean temperature experiences a linear decline from 2.31°C to -1.53°C, with a substantial increase in variance ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating greater temperature dispersion. Concurrently, skewness decreases ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$), and kurtosis declines ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$), signifying a more symmetrical and less peaked distribution. In contrast, as the considered heat wave shock approaches the observed severe heat wave, the mean temperature rises linearly from 26.02°C to 28.54°C, with a modest increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$), and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), reflecting a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution. As illustrated in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}, these distributional changes, characterized by greater variance shifts per unit change in mean temperature, reveal that cold wave shocks have a significantly greater impact on electricity demand, with a 28.06\% increase, compared to a 9.89\% increase observed during heat wave shocks.
\indent The observation that cold wave shocks lead to a greater increase (7.31\%) in electricity demand per unit change in mean temperature, following the transition from $\ZZ_{\nn}$ to $\ZZ_{\ee}$, compared to heat wave shocks (3.93\%) highlights that electricity demand is more sensitive to the extreme and intense temperature conditions associated with cold waves. This implies that demand response is influenced not only by temperature extremes but also by the specific nature of these extremes. This finding departs from existing literature, which predominantly focused on the demand response to changes in temperature levels alone, and also highlights the importance of understanding how shifts in temperature distributions impact electricity demand. Such insights emphasize the need for energy planning that accounts for the varying effects of temperature distribution changes, particularly in the context of increasingly severe cold wave events.
\indent Notably, as the cold waves intensify, electricity demand rises at a diminishing rate as incremental heating needs taper off. More specifically, the demand response values for the cold wave event at fraction parameters $a$ of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are estimated at 0.1677, 0.2328, and 0.2806, respectively. Given that electricity demand is expressed in natural logarithms, these values indicate that a functional shock causing normal temperatures to approach extreme levels by 33\% corresponds to a 16.77\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. An additional 33\% progression toward extreme temperatures results in a further 6.51\% increase, followed by an additional 4.77\% increase with a complete transition to extreme conditions. Collectively, the full transition from normal temperatures in January 2020 to extreme temperatures in January 2021 corresponds to a total 28.06\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand.
\indent Conversely, electricity demand is estimated to increase at an accelerating rate as the heat waves intensify, driven by heightened cooling requirements. More specifically, the demand response values for the heat wave events at fraction parameters $a$ of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are 0.0222, 0.0498, and 0.0989, respectively. Using the same approach, these results indicate that a functional shock causing normal temperatures to approach extreme levels by 33\% corresponds to a 2.22\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. An additional 33\% progression toward extreme temperatures results in a 2.76\% year-over-year increase, followed by an additional 4.91\% increase with the complete transition to extreme conditions. Collectively, the full transition from normal temperatures in August 2017 to extreme temperatures in August 2018 corresponds to a total 9.89\% year-over-year rise in monthly electricity demand. This contrasting behavior can be attributed to the extensive reliance on air conditioning during heat waves and the substitution effect between natural gas and electricity for heating purposes during cold waves.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Hazard-to-Demand Model}\label{DtoD_Rlt2}
\noindent In this section, we analyze the impact of extreme temperature events on residential electricity demand using the DSR model with the LHR (resp.\ LRHR) predictor for both hypothetical and historical heat (resp.\ cold) wave scenarios, collectively referred to as the hazard-to-demand model. Figure \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts} illustrates the benchmark response function $\widetilde{\psi}(s)$, focusing on the extreme temperature ranges of $[-20, 5]$ and $[25, 40]$, and the corresponding estimated electricity demand response as a function of parameter $a$ within the hazard-to-demand model. While the estimation results from the hazard-to-demand model are broadly consistent with those from the density-to-demand model, they provide distinct interpretative insights into how variations in the conditional probability of extreme temperature events distinctly influence electricity demand under cold and heat wave scenarios.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.2\textwidth, width=0.41\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_TRF_C.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.2\textwidth, width=0.58\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_TRF_Cshocks.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.2\textwidth, width=0.41\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_TRF_H.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.2\textwidth, width=0.58\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_TRF_Hshocks.png}
\caption{Estimated LHR-based benchmark response function with 95\% confidence intervals (left), and LHR-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top middle and top right) and heat wave (bottom middle and bottom right) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$.}
\label{Fig:HtoD_rlts}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent While both models capture increased temperature sensitivity, the hazard-to-demand model produces higher response function values in the extreme heat range but lower values in the extreme cold range compared to the density-to-demand model. Notably, it provides a more reliable representation of the response function at the lower temperature boundary, offering a structured depiction of cold extremes. Specifically, electricity demand rises as temperatures decline within the cold temperature range. However, at extremely low temperatures, demand exhibits diminishing sensitivity to further declines, reflecting saturation effects driven by persistent heating requirements and substitution effects with natural gas. In contrast, in the hot temperature range, rising temperatures correspond to an increased conditional probability of extreme heat events, leading to a steady rise in electricity demand, particularly at higher temperatures. This increased sensitivity is primarily driven by intensive cooling needs, highlighting the asymmetric response of electricity demand to temperature extremes. Further discussion on these distinctions is provided in the following section. %Together, these findings demonstrate how the hazard-to-demand model captures the probabilistic impact of extreme temperature events on electricity demand, providing a distinct perspective beyond absolute temperature effects.
\indent Although with a smaller overall magnitude, the hazard-to-demand model aligns with the density-to-demand model for historical extreme temperature events. The cold wave shocks result in a greater increase in electricity demand per 1°C change in mean temperature (3.01\%) following the transition from $\ZZ_{\nn}$ to $\ZZ_{\ee}$, compared to the heat wave shocks (1.80\%). Moreover, as the cold waves intensify, the rate of increase in electricity demand diminishes, reflecting tapering incremental heating needs. Specifically, the LRHR-based demand response values for the cold wave events at fraction parameters $a$ of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are estimated at 0.0987, 0.1113, and 0.1155, respectively. These estimates indicate that a functional shock causing normal temperatures to shift toward extreme cold levels by 33\% corresponds to a 9.87\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. An additional 33\% progression toward extreme cold conditions results in a further 1.26\% increase, followed by an additional 0.42\% increase with a complete transition to extreme cold conditions.
\indent For the heat wave events, the LHR-based demand response values at fraction parameters $a$ of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are estimated at 0.0111, 0.0228, and 0.0453, respectively. These results indicate that a functional shock causing normal temperatures to shift toward extreme heat levels by 33\% corresponds to a 1.11\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. An additional 33\% progression toward extreme heat conditions results in a further 1.17\% increase, followed by an additional 2.25\% increase with a complete transition to extreme heat conditions. Both the density-to-demand and hazard-to-demand models, despite differences in their estimated magnitudes, consistently reveal distinct demand response patterns for the heat wave and cold wave events. The cold wave shocks result in more significant demand increases overall while the heat wave shocks exhibit a stronger incremental effect as temperatures approach extreme levels.
\indent Lastly, similar to the density-to-demand model, the empirical results from the hazard-to-demand model for $\kappa=0$ exhibit an upward trend but with a substantially lower magnitude compared to the case with $\kappa=1$. As the estimation results for $\kappa=0$ do not account for endogeneity, they are not considered for interpretation.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Some Discussion on the Distributional Predictors} \label{sec_more}
\noindent Our empirical findings for extreme temperature events provide more practical insights than those derived from existing functional approaches. A key limitation of conventional methods is their tendency to yield inaccurate estimates at the boundaries, particularly in data-sparse regions near critical temperature thresholds such as -20°C and 40°C. This boundary issue can lead to misinterpretations of demand responses at extreme temperatures, potentially resulting in significant misjudgments in energy policy and management.
\indent By leveraging both representative heat and cold wave scenarios, as well as demand responses at specific temperature levels, our approach provides broader distributional insights into electricity demand dynamics under extreme temperature events. Specifically, we incorporate higher-order distributional changes associated with extreme temperatures, illustrating how such conditions result in significantly greater increases in electricity demand compared to normal scenarios--an effect that has been largely overlooked in previous studies. Additionally, we integrate the LHR and LRHR predictors, which are expected to more effectively capture electricity demand dynamics under extreme temperature conditions, into the hazard-to-demand model, a framework not previously explored in the literature. Furthermore, our estimation results remain robust to endogeneity concerns arising from measurement errors in the distributional predictors.
%\indent The estimation results from both models, as presented in Figures \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} and \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}, indicate that the hazard-to-demand model more effectively captures electricity demand dynamics under extreme temperature conditions. In the extreme cold range, the benchmark response function from the hazard-to-demand model (the top left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}) remains non-decreasing, except below $-16.2$°C, a threshold not observed in historical cold wave events. In contrast, the benchmark response function from the density-to-demand model (the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}) begins to decline at $-13.3$°C, suggesting an implausible reduction in electricity demand under extreme cold temperatures. Similarly, in the extreme heat range, the hazard-to-demand model demonstrates a steeper increase in demand, surpassing the growth rate implied by the density-to-demand model. While both models consistently show that cold waves result in greater demand increases than heat waves, the density-to-demand model exhibits excessive sensitivity, predicting disproportionately large demand fluctuations in response to imperceptibly small temperature variations (e.g., 0.1°C) under extreme cold conditions. In contrast, the hazard-to-demand model demonstrates more moderate sensitivity but still exhibits slightly exaggerated responses under extreme cold scenarios. In this context, the benchmark response function estimates from the hazard-to-demand model align more closely with empirical observations from historical heat and cold wave events.
The estimation results from both models, as presented in Figures \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} and \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}, indicate that the benchmark response function from the hazard-to-demand model more effectively captures electricity demand dynamics under extreme temperature conditions than that of the density-to-demand model. In the extreme cold range, the benchmark response function from the hazard-to-demand model (top left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}) remains non-decreasing, except below $-16.2$°C, a threshold not observed in historical cold wave events. In contrast, the benchmark response function from the density-to-demand model (left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}) begins to decline at $-13.3$°C, suggesting an implausible reduction in electricity demand under extreme cold temperatures. Similarly, in the extreme heat range, the benchmark response function from the hazard-to-demand model suggests a steeper increase in demand, surpassing the growth rate implied by that of the density-to-demand model.
While benchmark response functions from both models consistently show that cold waves result in greater demand increases than heat waves, that of the density-to-demand model exhibits excessive sensitivity, predicting disproportionately large demand fluctuations in response to imperceptibly small temperature variations (e.g., 0.1°C) under extreme cold conditions. In contrast, the benchmark response function from the hazard-to-demand model under extreme cold scenarios demonstrates more moderate sensitivity but still exhibits slightly larger responses compared to extreme heat scenarios. In this context, the hazard-to-demand model aligns more closely with empirical observations from historical heat and cold wave events.
%\indent It is important to note that both the density-to-demand and hazard-to-demand models capture the incremental effects of extreme heat on electricity demand, whereas the benchmark response function \( \widetilde{\psi}(s) \) fails to capture such effects as temperature approaches extreme heat. This suggests that distributional characteristics associated with heat wave events, such as a more right-skewed but less peaked distributional change, further amplify electricity demand in a nonlinear manner. In contrast, incorporating the distributional characteristics of historical cold wave events into the benchmark response function does not qualitatively affect its overall shape.
\indent In the reported estimation results for the functional shocks generated from the observed cold and heat waves (the right panels of Figures \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} and \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}), it is important to note that both the density-to-demand and hazard-to-demand models capture the incremental effects of extreme heat on electricity demand, whereas the benchmark response function \( \widetilde{\psi}(s) \) from either of the models fails to capture such effects as temperature approaches extreme heat. This suggests that distributional characteristics associated with heat wave events, such as a more right-skewed distributional change with significantly reduced kurtosis, further amplify electricity demand in a nonlinear manner. In contrast, incorporating distributional characteristics of historical cold wave events, such as significantly increased variance, into the benchmark response function does not qualitatively affect its overall shape.
%\indent The hazard-to-demand model provides a more precise framework for analyzing the impact of extreme temperature events on electricity demand. Unlike the PDF, which considers the entire temperature distribution and consequently may dilute the influence of rare but critical extreme events that will occur as tail events, the LHR predictor imposes substantial importance on tail events, as obviously shown by its construction. This allows for a more targeted analysis, focusing on the likelihood of temperatures persisting within an extreme range given that they have already exceeded a critical threshold (e.g., -15°C or 35°C). By emphasizing tail events, the LHR approach enhances the reliability of demand estimations under extreme temperature conditions.
Based on the derived implications above, the hazard-to-demand model appears to provide an empirically more sensible framework for analyzing the impact of extreme temperature events on electricity demand. This may be because, unlike the PDF, which considers the entire temperature distribution and may consequently dilute the influence of rare but critical extreme events that occur as tail events, the LHR predictor assigns substantial importance to tail events, as is evident from its construction. This allows for a more targeted analysis, focusing on the likelihood of temperatures persisting within an extreme range given that they have already exceeded a critical threshold (e.g., -15°C or 35°C). By emphasizing tail events, the LHR approach enhances the reliability of demand estimations under extreme temperature conditions.
\indent An essential factor in extreme temperature analysis would be the cumulative temperature effect, wherein prolonged exposure to high or low temperatures significantly increases electricity demand for cooling or heating, even if the actual temperature remains unchanged. This phenomenon results in an apparent paradox where electricity demand continues to rise despite stable temperature levels, as extended exposure amplifies the need for indoor climate control. For instance, during a heatwave, electricity demand increases not only due to immediate high temperatures but also because prolonged exposure intensifies cooling requirements. In this context, the PDF, which captures only the relative frequency of temperatures without considering exposure duration, may exhibit weaker comovement with electricity demand, particularly under extreme conditions. Conversely, the LHR framework, which inherently accounts for the persistence of extreme temperature states, is expected to provide a more robust methodological foundation for assessing the dynamic relationship between extreme temperature events and electricity demand.
\indent It might be of interest to consider quantile function corresponding to $\phi_t$ as the distributional predictor in our DSR model. The model with the quantile function predictor shares a conceptual similarity with the density-to-demand and hazard-to-demand models in that all three utilize the distributional properties of temperature as predictive variables. However, these models differ fundamentally in their interpretation of the demand response function \( f \). In the density-to-demand and hazard-to-demand models, the kernel-weighted benchmark response function \( \widetilde{\psi}(s) \) measures the impact of more frequently occurring temperatures around a given temperature level \( s \in [-20,40] \), either unconditionally or conditionally, while allowing for potential variations in associated temperature quantiles. In contrast, a similar quantity, which can similarly be defined in the quantile-to-demand model, represents the effect of changes around the \( s \)-quantile, where \( s \in [0,1] \), with the corresponding temperature level varying due to monthly (seasonal) fluctuations. % For example, note that the \( s \)-quantile in a summer month is significantly higher than in a winter month. Thus the benchmark response function measures the effect of changes of various temperature levels corresponding to the $s$-quantile and its around.
%Note that, for example, the \( s \)-quantile in a summer month is significantly higher than in a winter month. In other words, the \( s \)-quantile fluctuates seasonally, and \( f(s) \) captures the impact of changes in this \( s \)-quantile across the months of the year. % Due to this difference, the quantile-to-demand model may reveal new empirical findings that are not clearly captured by the density-to-demand model or provide evidence that reinforces findings from the density-to-demand model. % 서교수~! GoodGood! please go ahead!
%\commWK{We now consider the quantile-to-demand model, which involves the predictor of temperature quantile functions. This model shares similarities with the density-to-demand model in that both use the distributional properties of temperature as a predictor. However, a significant difference lies in the interpretation of the demand response function \( f \). Specifically, the response function \( f(s) \) in the temperature density-to-demand model accounts for the effect of the relatively more frequent occurrence of temperatures around the level \( s \), while allowing for possible changes in temperature quantiles associated with this variation. In contrast, the response function in the temperature quantile-to-demand model measures the effect of changes in the \( 100s\% \) quantile, with the corresponding temperature level varying. For example, the \( 100s\% \) quantile in a summer month will be significantly higher than in a winter month. Because of this distinction, the quantile-to-demand model may reveal new empirical findings that are not clearly captured by the density-to-demand model or provide evidence that reinforces findings from the density-to-demand model.}
%second??? \commWK{The quantile-to-demand model, which utilizes temperature quantile functions as predictors, shares a similarity with the density-to-demand model in relying on temperature’s distributional properties to explain electricity demand. However, these models differ significantly in their interpretation of the demand response function. The density-to-demand model evaluates the impact of more frequently occurring temperatures around a specific level $s$, with $s \in [-20,40]$. In contrast, the quantile-to-demand model focuses on changes in the $\alpha$-quantile, where $\alpha \in [0,1]$, with the corresponding temperature level varying according to seasonal variations in temperature \footnote{For example, the \( \alpha\% \) quantile in a summer month will be significantly higher than in a winter month.} Thus, the effect of any change in $\alpha$-quantile aggregates seasonal variations of the demand responses according to of electricity demand caused by in aggregates seasonal variation of the electricity demand caused by the effect and thus reflecting seasonal variations in temperature levels. This distinction may position the quantile-to-demand model as effective for analyzing demand responses under extreme temperature events, such as heat waves, where the relevance of past temperature patterns captured by the density function may diminish. Despite a potentially lower model fit, the quantile-to-demand model would provide interesting insights into heterogeneous demand shifts under extreme conditions.}
%(Older version) Some might wonder if the quantile function models \commWK{capture} extreme temperature events more effectively than the density function. Specifically, the difference lies in how each approach handles the heterogeneous impact of temperature on electricity demand. The temperature density-to-demand model accounts for the varying influence of each temperature level on demand, whereas the temperature quantile-to-demand model considers the heterogeneous effects of temperature quantiles on demand. As a result, while the density function may more accurately capture the average fluctuations in electricity demand, the quantile function, despite its relatively lower model fit, may be better suited to explaining demand responses under extreme temperature conditions. For instance, during a heat wave, where consumers face unprecedented temperatures, the relevance of past temperature impacts (as modeled by the density function) may diminish, making the quantile function more effective in modeling demand changes at extreme temperatures. In addition, the quantile function would better manage the heterogeneous support of the temperature density function.
%\indent In this context, we further examine the impact of temperature quantiles on electricity demand during extreme weather events by estimating the quantile-to-demand model. Note that \( f(s) \) represents the effect of changes in the \( s \)-quantile and can be estimated as \( \hat{f}(s) \) (see the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}) using a kernel function around \( s \). This quantity captures the marginal impact of changes in a specific quantile while holding others constant, analogous to a linear regression model in a finite-dimensional setting. However, in practice, independent shifts in individual quantiles are implausible, leading to interpretational ambiguities and a weaker connection to extreme temperature events. To address this, we instead examine the effects of quantile shocks, denoted as \( \zeta_a \), which provide a more interpretable framework. Specifically, we define the total quantile change induced by a shock \( \zeta_a \) as \( Q > 0 \), capturing the cumulative effect of quantile adjustments. For the heat wave scenario, where \( a \in [0.5,0.95] \), we introduce a shock by increasing all \( s \)-quantiles with \( s \geq 0.5 \) uniformly while maintaining the total quantile change at \( Q \). Formally, we define $\zeta_{0.5}(s) = Q \times 1\{0.5\leq s \leq 1\} / (1-0.5)$, distributing \( Q \) across the specified interval. As \( a \) increases, the total quantile shift becomes more concentrated in the upper quantiles, following $\zeta_{a}(s) = Q \times 1\{a\leq s \leq 1\} / (1-a)$. Conversely, in the cold wave scenario, where \( a \in [0.05,0.5] \), we consider a total quantile decrease of \( -Q \), distributing it over the interval \( [0,a] \) as $\zeta_a(s) = - Q \times 1\{0 \leq s \leq a\} / a$. As \( a \) decreases, the quantile shift is increasingly concentrated in the lower quantiles. By analyzing the function \( \hat{f}(\zeta_a) \) for various \( \zeta_a \) in both scenarios, we assess how electricity demand responds to quantile shocks concentrated at different parts of the distribution.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_desc1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth, width=0.5\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Sensitivity.png}
\caption{Estimated quantile-based benchmark response function, truncated within the [0.05, 0.95] range, with dotted lines representing the 95\% confidence intervals.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%\indent In this context, we further examine the impact of temperature quantiles on electricity demand during extreme weather events by estimating the quantile-to-demand model. Notably, the benchmark temperature quantile response function in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} remains largely insignificant, except within the 0.63 to 0.87 quantile range for $\kappa=1$. This contrasts with the temperature density and LHR sensitivity presented in the left panels of Figures \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} and \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}. The temperature quantile time series exhibits a monthly pattern, with lower values in winter and higher values in summer, whereas residential electricity demand exhibits a dual-peak structure, rising sharply in both summer and winter. This divergence introduces nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature and electricity demand, as an increase in temperature quantile time series simultaneously reduces heating demand while increasing cooling demand. Consequently, unlike an increase in the temperature density or LHR time series, which is unambiguously associated with higher cooling (heating) demand around 40°C (-20°C), applying fixed-quantile shocks in the quantile-to-demand framework would result in ambiguous slope estimates due to these offsetting effects. Similarly, incorporating the distributional characteristics into the quantile shocks in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} would not change the result of producing insignificant or ambiguous temperature sensitivity.
To illustrate the difference between the quantile-to-demand model and the previously considered models, we additionally examine the impact of temperature quantiles on electricity demand during extreme weather events by estimating the quantile-to-demand model, a more detailed description of which is provided in Section \ref{app_quantile} of the Appendix. Notably, the benchmark response function from the quantile-to-demand model, reported in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}, remains largely insignificant, except within the 0.63 to 0.87 quantile range for $\kappa=1$. This contrasts with the temperature density and LHR sensitivity presented in the left panels of Figures \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} and \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}. The temperature quantile time series exhibits a monthly pattern, with lower values in winter and higher values in summer, whereas residential electricity demand exhibits a dual-peak structure, rising sharply in both summer and winter. This divergence introduces nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature and electricity demand, as an increase in temperature quantile time series simultaneously reduces heating demand while increasing cooling demand. Consequently, unlike an increase in the temperature density or LHR time series, which is unambiguously associated with higher cooling (heating) demand around 40°C (-20°C), applying fixed-quantile shocks in the quantile-to-demand framework would result in ambiguous slope estimates due to these offsetting effects. Similarly, incorporating the distributional characteristics into the quantile shocks in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} would not change the result of producing insignificant or ambiguous temperature sensitivity.
%\commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)}
%\begin{figure}[t]
%\begin{center}
% \includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.66\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock.png}
% \includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.33\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock_Progress.png}
% \caption{Estimated quantile functions and functional shocks for cold wave (left) and heat wave (middle), and the progression of functional quantile shocks (right), transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
% \label{Fig:Quantile_Shock}
%\end{center}
%\end{figure}
%\indent Focusing on the temperature effects under extreme condition as in the Section \ref{DtoD_Rlt}, the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} illustrates the quantile shocks for the cold wave, where the impact is most pronounced in the lower quantiles, especially those associated with the coldest temperatures. This reflects that the January 2021 cold wave caused a significant downward shift in the quantile function compared to January 2020, with the most substantial changes at the lowest quantiles. On the middle panel, the quantile shocks for the heat wave reveal a more uniform increase across the quantiles, with a greater effect at the higher quantiles. This suggests that the August 2018 heat wave led to a consistent rise in temperatures, primarily intensifying the highest quantile events. The right panel of the figure presents the progression of the heat wave and cold wave shocks, as depicted in Figures \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} - \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}, transformed into their respective quantile functions.
%\indent Table \ref{tab:Quant_est} presents the estimation results from the quantile-to-demand model with 95\% local confidence intervals. Note that the demand response estimates for both cold wave and heat wave shocks, as presented in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock}, are statistically insignificant for the majority of the generated functional shocks. Therefore, we report the empirical results only for severe functional shocks. Under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$, the demand response to a cold wave shock, modeled using orthonormal Fourier basis functions, is estimated at -0.0417 and -0.0645, corresponding to a 4.17\% reduction in demand or an insignificant impact. Similarly, the demand response to a heat wave shock is estimated at -0.0258 and 0.0681, indicating a 2.58\% reduction in demand or a statistically insignificant effect. These findings may imply that the quantile-to-demand model, which may be more robust to measurement error, appears to have inherent limitations in capturing the nonlinear temperature effects due to the aforementioned two counteracting forces. Lastly, the RMSE values from the quantile-to-demand model are 0.0933 and 0.1375 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively. These results indicate a decline in the goodness of fit compared to the density-to-demand model.
%\begin{table}[t]
%\centering
%\caption{Estimation results for quantile-to-demand model}
%\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|c}
% \hline
% & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for CW} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for HW} & \\
% \hline
% & Est & 95\% C.I. & Est & 95\% C.I. & RMSE \\
% \hline
% $\kappa=0$ & -0.0417 & (-0.0783, -0.0051) & -0.0258 & (-0.0424, -0.0092) & 0.0933\\
% $\kappa=1$ & -0.0645 & (-0.1803,0.0513) & 0.0681 & (-0.0081,0.1442) & 0.1375 \\
% \hline
%\end{tabular}%
%\label{tab:Quant_est}%
%\end{table}%
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Concluding Remarks}\label{Sec_conclude}
\noindent In this paper, we study the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand using distributional predictors of temperature, which are likely to contain measurement errors. Given that residential electricity demand is highly sensitive to temperature fluctuations, accurately capturing these nonlinearities is critical, especially during extreme temperature events where underestimation could jeopardize grid stability. Additionally, measurement errors may stem from the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature distributions represent true distributions, compounded by data quality issues and limitations within the estimation process.
\indent We address these challenges by applying our DSR framework with distributional predictors. This approach allows for the effective identification of nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature distribution and electricity demand, even in the presence of measurement errors. Through the analysis of historical heat wave and cold wave shocks of varying intensities within a distributional context, we find that the hazard-to-demand model more reliably captures nonlinear temperature sensitivity than the density-to-demand model, particularly in extreme conditions. Our results indicate that residential electricity demand is significantly more sensitive to intense cold waves, with demand increasing sharply as temperatures decline. However, as cold wave severity intensifies, the rate of electricity demand growth diminishes, whereas for heat waves, demand growth accelerates with increasing intensity. %Furthermore, the temperature quantile-to-demand model fails to produce economically meaningful estimates.
\indent Given our findings, energy practitioners should prioritize incorporating detailed temperature distribution analysis, particularly when planning for extreme weather events. Our empirical findings suggest that residential electricity demand exhibits greater sensitivity to cold waves compared to heat waves, albeit with a slower rate of increase in demand, highlighting the need for advanced demand estimating models that account for these nonlinear sensitivities. Moreover, it is crucial to address potential measurement errors by adopting robust econometric techniques, in order to ensure that demand response strategies are based on accurate and reliable estimates. Our econometric approach would enhance grid stability and support effective energy management during extreme temperature events.
\bigskip
%\section*{Disclosure Statement}
%\noindent The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
%%%%%%%%% BIBLIOGRAPHY %%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv} %chicago,elsarticle-harv...ecta, econometrica...informs2014
\bibliography{FRKETQ_P3/FRKET_biblio}
\bigskip
\appendix\label{Sec_Append}
\newpage
\section{Technical Appendix}\label{sec_app_est}
This technical appendix provides a detailed discussion of the asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator along with the necessary mathematical preliminaries.
\subsection{Mathematical preliminaries} \label{sec_app_prelim}
This section briefly reviews essential mathematical concepts for the proposed estimator and introduce notation.
Let $\mathcal H_1$ be a separable Hilbert space with inner product $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_1$ and norm $\|\cdot\|_1$. A $\mathcal H_1$-valued random variable $Z$ is defined as a measurable map from the underlying probability space to $\mathcal H_1$. Such a random element $Z$ is said to be square-integrable if $\mathbb{E}[\|Z\|_1^2]<\infty$. Let $\mathcal H_2$ be another such Hilbert space; in the context of our DSR model, a relevant example of $\mathcal H_2$ is either $\mathcal H_1$ or $\mathbb{R}$ as Euclidean 1-space. We let $\otimes$ denote the tensor product associated with $\mathcal H_1$ and $\mathcal H_2$; more specifically, for any $\zeta_1 \in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$,
\begin{equation*}
\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2 (\cdot) = \langle \zeta_1,\cdot \rangle_1 \zeta_2;
\end{equation*}
note that $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2$ is a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$. For any mean-zero square-integrable random elements $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, $\mathbb{E}[Z_1 \otimes Z_2]$, defined as a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$, is called the (cross-)covariance of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. We call $A:\mathcal H_1 \mapsto \mathcal H_2$ a bounded linear map if $A$ is a linear map and its operator norm, defined as $\|A\|_{\op}=\sup_{\|\zeta\|_1\leq 1} \|A\zeta\|_2$, is finite. For any bounded linear map $A$, we let $A^\ast$ be the adjoint map defined by the property $\langle A\zeta_1,\zeta_2 \rangle_2=\langle \zeta_1,A^\ast\zeta_2 \rangle_1$ for all $\zeta_1\in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$. We say that $A$ is a compact operator if $\mathcal H_1=\mathcal H_2$ and there exist orthonormal bases $\{\zeta_{1,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $\{\zeta_{2,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ such that $A = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j \zeta_{1,j} \otimes \zeta_{2,j}$ with $a_j$ tending to zero as $j$ increases; in this expression, if $A$ is self-adjoint ($A=A^\ast$) and nonnegative ($\langle A\zeta,\zeta \rangle_1\geq 0$), it may be assumed that $a_j\geq 0$ and $\zeta_{1,j}=\zeta_{2,j}$, and furthermore they are understood as the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors. A compact operator $A$ is Hilbert-Schmidt if $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{\zeta_j\}_{j\geq1}$, and in this case, the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\|A\|_{\HS}$ is defined as $\|A\|_{\HS}= \sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2}$. It is well known that $\|A\|_{\op} \leq \|A\|_{\HS}$ (see e.g., \citealp{Bosq2000}, (1.55)).
\subsection{Equivalent formulation of the proposed estimator} \label{sec_app_est_1}
Our estimator, discussed in Section \ref{Sec_Model}, is a suitable adaptation of the functional IV estimator proposed by \cite{seong2021functional} for our DSR model. First, observe that for an IV $Z_t$ satisfying \eqref{eqreg3}, the following can directly be deduced from \eqref{eqreg2}: $C_{Zy} = fC_{XZ}^\ast$, where $C_{Zy} = \mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (y_t-\mathbb{E}[y_t])]$. This in turn leads to the following identity:
\begin{align} \label{eqpopulation}
C_{Zy}C_{XZ} = f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ},
\end{align}
where $C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes u_t]=0$.
As in \cite{seong2021functional}, where the FFR model is studied, we construct an estimator that mimics the population relationship \eqref{eqpopulation}. We first replace $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ in \eqref{eqpopulation} with their sample counterparts $\widehat C_{Zy} =T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T)\otimes (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$, where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$, and $\widehat C_{XZ}$, which is introduced in Section \ref{Sec_Model}. Noting that $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ is not invertible (see e.g., \citealp{Benatia2017}), we employ a regularized inverse of $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ to compute an estimator from the sample equation. Specifically, %as in \cite{seong2021functional},
we consider a rank-regularized inverse $(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eqregul}
(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\hat{\lambda}_j^{-2}} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where, for $\alpha$ tending to zero, $\KK$ is determined as
\begin{equation} \label{eqchoicek}
\KK = \max_{j\geq 1} \{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}.
\end{equation}
Note that $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ becomes the $\KK$-dimensional projection $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j$. Regularized inverses, similar to \eqref{eqregul}, are widely used in the literature on the functional linear model (see, e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional,seo2024optimal}). The estimator $\hat{f}$ is constructed as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$
\begin{align} \label{eqest1}
\hat{f} (x)= \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (x).
\end{align}
Using \eqref{eqregul} and the definitions of the operators above, along with some algebra, it can be shown that \eqref{eqest1} is equivalent to the expression given in \eqref{eqest}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem1}
The choice $\KK$ in \eqref{eqchoicek} is adopted from \cite{seong2021functional} concerning the FFR model. Based on this choice, we study the asymptotic properties of our estimator. Of course, with only a minor modification, it is possible to extend the desired asymptotic results, which will be discussed, for an alternative choice of $\KK$, such as $\KK = m + \max_{j\geq 1}\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for some finite $m$. This choice may be preferred when researchers want to retain at least $m$ eigenelements for estimation. The case with $m=1$ also has some theoretical justification, given that we need at least one eigenelement for the proposed estimator to be well defined for every $T$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Consistency and asymptotic normality}\label{sec_app_est_2}
This section establishes the consistency and asymptotic normality of the proposed estimator, both of which are fundamental to our empirical analysis in Section \ref{Sec_Empirics}.
\subsubsection{Sone notational and theoretical simplifications}\label{sec_app_est2a}
%For notational convenience, we hereafter let $\langle \zeta_1,\zeta_2 \rangle$ denote the inner product of $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ regardless of the Hilbert space where $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ take values. Since the inner product is defined for the elements in the same space, there is no risk of confusion. Similarly we let $\|\zeta_1\|$ denote the norm of $\zeta_1$ in any Hilbert space. Subsequently, the considered Hilbert space is either $L^2[a,b]$ (the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$) or Euclidean 1-space $\mathbb{R}$. If $\zeta_1 \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathbb{R}$, then $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2$ is understood as the scalar multiplication map defined by $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2(x) = \zeta_1 \zeta_2 x$. Similarly, we may define $\mathbb{E}[u_t\otimes u_t]$, which is defined as the map $\mathbb{R} \ni x \mapsto \sigma^2_u x \in \mathbb{R}$. For any linear operator $A$, $\|A\|_{\op}$ (resp.\ $\|A\|_{\HS}$) denotes the operator norm (Hilbert-Schmidt) norm, regardless of where $A$ act on; in fact in Euclidean 1-space, these norms are trivially determined since any linear operator on $\mathbb{R}$ is a scalar multiplication.\footnote{Any linear operator $A$ on $\mathbb{R}$ must be a scalar multiplication given by $x \mapsto ax$ for some $a$, then $\|A\|_{\op}= \|A\|_{\HS} = |a|$}
For notational convenience, we hereafter let $\|\zeta_1\|$ denote the norm of $\zeta_1$ regardless of the Hilbert space in which $\zeta_1$ takes values. There is little risk of confusion following this simplification since, in the sequel, the considered Hilbert space is either $L^2[a,b]$ (the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$) or Euclidean 1-space $\mathbb{R}$. For any linear operator $A_T$ and a nonnegative real number $B_T$ depending on $T$, we let $A_T = O_p(B_T)$ (resp.\ $A_T = o_p(B_T)$) if $\|A_T\|_{\op}$ is $O_p(B_T)$ (resp.\ $o_p(B_T))$ whenever it is convenient as in \citet[Supplementary material]{seo2020functional}.
We subsequently consider the case where \( y_t \), \( X_t \), and \( Z_t \) have zero means, which reduces the regression model \eqref{eqreg1} to \( y_t = f(X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t \). Under this simplification, the population (e.g., \( C_{XZ} \)) and sample covariance operators (e.g., \( \widehat{C}_{XZ} \)) introduced in Section \ref{sec_method} are naturally interpreted as being defined without centering or demeaning the associated variables. As earlier discussed by \cite{seong2021functional}, extending the subsequent results to cases where the means are unknown and must be estimated requires only minor modifications, such as replacing variables with their centered or demeaned counterparts. Consequently, we omit these details.
%the consistency and local asymptotic normality to be established remain unchanged with or without this simplification.
\subsubsection{Assumptions and main results}
It turns out that $ C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast $ are self-adjoint, nonnegative and compact (see \citealp{Bosq2000}, p.\ 117). We thus hereafter let
\begin{equation*}
C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 g_j \otimes g_j, \quad C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 h_j \otimes h_j,
\end{equation*}
where $\lambda_j$, $g_j$, and $h_j$ are relevant eigenelements (see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}). Let $C_{ZZ}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes Z_t]$, $\sigma_u^2=\mathbb{E}[u_t^2]$ and $C_{Zu}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]$. We let $\widehat{C}_{ZZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{Zu}$ be defined as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{C}_{ZZ}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes Z_t, \quad %\widehat{C}_{uu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T u_t\otimes u_t, \quad
\widehat{C}_{Zu}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes u_t,
\end{equation*}
which may be understood as the sample counterparts of $C_{ZZ}$ and $C_{Zu}$. We employ the following assumptions: below, $\mathfrak{F}_t$ denotes the natural filtration given by $\sigma(\{Z_s\}_{s\leq t+1}, \{u_s\}_{s\leq t})$ and let $\tau_j = 2\sqrt{2} \max\{ (\lambda_{j-1}^2-\lambda_j^2)^{-1}, (\lambda_{j}^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2)^{-1} \}$ as in \cite{seong2021functional}.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum1}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item Equation \eqref{eqreg2} holds; \item $\{X_t,Z_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is stationary and geometrically strongly mixing, $\mathbb{E}[\|X_t\|^2] < \infty$, and $\mathbb{E}[\|Z_t\|^2] < \infty$; \item $\mathbb{E}[u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=0$, $\mathbb{E}[u_t^2|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=\sigma_u^2$, and, for some $\delta>0$, $\sup_{1\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}[\|u_t\|^{2+\delta}|\mathfrak F_{t-1}] < \infty$; \item $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|f(b_j)\|^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{b_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ of $\mathcal H$; \item $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ}-{C}_{XZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{ZZ}-{C}_{ZZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and $\|\widehat{C}_{Zu}-{C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$; \item $\ker C_{XZ}=\{0\}$; \item \label{eq001a1}$\lambda_1^2 > \lambda_2^2 > \cdots > 0$; \item \label{eq001a2}$T^{-1}\alpha^{-1} \to 0$ and $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \to_p 0$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum1} are adapted from Assumptions M and E of \cite{seong2021functional} studying the FFR model, and similar assumptions have been employed in the literature on the FSR model (see e.g., \citealp{Hall2007}). Condition \ref{eq001a2} is a technical requirement that $\alpha$ decay at an appropriate rate depending on the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j\}$ and $T$. This subtle requirement on $\alpha$ may be relaxed if some additional (but still standard in the literature on the functional linear model) assumptions on the decay rate of $\lambda_j^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2$ as a function of $j$ are employed. For example, if Assumption \ref{assum2}, which is to appear, is satisfied, then it is straightforward to see that the consistency result given in Proposition \ref{prop1} can be established with e.g., \( \alpha^{-1} = o(T^{1/4}) \), without requiring Assumption \ref{assum1}\ref{eq001a2} (see Remark \ref{remrate} in Section \ref{sec_math}).
%it is common to assume that $\lambda_j^2 - \lambda_{j+1}^2$ is eventually convex and bounded above by $O(j^{\gamma})$ for some $\gamma > 3$ (see Assumption 2 below and also Assumption E2 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). In this case, $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\KK4)$ the assumption
We next present the consistency result, which elaborates on Proposition \ref{prop1} given in Section \ref{Sec_Model}:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop1a}
Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}, $\|\hat{f} - f\|_{\op} \to_p 0$.
\end{proposition}
We next obtain the asymptotic normality result \eqref{eqlocal} for any specified $\zeta \in \mathcal H$. To this end, we employ the following assumptions: below, we let $\upsilon_{t}(j,\ell) = \langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle -\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle]$ for $j,\ell \geq 1$. % and $\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle \tilde{\zeta}, {C}_{ZZ} \tilde{\zeta} \rangle$, where $\tilde{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle {g}_j,\zeta \rangle {C}_{XZ}({g}_j)$.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum2} For some $c_\circ>0$, $\rho>2$, $\varsigma>1/2$, $\delta_{\zeta}>1/2$ and $m>1$, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\lambda_j^2 \leq c_\circ j^{-\rho}$; \item \label{assum2b} $\lambda_j^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2 \geq c_\circ j^{-\rho-1}$; \item \label{assum2b2} $\|f(g_j)\| \leq c_\circ j^{-\varsigma}$; \item \label{assum2c} $\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t(j,\ell)\upsilon_{t-s}(j,\ell)] \leq c_\circ s^{-m}\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t^2(j,\ell)]$ for $s\geq 1$, and furthermore, $\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle^4]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$ and $\mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t,h_j \rangle^4]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$; \item \label{assum2c2} $\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle \leq c_\circ j^{-\delta_{\zeta}}$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The above assumptions are obvious adaptation of the conditions given by \cite{Hall2007} and \cite{seong2021functional}, which seem to be standard in the literature. Particularly, \cite{seong2021functional} established useful asymptotic results for the FFR model under assumptions similar to Assumption \ref{assum2}, and some of these asymptotic results are used to study the asymptotic properties of our estimator. In order to establish the asymptotic normality result, we need more conditions, which are stated below:
\begin{assumption}\label{assum3}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\alpha^{-1} = o(T^{1/3})$; \item \label{assum3b} $\varsigma + \delta_{\zeta} > \rho/2+2$, $2\delta_{\zeta} \geq \rho+1$ and $T \alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho} = O(1)$; \item\label{assum3c} ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle \to_p \infty$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption} Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3b} requires $f$ and $\zeta$ to be sufficiently smooth with respect to the eigenvectors $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ so that the entire map or element can be well approximated by those eigenvectors; this is a standard requirement in asymptotic analysis in the literature on the functional linear model (see e.g., \citealp{seong2021functional} and reference therein). Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3c} requires a certain quantity depending on $\zeta$ to diverge to infinity. This condition is expected to be satisfied for many possible choices of $\zeta$ (see Section 3.2 of \citealp{Carrasco2007}; Remark 4 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). Although the desired asymptotic normality result is established under these requirements, a weaker version of \eqref{eqlocal}, with \( f(\zeta) \) replaced by \( f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta) \), still holds without requiring that these conditions be satisfied, as long as \( \alpha \) decays at a sufficiently slow rate. This allows for statistical inference on $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$. As discussed by \citet[Section 3.2]{seong2021functional}, $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ may be understood as the best linear approximation of $\zeta$ based on the covariation of $X_t$ and $Z_t$, thus this weaker result still provides interpretable insights for practitioners.
The desired asymptotic normality result is given as follows:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop2} Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation*}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (y_t-\hat{f}(X_t))^2$ and $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{proposition}
With some algebra, it can be shown that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, as given in Proposition \ref{prop2} can be written as
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t\rangle\right)^2,
\end{equation*}
which corresponds to \eqref{eqtheta} without demeaning the variables.
\subsubsection{Mathematical proofs} \label{sec_math}
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop1a}}
Using \eqref{eqreg2} and the expression given in \eqref{eqest1}, the proposed estimator $\hat{f}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{f} = \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} + \widehat{C}_{Zu} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag, \label{eq:b0}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat \Pi_{\KK}= \sum_{j=1} ^{\KK} \widehat g_j \otimes \widehat g_j$ as earlier introduced.
%Under our assumptions, we apply the central limit theorem for strongly mixing sequences (see, e.g., \citeauthor{heyde1974central}, \citeyear{heyde1974central}) and for martingale difference sequences to find that
% $ T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\langle x_t,w_1 \rangle \langle z_t,w_2 \rangle - \langle \mathcal C_{xz} w_1, w_2 \rangle \right) $ and $T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle $ converge in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1,w_2 \in \mathcal H$.
% \begin{align}\label{pfresult2}
% \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle
% \end{align}
%converges in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1$ and $w_2$.
% Then, by applying Theorem 3 of \citet[Chapter 1]{skorohod2001}, it can be shown that
% \begin{align}
% \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T (x_t \otimes z_t - \mathcal C_{xz}) = O_p(1)\quad\text{and}\quad \quad \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T z_t \otimes u_t = O_p(1); \label{eqcltref}
% \end{align}
% see also Lemma A.1 of \cite{seo2020functional}.
As shown in the proof of Theorem 1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, we have $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq \alpha^{-1/2}$ and $\|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}. Consequently, we find that
\begin{equation*}
\|\widehat{f} - f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS} \|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
\end{equation*}
We hereafter assume that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ consists of an orthonormal basis; this can simply be achieved by assigning an appropriate vector to each zero eigenvalue with no loss of generality (see e.g., the proof of Lemma A.1 of \citealp{seo2024optimal}). From the properties of the operator norm and the fact that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ is an orthonormal basis, we find the following:
\begin{equation*}
\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} -f\|^2_{\op} \leq \sum_{j=1}^\infty \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f\hat({g}_j)\|^2.
\end{equation*}
Thus, the proof becomes complete if $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j)-f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \to_p 0$ is shown. From
% \begin{equation} \label{eqpf0006add2wadd0}
% \|\widehat{\mathcal A}- \mathcal A \widehat{\Pi}_{\K}\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
% \end{equation}
%the following can be shown by
nearly identical arguments used to derive (8.63) of \cite{Bosq2000}, %and (S2.2) of \cite{seong2021functional},
we find that %and the property of the operator norm such that $\Vert \cdot \Vert_{\op} \leq \Vert \cdot \Vert_{\HS}$:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f({g}_j)\|^2 + O_p(1)\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j.\label{eqpf0006add2wadd}
\end{equation}
Since $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f(g_j)\|^2 < \infty$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}, $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \| f(g_j)|^2$ converges in probability to zero as $T$ gets larger (note that $\KK$ diverges as $T \to \infty$). In addition,
$
\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}\|_{\op} + \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast- C_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\| C_{XZ}\|_{\op} = O_p(T^{-1/2})$ by the properties of the operator norm and Assumption \ref{assum1}. Combining all these results, we find that \eqref{eqpf0006add2wadd} is $o_p(1)$ as desired. \qed
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop2}}
In this proof, we let $g_j^s = \sgn(\langle \hat{g}_j, g_j \rangle)g_j$ as in the proof of Theorem 2 of \cite{seong2021functional}. We also note that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}$ can equivalently
be written as $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle.$
%We let ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$ and $\sigma^2_u = \mathbb{E}[u_t^2]$.
From nearly identical arguments used in the proof of Theorem 2 of \cite{seong2021functional} (particularly, see (S2.4)-(S2.6) and (S2.11) of their paper) and Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum2}, it can be shown that $\alpha \KK^\rho = O_p(1)$ and also
\begin{equation} \label{eqadda0}
\| \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag - {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2}T^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK}\tau_j) \leq O_p(T^{-1/2} \alpha^{-3/2-2/\rho}) = o_p(1).
\end{equation}
%Observe that $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}(\hat{f}-f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}) = \sqrt{1/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t \otimes u_t\right) \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$. Following
%we find the following from \eqref{eqadda0}:
%\begin{equation}
%\hat{f} = \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} + \widehat{C}_{Zu} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag, \label{eq:b0}
%\end{equation}
We observe that
\begin{equation} \label{eqdecom}
\hat{f}(\zeta) -f(\zeta) = (\hat{f}-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK})(\zeta) + f(\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}-\Pi_{\KK})(\zeta) + f(\Pi_{\KK}-I)(\zeta),
\end{equation}
where $\Pi_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} g_j^s \otimes g_j^s$. The first term in \eqref{eqdecom}, $(\hat{f}-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK})(\zeta)$, satisfies the following:
\begin{align} \label{eqconv1}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK})(\zeta)% &= \sqrt{\frac{1}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t \otimes u_t\right) \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta) \\
&=\sqrt{\frac{1}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t \otimes u_t\right) \left({C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag + o_p(1) \right) (\zeta),
%\to_d N(0,1),
\end{align}
where the equality follows from simple algebra (as in \eqref{eq:b0}) and \eqref{eqadda0}. If define $\xi_t = {\sigma_u^{-1}{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}^{-1/2} (Z_t \otimes u_t) {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta)$, then $\sigma_u^{-1} \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)^{-1/2} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t \otimes u_t\right) {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta) = T^{-1/2}\sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t$. Then as can obviously be deduced from (S2.7) and (S2.8) by \cite{seong2021functional}, the above $\{\xi_t\}$ is a martingale difference sequence (w.r.t. $\mathcal F_{t-1})$ and also $\mathbb{E}[\xi_t^2] = 1$. Then, from the employed assumption and the standard central limit theorem for a martingale difference sequence, we find that $ T^{-1/2}\sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t \to_d N(0,1)$, and hence we conclude that
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}(\zeta)-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1).
\end{equation*}
%it can be shown that \begin{equation} \sqrt{\frac{1}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t \otimes u_t\right) {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t. \end{equation}Under the employed assumptions, the sequence $\xi_t$ is a martingale difference, and thus we deduce from the arguments used for (S2.8 Theorem 4 of \cite{seong2021functional}, it can be shown that $T^{-1/2}\sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t \to N(0,\langle C_{uu}, \rangle$where $\mathbb{E}[\xi_t\otimes \xi_t] = {{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}^{-1} (Z_t \otimes u_t) {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta)$, a key input for the above result is that
%To deduce the convergence in distribution, together with \eqref{eqadda0} and Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}, we use nearly identical arguments used to show (S2.8) of \cite{seong2021functional}. %(along with Remark 10 of their paper).
%To add some more details, it can be shown that we may replace $\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta)$ by ${C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta)$ with allowing only asymptotically negligible terms in \eqref{eqconv1}. If we define $\xi_t = {{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}^{-1/2} (Z_t \otimes u_t) {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta)$, then it can be shown that \begin{equation} \sqrt{\frac{1}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t \otimes u_t\right) \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{{\sigma}^2_u T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t. \end{equation}Under the employed assumptions, the sequence $\xi_t$ is a martingale difference, and thus we deduce from the arguments used for (S2.8 Theorem 4 of \cite{seong2021functional}, it can be shown that $T^{-1/2}\sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t \to N(0,\langle C_{uu}, \rangle$where $\mathbb{E}[\xi_t\otimes \xi_t] = {{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}^{-1} (Z_t \otimes u_t) {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta)$, a key input for the above result is that
We then note that the second term in \eqref{eqdecom}, $f(\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}-\Pi_{\KK})(\zeta)$, can be rewritten as $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (A_1+A_2+A_3)$, where $A_1 = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_2 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_3 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(g_j)$. To analyze these terms, we first investigate the stochastic order of the quantity $\langle (\hat{C}_{XZ} -{C_{XZ}}) g_j,h_{\ell}\rangle$. From Assumption \ref{assum2} and nearly identical arguments used in the unnumbered equation between (S2.28) and (S2.29) in \cite{seong2021functional}, the following can be shown:
\begin{equation} \label{eqadd01a}
T\mathbb{E}[\langle (\hat{C}_{XZ} -{C_{XZ}}) g_j,h_{\ell}\rangle^2] \leq \sum_{s=0}^T\mathbb{E}[v_t(j,\ell)v_{t-s}(j,\ell)]\leq O(1) \mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle^2\langle Z_{t},h_{\ell} \rangle^2] = O(\lambda_j\lambda_{\ell}),
\end{equation} where the second inequality follows from Assumption \ref{assum2}\ref{assum2c} and the third inequality follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and Assumption \ref{assum2}\ref{assum2c}. \eqref{eqadd01a} implies that $\langle (\hat{C}_{XZ} -{C_{XZ}}) g_j,h_{\ell}\rangle=O_p(T^{-1/2}\sqrt{\lambda_j \lambda_{\ell}})$. Combining this result with Lemma S1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, we conclude that $\|\hat{v}_j-v_j\|^2 = O_p(T^{-1}j^2)$ holds under Assumption \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}. In turn, from similar arguments used in the proofs of (S2.16) and (S2.33) in \cite{seong2021functional}, the following can also be deduced:
\begin{align*}
\|f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)\|^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{\rho+2-2\varsigma},\\
\langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{\rho+2-2\delta_{\zeta}}.
\end{align*}
Combining these results with the conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum3}, it can be shown (see pp.\ S12-S13 of the Supplementary Material in \citealp{seong2021functional}) that
\begin{equation} \label{eqconv1a}
\sqrt{T}(\|A_1\| + \|A_2\| + \|A_3\|) \leq O_p(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} j^{\rho/2 - \varsigma-\delta + 1}) = O_p(\KK^{\rho/2 - \varsigma-\delta + 2}) = o_p(1),
\end{equation}
where the last equality is deduced from that $\KK \to \infty$ as $T\to \infty$ and $\rho/2 - \varsigma-\delta + 2 < 0$ under Assumption \ref{assum3}.
%where the last equality is deduced from that $\alpha \KK^\rho = O_p(1)$, which we obtained earlier.
%(From these results, it is concluded that $\langle (\hat{\SA} - \SA)v_j,v_{\ell}\rangle = T^{-1/2}\lambda_j^{1/2}\lambda_{\ell}^{1/2}$.
%Combining this result with the employed assumptions and Lemma S1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, $\|\hat{v}_j-v_j\| = O_p(T^{-1/2}j^2)$ can be shown. In turn, the following can also be shown from nearly identical arguments used in the proofs of (S2.16) and (S2.33) of \cite{seong2021functional}:
%\begin{align}
% &\langle \hat{v}_j-v_j,\beta_h\rangle = O_p(T^{-1/2})j^{\rho/2+1-\varsigma}, \label{eqpf07a}\\
% &\langle \hat{v}_j-v_j,\zeta_2\rangle = O_p(T^{-1/2}) j^{ \rho/2 + 1-\delta}.\label{eqpf07b}
%\end{align}
%Combining these results with the conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum3}, it can be shown with nearly identical arguments used in \cite{seong2021functional} that $\|A_1\|, \|A_2\|$ and $\|A_3\|$ are all $O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and,
The third term in \eqref{eqdecom}, $f({\Pi}_{\KK}-I)(\zeta)$, satisfies that
\begin{equation}\label{eqconv1aa}
\|f({\Pi}_{\KK}-I)(\zeta)\|^2\leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|\langle g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(g_j^s) \|^2
\leq O(1)\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma} = O(\KK^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma+1})= O(\alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho}),
\end{equation}
where the second inequality follows from Assumptions \ref{assum2}\ref{assum2b2} and \ref{assum2}\ref{assum2c2}, the first equality follows from the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula for the Riemann zert-function (see, e.g., (5.6) of \citealp{ibukiyama2014euler}) and the second equality follows from the fact that $\alpha \KK^\rho = O_p(1)$.
Therefore, from \eqref{eqconv1a} and \eqref{eqconv1aa}, we find that
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} ({f}\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}-f)(\zeta) = O_p(1/\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}) + O(T^{1/2}\alpha^{(\varsigma+\delta_{\zeta}-1/2)/\rho} /\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}).
\end{equation*}
Under Assumption \ref{assum3}, the above is $o_p(1)$. We therefore conclude that
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}-f)(\zeta) = \sqrt{\frac{T}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)) + o_p(1) \to_d N(0,1).
\end{equation*}
To establish the desired asymptotic normality result, it only remains to show that (i) $\|\hat{\sigma}_u^2- {\sigma}_u^2\| \to_p 0$ and (ii) $\|\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)-\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)\| \to_p 0$. Under the employed assumptions, the former follows directly from the consistency of $\hat{f}$. The latter follows from \eqref{eqadda0}, as discussed by \cite{seong2021functional} in their proof of Theorem 2. \qed % and replacing ${\sigma}_u^2\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)$ with $\hat{\sigma}_u^2\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ does not affect the result given in \eqref{eqconv1}. This follows from arguments nearly identical to those used in the proof of Theorem 2 in \cite{seong2021functional}, and thus the details are omitted. \qed
%and $A_4 = f(\Pi_{\KK}-I) \zeta$, where $\Pi_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} g_j \otimes g_j$ and $g_j^s = \sgn \langle g_j, \hat{g}_j \rangle g_j$.
%From this result, we find that, if $f$ and $\zeta$ are smooth enough with respect to $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ (and thus $\varsigma$ and $\delta_{\zeta}$) are large enough, $\alpha$ is allowed to $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$.
\begin{remark} \label{remrate}
%From our proofs of Propositions \ref{prop1} and \ref{prop2}, $\hat{f}-f$ can be deomposed as follows:
% $\hat{f}-f = O_p(f(\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} - {\Pi}_{\KK})) + O_p(f(I - {\Pi}_{\KK})) + O_p(T^{-1/2}\alpha^{-1/2})$. We first note that
%\begin{align}
%\|f(\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}- {\Pi}_{\KK})\|_{\op}
%&= \|\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \ f(\hat{g}_j-g_j) \otimes \hat{g}_j - \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} f ({g}_j) \otimes ({g}_j-\hat{g}_j)\|_{\op} \notag \\
%&\leq O_p(T^{-1/2}) \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} j^{\rho+1}= O_p(T^{-1/2})\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} j^{\rho/2+1} \notag \\ &\leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\reg^{-1/2-2/\rho}\reg^{1/2+2/\rho}\KK^{\rho/2+2})=O_p(T^{-1/2}\reg^{-1/2-2/\rho}). \label{eqappadd01}
% \end{align}
As shown in the earlier proof of Proposition \ref{prop1a}, under Assumption \ref{assum1}, we have $\|\hat{f}-f\|_{\op} = O_p(\alpha^{-1/2}T^{-1/2}) + O_p(\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f(g_j)\|^2) + O_p(T^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j)$, where the first two terms are $o_p(1)$ as shown in our earlier proof. Suppose further that $\alpha = o(T^{1/4})$ and Assumption \ref{assum2} are satisfied. Then as shown by \cite{seong2021functional}, $\alpha \KK^{\rho} = O_p(1)$, and by combining this result with Assumption \ref{assum2}, we find that
$O_p(T^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j) \leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\sum_{t=1}^{\KK} j^{\rho+1}) = O_p(T^{-1/2} \KK^{\rho+2}) = O_p(T^{-1/2}\alpha^{-(\rho+2)/\rho})$, which is $o_p(1)$ since $\alpha=o(T^{1/4})$ and $\rho>2$.
\end{remark}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Quantile function predictor} \label{app_quantile}
In Section \ref{sec_more}, we considered the quantile-to-demand model for comparison with the density-to-demand and hazard-to-demand models. In the DSR model given in \eqref{eqreg1}, as an alternative to the CLR, LHR, or LRHR predictors, practitioners may consider the quantile function corresponding to $\phi_t$ as the distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$. In this case,
\begin{equation*}
X_t^\circ(r) = \inf \left\{ x \in [a,b] : \int_{a}^{x} \phi_t(s) \, ds \leq r \right\}, \quad r \in [a,b].
\end{equation*}
Like other distributional predictors, the quantile function predictor must be estimated in advance from raw temperature data. This can be done by replacing $\phi_t$ with the estimate $\hat{\phi}_t$ as described in Section \ref{Sec_Data_1}. Alternatively, the quantile function predictor can directly be estimated from the raw temperature data by replacing population quantiles with sample quantiles. Specifically, if \( x_{[j]} \) for \( j=1,\ldots,N_t \) are the ordered (smallest to largest) raw temperature observations at time \( t \), we may define
\begin{equation} \label{qfpredictor}
X_t(r) = x_{[N_t r]} \quad \text{if \( N_t r \) is an integer,}
\end{equation}
for \( r \in [0,1] \). If \( N_t r \) is not an integer, we employ a linear interpolation scheme to estimate values proportionally between neighboring data points. The quantile function predictor $X_t$ constructed in this way may be regarded as a reasonable proxy for $X_t^\circ$. Thus, we estimate the model in \eqref{eqreg2} as in the other DSR models considered in Sections \ref{DtoD_Rlt} and \ref{DtoD_Rlt2}. The results reported in Section \ref{sec_more} are based on the quantile predictor constructed as in \eqref{qfpredictor}.
\end{document}
\documentclass[11pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,amsfonts,amstext}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{mathtools}
%\usepackage[longnamesfirst]{natbib}
\usepackage{natbib}
% \bibpunct[, ]{(}{)}{,}{a}{}{,}%
\def\bibfont{\small}%
\def\bibsep{\smallskipamount}%
\def\bibhang{24pt}%
\def\newblock{\ }%
\def\BIBand{and}%
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{cancel}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttable}
\appto\TPTnoteSettings{\linespread{1}\footnotesize} % small text if *not* flushleft
\makeatletter %small text if flushleft
\g@addto@macro\TPT@defaults{\linespread{1}\footnotesize}
\makeatother
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\sisetup{group-digits = true,
group-separator = {,}, % default: \, (thinspace)
round-mode = places,
round-precision = 3 }
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{thrmappendix}
\usepackage{alltt}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{accents}
%\usepackage{hypernat}
\usepackage{mathtools,dsfont}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\definecolor{blue(pigment)}{rgb}{0.2, 0.2, 0.6}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
filecolor=magenta,
urlcolor=cyan,
citecolor=blue(pigment),
}
\usepackage[capitalize,noabbrev]{cleveref}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage[inline,shortlabels]{enumitem}
\newtoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}\toggletrue{SUPPLEMENTAL}
\togglefalse{SUPPLEMENTAL} %COMMENT OUT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
\newcommand{\Supplemental}[2]{\iftoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}{#1}{#2}}
\newtoggle{BLINDED}\toggletrue{BLINDED}
\togglefalse{BLINDED} %COMMENT OUT FOR BLINDED VERSION
\newcommand{\Blinded}[2]{\iftoggle{BLINDED}{#1}{#2}}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.8in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.01in}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newtheorem{axi}{Axiom}[section]
\renewcommand{\theassumption}{A\arabic{assumption}}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[]
\newtheorem{lemma}[]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[]
\newtheorem{example}{Example}[]
\newcommand{\pconv}{\xrightarrow{p}}
\newcommand{\dconv}{\xrightarrow{d}}
\newcommand{\avgt}{\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T}
\newcommand{\avgn}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}}
\newcommand{\tr}{^{\top}}
\newcommand{\KK}{{\rm K}}
\newcommand{\HH}{{\rm F}}
\newcommand{\PP}{{\rm P}}
\newcommand{\QQ}{{\rm Q}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\DeclareMathOperator{\op}{op}
\newcommand{\ASD}[1]{\{\scalebox{0.85}{$\hspace{-0.1em}#1\hspace{-0.1em}$}\}}
\crefformat{footnote}{#2\footnotemark[#1]#3} %cleveref
\crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\Crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{equation}{}{}
\Crefname{equation}{Equation}{Equations}
%
\crefformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}
\crefrangeformat{enumi}{(#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\crefmultiformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
\Crefformat{enumi}{Part (#2#1#3)}
\Crefrangeformat{enumi}{Parts (#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\Crefmultiformat{enumi}{Parts (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
%
\crefname{assumption}{}{}
\Crefname{assumption}{Assumption}{Assumptions}
\newcommand{\creflastconjunction}{, and\nobreakspace} %Oxford comma
\newcommand{\crefrangeconjunction}{--}
\DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `dirname #1`/`basename #1 .tif`.png}
\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.png}
\graphicspath{ {./Figures/} }
\newcommand{\citeposs}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}
\newcommand{\matf}[1]{#1} %matrix formatting
\newcommand{\vecf}[1]{#1} %vector formatting
% \newcommand{\matf}[1]{\underline{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}}} %matrix formatting
% \newcommand{\vecf}[1]{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}} %vector formatting
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{Var}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Cov}{Cov}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Corr}{Corr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\const}{const.}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ran}{ran}
\DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{rank}
\DeclareMathOperator{\spn}{span}
\DeclareMathOperator{\HS}{HS}
\newcommand{\Varp}[1]{\Var\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Covp}[1]{\Cov\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Corrp}[1]{\Corr\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\WP}{\textrm{ w.p.\ }}
\newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{\Hnull}{{\mathbb H}_0}\newcommand{\Halt}{{\mathbb H}_1}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sgn}{sgn}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{E}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{Q}
\let\Pr\relax \DeclareMathOperator{\Pr}{P} %comment out if Pr desired
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\plim}{plim}
\DeclareMathOperator{\1}{\mathds{1}}
\newcommand{\Ind}[1]{\1\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\Normal}{\mathrm{N}}
\newcommand{\Normalp}[2]{\Normal\left(#1,#2\right)}
\newcommand{\BetaDist}{\textrm{Beta}}
\newcommand{\DirDist}{\textrm{Dir}}
\newcommand{\UnifDist}{\textrm{Unif}}
\newcommand{\weaklyto}{\rightsquigarrow}
\newcommand{\diff}{d} %differential operator: easy to change to upright if needed.
%(partial) derivatives:
\newcommand{\pD}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
\newcommand{\pDD}[2]{\frac{\partial^2 #1}{\partial #2^2}}
\newcommand{\D}[2]{\frac{\diff #1}{\diff #2}}
\newcommand{\DD}[2]{\frac{\diff^2 #1}{\diff #2^2}}
\newcommand{\independenT}[2]{\mathrel{\rlap{$#1#2$}\mkern2mu{#1#2}}}
\newcommand\independent{\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}}
\newcommand{\indep}{\independent}
\providecommand{\absbig}[1]{\left\lvert#1\right\rvert}
\providecommand{\normbig}[1]{\left\lVert#1\right\rVert}
\providecommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert}
\providecommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert}
\newcommand\commWK{\textcolor{blue}}
\newcommand\commKS{\textcolor{red}}
\newcommand\commnote{\textcolor{green}} %% make this invisible later
\let\originalleft\left
\let\originalright\right
\renewcommand{\left}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}
\renewcommand{\right}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}
%Bibliography spacing fix
\let\oldthebibliography=\thebibliography
\let\endoldthebibliography=\endthebibliography
\renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1]{%
\begin{oldthebibliography}{#1}%
\setlength{\parskip}{0ex}%
\setlength{\itemsep}{0ex}%
}%
{%
\end{oldthebibliography}%
}
% \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\roman{enumi}}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\theenumi)}
\allowdisplaybreaks[3]
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\title{Estimating the Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity of \\ \vspace{0.5em} Residential Electricity Demand under Measurement Errors\thanks{We deeply appreciate Hyunjin Yang (KEPCO) and Sungro Lee (KOGAS) for generously providing residential electricity demand and local temperature data in the Republic of Korea. Kyungsik Nam's research was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2024.}}
% We deeply appreciate all valuable comments from ... and to participants of the ... for useful feedback.
\author{Kyungsik Nam\thanks{Assistant Professor, Division of Climate Change, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 17035, Republic of Korea. E-mail: \texttt{ksnam@hufs.ac.kr}}, \,\, Won-Ki Seo\thanks{Lecturer, School of Economics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: \texttt{won-ki.seo@sydney.edu.au}}}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\noindent We estimate the temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand during extreme temperature events using a distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model. Instead of relying on simple averages or individual quantile statistics of raw temperature data, we construct distributional summaries—such as probability density functions or quantile functions—to retain more comprehensive information. Beyond our motivation to exploit more information from the raw temperature data, this modeling approach allows us to examine the effects of various temperature extremes, which conventional models cannot capture. Given that pdf or quantile functions are typically estimated from limited discrete observations and thus may include measurement errors, moreover, our econometric approach explicitly addresses this issue. The empirical findings reveal that residential electricity demand is more responsive to cold waves than to heat waves, in a nonlinear fashion. Furthermore, we show that the temperature quantile-to-demand model yields insignificant demand response estimates. These results highlight the importance of robust modeling techniques for accurately forecasting demand under extreme conditions.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{0.4\baselineskip}
\vfill
\noindent JEL Classification: C33, C51, C53, Q41 \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Key words and phrases}: Functional regression, measurement error, electricity demand, temperature sensitivity, heat wave
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\setcounter{page}{0} \thispagestyle{empty}
\baselineskip19.5pt
\pagenumbering{arabic}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newpage
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec_Intro}
\noindent Accurately estimating electricity demand during extreme weather events is vital for ensuring energy security and enhancing grid reliability. For energy practitioners and policymakers, precise demand estimation is crucial for balancing supply and demand, preventing power outages, and ensuring that the energy infrastructure can withstand increased loads during such critical periods. As climate change drives more frequent and severe weather events, the importance of precise demand estimation has grown significantly, making it a cornerstone of sustainable energy management. \commnote{(nearly unchanged)}
%WKNOTE: Grid reliablity? Must be something in the literature.
\indent \commKS{The relationship between temperature and electricity demand is inherently nonlinear, as demand typically rises sharply during extreme hot or cold conditions. Traditional approaches to modeling this relationship rely on nonlinear variables such as Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD). However, these methods have notable limitations, including the need to arbitrarily define threshold temperatures. To address this limitation, a distribution-based approach that incorporates the full information of temperature distribution as an explanatory variable has been studied. This methodology effectively captures the nonlinear dynamics of electricity demand while allowing the threshold temperature to be estimated endogenously within the model, eliminating the need for pre-defined cutoffs.}
\indent Unexpected spikes in electricity demand during extreme temperature events present unique challenges that require advanced econometric modeling to maintain grid stability. Residential electricity demand, in particular, exhibits heightened sensitivity to temperature extremes, with demand increasing more steeply at extreme temperatures compared to moderate conditions. Failing to account for these nonlinearities can result in significant underestimation of demand during critical periods, jeopardizing grid stability. Consequently, accurately modeling the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand is imperative. Such models not only enhance the resilience of energy infrastructure but also enable the development of more effective energy management strategies to address the growing impacts of climate change on electricity demand. \commnote{(slightly changed)}
\commWK{(Introduction, WK STOPPED HERE)}
\commWK{(Paragraph to be inserted: Motivation, why we consider distribution-scalar regression model. Temperare observed at higher-frequency than (reliable data) of residential demand.}
\indent The key challenge in estimating the nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature distribution lies in the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature densities are treated as true densities. This assumption can introduce bias into demand response estimates since errors from the estimation process may distort the results. Furthermore, generating a representative temperature density using hourly regional data adds further estimation errors, which can lead to biased and inconsistent demand response estimates. These errors are particularly problematic during extreme temperature events, compromising the reliability of forecasts critical for energy security and grid stability.
\indent Building on the foundational work of \cite{engle1986semiparametric}, a substantial body of literature has applied the cointegration framework for analyzing electricity demand, with noticeable contributions from \cite{engle1989merging}, \cite{silk1997short}, \cite{beenstock1999demand}, \cite{chang2014time}, \cite{chang2016disentangling}, and \cite{chang2021forecasting}, among others. Subsequently, the literature has focused on incorporating nonlinear temperature variables, such as HDD and CDD, or employing nonlinear econometric methods to evaluate the impact of temperature fluctuations on electricity demand, including \cite{sailor1997sensitivity}, \cite{henley1997non}, \cite{henley1998residential}, \cite{valor2001daily}, \cite{pardo2002temperature}, and \cite{apadula2012relationships}. In particular, smooth transition, panel threshold, and switching regression models have been employed to capture nonlinear demand responses (\citealp{moral2005modelling}; \citealp{bessec2008non}). More recently, density-based functional approaches have emerged to analyze these effects across sectors, providing deeper insights into the nonlinearity between temperature and electricity demand (\citealp{chang2016new}; \citealp{miller2022modeling}).
\indent The nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature has been further explored through various advanced methodologies. For instance, \cite{teixeira2017} integrated linear regression with artificial neural networks to capture diverse consumption patterns, while \cite{caro2020} and \cite{sharma2020} utilized periodically correlated models and synergy of recurrent neural networks with fuzzy logic, respectively, to enhance load forecasting accuracy. Meanwhile, \cite{sigauke2013extreme} applied tail-quantile estimation to analyze extreme daily increases in peak electricity demand, highlighting the critical role of temperature-driven demand fluctuations. Lastly, \cite{sultana2022} refined short-term demand forecasts using machine learning, focusing on managing temperature-induced variability.
\indent Compared to the existing literature, we introduce a functional econometric approach that effectively captures the nonlinearity of residential electricity demand response, even in the presence of measurement errors—a dimension that has not been thoroughly addressed in the existing literature. By addressing the complexities introduced by the measurement errors, our approach provides a more robust estimation, setting it apart from traditional techniques that may overlook these critical factors. Furthermore, our approach differs significantly from existing studies by focusing on the nonlinear demand response of residential electricity to changes in temperature density, rather than just temperature levels. This allows for a more comprehensive analysis, capturing the broader distributional effects of temperature fluctuations, particularly during extreme weather events. By examining shifts in the entire temperature distribution, we provide deeper insights into how extreme temperatures impact electricity demand.
\indent Instead of viewing density and quantile functions as competing methods, we consider them complementary strategies, each providing unique insights to form a comprehensive analytical framework. The density-based approach offers direct interpretability within a compositional data framework, allowing for clear analysis of temperature's impact on electricity demand across the entire distribution. On the other hand, quantile functions address heterogeneous support more effectively and excel in estimating the cumulative effects of temperature at highest or lowest quantiles. Notably, these issues have not been adequately addressed in the existing literature. In this paper, we apply the Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation for density-valued functional data and mean centering for quantile-valued functional data. These transformations enable us to handle the distinct characteristics of each functional data, providing a more robust analysis.
\indent The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec_method} details the econometric methodology employed to estimate the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand in the presence of measurement errors. Section \ref{Sec_Data} discusses the residential electricity demand and local temperature data from the Republic of Korea. Given two extreme weather events, Section \ref{Sec_Empirics} presents empirical results illustrating the nonlinear sensitivity of temperature density and quantile functions. Finally, Section \ref{Sec_conclude} provides concluding remarks, with econometric proofs included in the Appendix.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Econometric methodology}\label{sec_method}
\subsection{Distributional predictors of temperature and measurement errors}
\label{sec_method_1}
We let $y_t$ represent electricity demand, a practical measurement of which for our empirical study is detailed in Section \ref{Sec_Data}, and $X_t^\circ$ be a function that summarizes the distributional properties of temperature. There are various choices for $X_t^\circ$, but in this paper, we focus on two: (i) the CLR transformation of the probability density function (PDF) of temperature, denoted hereafter as $p_t$, and (ii) the quantile function (QF) corresponding to $p_t$. The former appears to be more commonly considered in the literature on density-valued functional data (see e.g., \citealp{kokoszka2019forecasting,SEO2019,seong2021functional}), and we place more emphasis on it accordingly, while the latter offers distinct advantages, particularly for our empirical application.
Assuming that $p_t$ of temperature is supported on $[a,b]$, the CLR transformation $X_t^\circ$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqclr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log p_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \log p_t (s) ds, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
Under some mathematical conditions on the underlying PDF $p_t$, the transformation from $p_t$ to its CLR transformation not only embeds the probability densities on $[a,b]$ into a linear subspace of the $L^2[0,1]$ Hilbert space but also is invertible. Thus, the CLR transformation of $p_t$ has been considered a standard choice in the model involving distributional functional data in the aforementioned articles. In addition to this, we will also consider the case where $X_t^\circ$ is the quantile function corresponding to $p_t$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eqqf}
X_t^\circ(r) = \inf \{x \in [a,b]:\int_{a}^{x} p_t(s) ds \leq r\}, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
It is well known that, for the CLR transformation to be an invertible transformation of a set of probability densities, $p_t$ needs to be supported on a common compact interval $[a,b]$ for every $t$ (see e.g., \citealp{Egozcue2006,Boogaart2014}); more specifically the so-called inverse CLR transformation is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eqinverseclr}
X_t^\circ (r) \quad \mapsto \quad \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) \big/ \int_{a}^b \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) dr, \quad r \in [a,b].
\end{equation}
This requires us to estimate all the temperature densities on a common interval. On the other hand, the quantile functions do not require such a restriction, and the support of the function can vary over time.
In practice, $p_t$ cannot be directly observed, and thus $X_t^\circ$ is not observable. For empirical analysis, it must be constructed from the raw temperature data; specifically, we may replace $p_t$ or $\log p_t$ with its relevant nonparametric estimate in \eqref{eqclr} (as in \citealp{SEO2019}), or replace population quantiles with sample quantiles in \eqref{eqqf}. However, this replacement necessarily introduces estimation/smoothing errors, and it is well known that standard estimation methods for function-to-scalar regression may lead to inconsistent estimation of the model. For a more detailed discussion, see \citet[Section 7]{Benatia2017}, \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}, and \cite{seong2021functional}. Subsequently, we discuss econometric methods for studying the distributional impact of temperature on electricity demand that are robust to the presence of these estimation/smoothing errors in the distributional predictor.
%\noindent In empirical studies involving density- or quantile-valued functional data, two challenges arise: (i) the nonlinear constraints make simple functional data analysis inadequate for properly defining these functions within a Hilbert space, and (ii) the true density or quantile function of an economic or climate variable is unobservable, requiring nonparametric density or quantile estimates as proxies.
%\indent To address the first challenge, researchers often apply invertible transformations such as the CLR transformation introduced by \cite{Egozcue2006} to the estimated density functions. As such, we first apply the CLR transformation to the time series of the temperature density function.\footnote{A small value of 0.001 is added to the entire temperature density function to conduct the CLR transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} We then incorporate the hypothetically generated functional shocks based on the CLR-transformed and temporally demeaned functional data. These CLR-transformed temperature density functions, along with the functional shocks, are represented in the function space using orthonormal Fourier basis vectors.
%\indent Unlike density functions, which exploit the CLR transformation to define linear operators for Hilbert space analysis, quantile functions lack an appropriate invertible transformation, making Hilbert space analysis more challenging. Quantile functions map quantiles to temperature values without the constant sum constraint inherent in density functions. This limitation complicates quantile function analysis within the Hilbert space. Acknowledging this limitation, we simply apply a mean centering operation to represent the quantile function in the function space using Fourier basis functions.
%\indent Regarding the second challenge, researchers typically replace unobservable true density or quantile function with nonparametric density or quantile estimates, and these estimates would be susceptible to measurement errors. As discussed earlier, such measurement errors—stemming from data quality issues or limitations in the estimation process itself—can lead to inconsistent estimates, introducing bias into the analysis of nonlinear responses, particularly regarding temperature's impact on electricity demand. In this light, addressing measurement error is critical for accurately uncovering the true nature of nonlinear demand response, underscoring the need for more robust methodologies.
\iffalse
\subsection{Model and estimator (version with tensor notation)} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated, meaning that $\mathbb{E}[X_t \otimes u_t] \neq 0$, where $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product (defined by defined by $g\otimes h (\cdot) = \langle g,\cdot \rangle h$ for $g\in \mathcal H$ and $h \in \mathbb{R}$; see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim} in the Appendix for more details).\footnote{Specifically, for any $g,h$ taking values in $\mathcal H$, $ g \otimes h (x) = \langle g,x \rangle h = (\int_{a}^{b} g(s)x(r)dr)h$ for any $x\in \mathcal H$.}
As is well known in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition $\mathbb{E}[X_t\otimes u_t]=0$, inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves with measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model by \cite{seong2021functional} to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional instrumental variable (IV) satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}:=\mathbb{E}[(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])\otimes (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
The above consists of only the minimal requirements for the IV $Z_t$. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ exhibits time series dependence, we let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of an instrumental variable considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (X_t-\bar{X}_T) \otimes (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T) \otimes (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
%\widehat{C}_{Zy} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes y_t, \quad
% \quad %\widehat{C}_{Zu} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes u_t,
%\widehat{\Gamma}_{yX} =\widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ}, \quad \widehat{\Gamma}_{X} = \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast (:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2 \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j.
\end{equation}
The eigenelements can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model.
\bigskip
%\newpage
\fi
\subsection{Model and estimator} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated (meaning that $\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x \rangle u_t] \neq 0$ for some $x\in \mathcal H$) and thus $X_t$ is endogenous.
As is well documented in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition ($\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x\rangle u_t]=0$ for every $x\in \mathcal H$), inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves with measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model by \cite{seong2021functional} to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional instrumental variable (IV), which satisfies the following: for every $x \neq 0$,
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}(x):=\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t], x \rangle (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x\rangle u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
$C_{XZ}$ (resp.\ $C_{Zu}$) defined above is called the (cross-)covariance operator of $X_t$ and $Z_t$ (resp.\ $Z_t$ and $u_t$). The conditions given in \eqref{eqreg3} consist of only the necessary requirements for the IV $Z_t$ in our DSR model. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ exhibits time series dependence, we let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of the IV considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle X_t-\bar{X}_T,x\rangle (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle Z_t-\bar{Z}_T,x \rangle (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $C_{XZ}^\ast$ (defined by $C_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x \rangle(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, the composite map $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} \hat{g}_j = \hat{\lambda}_j \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\lambda}_1\geq \hat{\lambda}_2 \geq \ldots \geq 0$. The eigenelements of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
% \begin{align} \label{eqest}
% \hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
% \end{align}
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
%= T^{-2}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{s=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \hat{g}_j, X_{s}-\bar{X}_T\rangle \langle Z_{s}-\bar{Z}_T,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
%;\footnote{An alternative equivalent expression is $\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$.}
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Data}\label{Sec_Data}
\subsection{Raw data and temperature densities} \label{Sec_Data_1}
\noindent To investigate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we analyze an extensive dataset that includes residential electricity demand (in GWh) and local temperature (in degrees Celsius) readings from the Republic of Korea. The dataset spans from January 1999 to December 2023, with 300 monthly observations. The residential electricity demand data is provided by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), the state-owned utility responsible for electricity sales across the country. Due to the inherent variability in the number of days within each month, we have normalized the raw monthly electricity demand by dividing it by the number of effective days per month. This adjustment produces a metric known as electricity demand per effective day, as discussed in \cite{chang2014time}, which underscores the importance of accounting for temporal differences in energy demand analysis.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth, width=0.8\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Y_Graph.png}
\caption{Natural log of residential electricity demand per effective day and its 12-month moving average (top), and their deviation process (down) from January 1999 to December 2023.}
\label{Fig:Y_Graphs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent \cite{chang2016new} found no empirical evidence suggesting that non-climate variables significantly influence the demand response to temperature in the residential sector. Building on this finding, and to isolate the short-run fluctuations in residential electricity demand, we calculate the deviation from the natural logarithm of a 12-month moving average of electricity demand per effective day, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Y_Graphs}. This deviation serves as a proxy for the short-run component of electricity demand, allowing us to focus on the short-run effects of temperature changes while filtering out the long-run effects of income and electricity price. By employing this detrending approach, we ensure that our analysis effectively captures the nonlinear responses of residential electricity demand to temperature fluctuations, independent of other non-climate factors (\citealp{chang2016new}).
\commnote{(All good. It would be better if we cite any reference where (isolated) short-run demand is computed in this way.)}
%(heterogeneous support problem with density generation)
\indent To model the seasonality, we retrieve the hourly temperature data from the KMA National Climate Data Center.\footnote{Downloaded from https://data.kma.go.kr/cmmn/main.do on July 1, 2024.} We then construct the monthly temperature density function over the common support, $[-20,40]$, using hourly temperature observations from the five largest cities (Seoul, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan) covering the territory of the Republic of Korea.\footnote{Instead of estimating the range of the common support, we adopt the common support of $[-20,40]$ with grid difference, $0.1$, as established in the literature (\citealp{chang2014time}; \citealp{chang2016new}).} To represent the temperature density function of the Republic of Korea, we calculate the weighted average of the estimated time series for these five density functions, assigning weights based on the annual proportion of electricity sales in each of the five regions: the Seoul Metropolitan Area (Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi), Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan.\footnote{The combined annual electricity consumption of the five regions accounts for approximately 55.3\% of the national total on average during the period from 1999 to 2021. Due to data availability constraints, the proportions for the years 2022 and 2023 have been substituted with the values from 2021.}\footnote{The annual regional consumption data was obtained from the Korea Energy Statistics Information System (KESIS) and can be accessed at \url{https://www.kesis.net/sub/subChart.jsp?report_id=33150&reportType=0} (data downloaded on July 1, 2024).}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.4\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc0.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.55\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates of the temperature distribution in the Republic of Korea (left) and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics (right). The red lines indicate August 2017 and August 2018, while the blue lines represent January 2020 and January 2021.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip} illustrates the time series of a temperature density function, estimated using Gaussian kernel and Silverman's rule of thumb bandwidth, and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics. Note that the generated monthly temperature density functions exhibit significant heterogeneity, particularly between summer and winter. The time-series analysis of monthly temperature distributions in the Republic of Korea from 1999 to 2023 reveals stable seasonal cycles in the mean temperature, reflecting consistent annual patterns. However, the standard deviation indicates increasing variability, particularly post-2010, suggesting a growing spread in temperature values around the mean. The skewness exhibits seasonal fluctuations, with positive skewness during warmer months indicating a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, and negative skewness during colder months reflecting an increase in extreme low temperatures. However, this skewness does not show a clear trend of increasing asymmetry over time but rather indicates a recurring seasonal pattern. The kurtosis remains relatively stable but experiences significant spikes, particularly after 2010. These spikes suggest periods with more frequent and intense extreme temperature events. Thus, while the skewness reflects consistent seasonal variability, the spikes in kurtosis indicate a rise in temperature extremes, likely influenced by climate change.
% \indent This non-homogeneous support presents challenges for the functional econometric methodologies, potentially rendering them inappropriate for this analysis. To address this issue, we apply the Lorenz Curve transformation combined with the quantile function, as suggested by \cite{bongiorno2019describing}, to mitigate the problem of non-homogeneous support throughout the sample period. Based on the common support range of $[-20, 40]$, more specifically, we extend the estimated quantile function by setting the 0$^\textrm{th}$ and 100$^\textrm{th}$ percentiles to the minimum and maximum values of the generated quantile functions, respectively. This approach allows the entire quantile function over the common support to capture the seasonality throughout the sample period.
% (Lorenz curve implication with L''(p) transformation)
%\indent We generate the Lorenz curve using the formula $\hat{L}(p) = \frac{1}{\bar{X}} \int_0^p \hat{Q}(r) , dr$, where $\hat{Q}(r)$ represents the empirical quantile function at the $r$-th quantile, and $\bar{X}$ is the empirical mean of the quantile function. Next, we derive the second derivative of the Lorenz curve, $L(p)$, using the formula $L''(p) = \frac{1}{\bar{X}} f\{Q(p)\}$, where $f\{Q(p)\}$ is the density-quantile function, as presented in equation (4) of \cite{bongiorno2019describing}. Subsequently, the negative Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation is applied to the empirical $L''(p)$ to ensure it is defined within the Hilbert Space. Note that these transformation processes effectively result in the positive CLR transformation of the density function, although two different approaches would produce different results due to extended grid number and kernel estimation techniques (Do this more...).
\subsection{Construction of the distributional predictors}
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, distributional predictors in practice need to be estimated in advance from the raw data. For the CLR transformations, we use the estimated densities, denoted as $\hat{p}_t$, obtained in Section \ref{Sec_Data_1} (see Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}), and construct $X_t$ as follows:\begin{equation}\label{eqclr2} X_t(r) = \log \hat{p}_t(r) - \int_{-20}^{40} \log \hat{p}_t (s) ds.\footnote{As is common in the literature (see e.g., Section 5.2, \citealp{seoshang22}), a small value of $10^{-3}$ is added to the entire temperature density function $\hat{p}_t$ to implement the log transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} \end{equation}
On the other hand, when \( X_t^\circ \) represents the quantile function corresponding to \( p_t \), we estimate it directly from the raw temperature data by replacing population quantiles with sample quantiles. Specifically, if \( x_{[j]} \) for \( j=1,\ldots,N_t \) are the ordered (smallest to largest) raw temperature observations at time \( t \), we define
\[
X_t(r) = x_{[N_t r]} \quad \text{if \( N_t r \) is an integer,}
\]
for \( r \in [0,1] \). For \( r \in [0,1] \) where \( N_t r \) is not an integer, we employ a linear interpolation scheme to estimate values proportionally between neighboring data points.
%\indent To address the first challenge, researchers often apply invertible transformations such as the CLR transformation introduced by \cite{Egozcue2006} to the estimated density functions. As such, we first apply the CLR transformation to the time series of the temperature density function.\footnote{A small value of 0.001 is added to the entire temperature density function to conduct the CLR transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} We then incorporate the hypothetically generated functional shocks based on the CLR-transformed and temporally demeaned functional data. These CLR-transformed temperature density functions, along with the functional shocks, are represented in the function space using orthonormal Fourier basis vectors.
%\indent Unlike density functions, which exploit the CLR transformation to define linear operators for Hilbert space analysis, quantile functions lack an appropriate invertible transformation, making Hilbert space analysis more challenging. Quantile functions map quantiles to temperature values without the constant sum constraint inherent in density functions. This limitation complicates quantile function analysis within the Hilbert space. Acknowledging this limitation, we simply apply a mean centering operation to represent the quantile function in the function space using Fourier basis functions.
%\indent Regarding the second challenge, researchers typically replace unobservable true density or quantile function with nonparametric density or quantile estimates, and these estimates would be susceptible to measurement errors. As discussed earlier, such measurement errors—stemming from data quality issues or limitations in the estimation process itself—can lead to inconsistent estimates, introducing bias into the analysis of nonlinear responses, particularly regarding temperature's impact on electricity demand. In this light, addressing measurement error is critical for accurately uncovering the true nature of nonlinear demand response, underscoring the need for more robust methodologies.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Empirical Investigation}\label{Sec_Empirics}
% weakness of Chang et al. (2016) approach) no clr transformation \& measurement error: Points: Nonlinear temperature sensitivity with functional approach, CLR transformation for Hilbert space, measurement error
% errors originating from temperature measurement sites can complicate the analysis, potentially skewing density estimation and, by extension, the overall results.
\noindent We first estimate the DSR model given by \eqref{eqreg2} using the CLR predictor $X_t$, which is constructed as in \eqref{eqclr2} with $\hat{p}_t$ appearing in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}. For the computation of our estimator with finite samples, we represent the distributional predictor using 80 Fourier basis functions.\footnote{Moderate changes in the number of basis functions result in only minor numerical differences in the estimation results.}
Noting that measurement errors arise from smoothing \( X_t \) from its discrete realizations, we assume that these errors are serially uncorrelated. Under this assumption, and given that the sequence of \( X_t^\circ \) (and also \( X_t \)) is serially correlated, the lagged variable \( X_{t-\kappa} \) for \( \kappa \geq 1 \) may serve as a candidate IV for our empirical analysis. Similar approaches were previously adopted in \cite{seong2021functional} and \cite{Chen_et_al_2020} concerning time-series functional data. Since our approach relies on a high degree of dependence, where possible, of the IV on the endogenous distributional predictor \( X_t \), as in standard IV methods (see Section \ref{sec_app_est_1} for more details), it is not advisable to use a large value of \( \kappa \), as this could make \( X_{t-\kappa} \) only weakly correlated with \( X_t \). Therefore, we have chosen to set \( \kappa \) to 1. We believe that this selection allows us to account for potential errors in the density/quantile estimation process or data quality while enhancing the robustness and reliability of our analysis. Lastly, in our estimation procedure, $K$ (see \eqref{eqest}) is set to 3.\footnote{Following the results given in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix and Remark \ref{rem1}, we set $\KK=1+\max_{j\geq 1}\{\tilde{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for $\alpha = 0.1 \times T^{-0.3}$, where $\tilde{\lambda}_j^2=\lambda_j^2/\sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2$ and this is to obtain a choice of $\KK$ which is independent of the scale of $X_t$ and $Z_t$; see Section S5 of \cite{seong2021functional}.} %Our estimator $\hat{f}$ is visualized in Figure \commWK{(SOMETHING)}.
\indent Instead of conducting a broad inference on temperature effects, we aim to identify the nonlinear impacts of extreme temperature events, represented by $f(\zeta)$, where $\zeta$ indicates the distributional temperature shock associated with these events. This hypothetical relationship is estimated using our proposed estimator, $\hat{f}(\zeta),$ accompanied by an asymptotically valid local confidence interval constructed based on the results in \eqref{eqlocal}. Leveraging the distributional flexibility of our DSR model, we examine two historical scenarios that generate $\zeta$, as detailed in the following section.
% Rather than focusing on inference for the estimator $f$ itself, we are primarily interested in the partial effect of a distributional perturbation $\zeta$ applied to a temperature distribution, which is given by $f(\zeta)$. This effect can be naturally estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$ using our estimator, and an asymptotically valid confidence interval can also be constructed based on the result in \eqref{eqlocal}. Due to the flexibility and generality of our DSR model, various choices of $\zeta$ (beyond simple mean change considered conventional literature), which are empirically relevant and have broader implications, can be considered within this framework. \commnote{(WK: Not very confident about the details. Please check this paragraph again.)}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Functional Shocks for Cold Wave and Heat Wave}\label{Sec_Est_Shocks}
\noindent The Republic of Korea experienced two significant extreme weather events for the sample period.\footnote{See e.g., \url{https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Hottest-Day-Korean-History} and \url{https://watchers.news/2021/01/11/historic-cold-wave-and-heavy-snow-hit-south-korea/}.} In August 2018, the Republic of Korea experienced one of its most intense heat waves on record, with temperatures soaring to an average of 29.2°C, the highest since record-keeping began in 1907. This extreme heat led to the residential electricity demand of 8,851.04 GWh during that month, underscoring the strain placed on the energy grid by cooling needs. Similarly, January 2021 was marked by a significant cold wave, with temperatures plunging to an average of -6.1°C, well below the seasonal norm. During this period, residential electricity demand also spiked to 7,163.28 GWh as households increased heating usage to cope with the severe cold.
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrates the year-over-year changes in monthly temperature PDFs associated with extreme weather events, specifically the heat wave of August 2018 and the cold wave of January 2021. In the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, the blue solid line represents the temperature PDF in January 2021, compared to the blue dashed line for January 2020, with the black line showing the (vertical) difference between the two PDFs, capturing the effect of the cold wave. In the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, similarly, the red solid line represents the temperature PDF in August 2018, while the red dashed line shows the temperature distribution in August 2017, with the black line indicating the difference between these two PDFs. It is worth noting that the black line in each plot, say $g(s)$, is included solely to illustrate the shape differences between the two temperature PDFs in the current context. It is used exclusively for descriptive purposes and will serve as an intuitive reference point for constructing the corresponding CLR shocks in the estimation and inference procedure. That is, $g(s)$ cannot be interpreted as a functional shock, as its addition to any arbitrary PDF does not guarantee that the resulting function remains nonnegative over $[-20,40]$, and thus does not generally form a proper PDF.\footnote{As extensively documented in the literature (see, e.g., \citealp{petersen2016,Hron2016330}), the space of PDFs in $\mathcal H$ is not closed under addition or subtraction.} %We ascertain that the black lines in Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} are used only for descriptive purpose, and will construct corresponding CLR shocks in our estimation and inference procedure.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.98\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock0.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates comparing January 2021 (solid) and January 2020 (dotted) on the left, and August 2018 (solid) and August 2017 (dotted) on the right, with the black lines representing their differences.}
\label{Fig:Func_shock2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The temperature distributions during the 2018 heat wave and the 2021 cold wave exhibit distinct shifts, which are indicative of extreme weather conditions. The August 2018 distribution is significantly right-skewed, suggesting a higher frequency of exceptionally high temperatures, with a pronounced right tail representing extreme heat events. In contrast, the January 2021 distribution is heavily left-skewed, highlighting the prevalence of unusually low temperatures, with a long left tail representing severe cold conditions. These graphs reveal the significant changes in temperature distributions during these extreme events, illustrating how both the heat wave and cold wave deviated sharply from typical conditions in the preceding months. % The black lines representing the differences from the previous months underscore the magnitude of these deviations, clearly illustrating the substantial impact of these climatic anomalies.
\indent More specifically, the variance for the cold wave scenario shows a substantial increase from January 2020 to January 2021, reflecting a wider spread of temperatures in 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$). This suggests that 2021 experienced a more varied range of cold temperatures compared to the previous year. However, the decreases in skewness and kurtosis indicate that, while the temperature distribution became more dispersed, it also became more symmetrical and less peaked ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$; $2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$). This suggests that extreme cold events were less frequent in 2021 than in 2020. For the heat wave scenario, the variance increases to a much smaller extent compared to the cold wave ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$). Notably, skewness increases while kurtosis decreases, indicating that the temperature distribution in 2018 became more right-skewed but less peaked compared to 2017 ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$; $2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$). This implies that extreme high-temperature events were more frequent but not as intense in 2018.
In summary, while both cold and heat waves lead to increased variance, reflecting more extreme conditions compared to the previous year, they have overall different effects on the temperature distribution. The cold wave results in a more symmetrical and less extreme distribution, whereas the heat wave leads to greater asymmetry with more frequent but less intense extreme temperatures.
%\begin{figure}[t]
% \begin{center}
% \includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock2.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
% \caption{Selected functional shocks for cold waves (blue), shifted 50 grids to the right, and heat waves (red), shifted 50 grids to the left (left), and the mean change of the functional density shocks during the shifting process (right).}
% \label{Fig:Func_shock3}
% \end{center}
%\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock2.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.7\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.29\textwidth, width=0.29\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Mean_Change_desc.png}
\caption{CLR transformed density for the heat wave and cold wave events (left), the associated CLR transformed shocks with the shifting process (middle), and the mean change of the temperature density during the shifting process (right).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\commWK{To identify nonlinear temperature sensitivity, we analyze the parallel shifts of functional shocks generated by extreme temperature events. This process involves shifting the functional shock corresponding to heat waves to the left and that corresponding to cold waves to the right within the CLR domain. To construct the sequence of functional shocks for the DSR model, specifically, the temperature densities of August 2018 and August 2017 are shifted to the left across a range of 1 to 50 grids, with the CLR transformation subsequently applied to each shifted density. The resulting differences are computed and exploited as functional shocks to estimate the nonlinear response of electricity demand per effective day (hereafter referred to as the nonlinear demand response) under high extreme temperature events. Similarly, for low extreme temperature events, functional shocks are generated by shifting the temperature densities of January 2020 and January 2021 to the right across the same grid range.}
\commWK{The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock} illustrates the CLR-transformed temperature densities for the aforementioned years, capturing the extreme temperature events in the Republic of Korea. The middle panel compares the non-shifted heat wave shock (red solid line) with the most shifted heat wave shock (50-grid left-shifted; red dashed line) and the non-shifted cold wave shock (blue solid line) with the most shifted cold wave shock (50-grid right-shifted; blue dashed line). The impact of each shock can be analyzed by adding the shock to the CLR of a reference density and subsequently computing the corresponding temperature density using the inverse CLR transformation, as defined in \eqref{eqinverseclr}. Notably, the functional shock represented by the red solid line alters the distribution to reflect a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, whereas the shock represented by the red dashed line exhibits a moderated effect. Similarly, the blue solid line indicates a shift toward more extreme low temperatures compared to the blue dashed line.} %Given that positive hese shocks are added to any arbitrary density Given that positive values of any CLR Obviously, the shocks corresponding to the solid lines have more severe extreme temperature more the most severe extreme temperature shocks while the dashed lines represent the most modest }
\commWK{The functional shocks for a heat wave scenario are generated as the difference, in the CLR domain, between the extreme temperature PDF of August 2018 and the normal temperature PDF of August 2017, both shifted toward the center of the domain. These shifts can be interpreted as (hypothetical) moderated heat waves. Similarly, for a cold wave scenario, shifting the functional shocks represents moderated cold waves. Notably, this shifting procedure inherently introduces proportional changes in the mean of the associated temperature PDFs for both heat wave and cold wave scenarios, as illustrated in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}. Specifically, the mean temperature in August 2018 was approximately 28.54°C, compared to 26.02°C in August 2017. As the two PDFs are progressively shifted leftward by up to 50 grids, the mean temperatures decrease to 23.55°C and 21.06°C, respectively.} \commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)} Thus, while the heat wave shock led to a mean temperature increase of 2.49°C, shifting the temperature distributions reveals that the impact of the heat wave shock varies depending on the defined temperature levels. Similarly, we generate the sequence of the functional shock by shifting the cold wave shock (blue solid line) to the right across a range of grids. The observed difference in mean temperatures between these two months is 3.84°C, as shown in the right panel of the figure. Preserving this difference while examining the impact of varying cold wave intensities, a weak cold wave shock is defined by a shift from a temperature distribution with a mean of 7.30°C to one with a mean of 3.46°C, while a strong cold wave shock is characterized by a shift from a mean of 2.30°C to a mean of -1.53°C. % These adjustments maintain the mean difference between the two original temperature densities, while effectively illustrating how different levels of cold wave intensity can be generated and analyzed.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Density-to-Demand Model}
% (Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity)
% (economic implications)
\indent \commWK{Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} presents the estimation results for the density-to-demand model. The solid lines show the estimates $\hat{f}(\zeta)$ for $\zeta$, encompassing scenarios from modest heat and cold waves to the most severe events. These estimates can be interpreted as the nonlinear demand responses to specified extreme temperature events, varying heterogeneously with the generated mean temperature levels, as illustrated in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}. \commnote{(The above part, correct and understandable??? Not confident)}. The dotted lines indicate 95\% confidence intervals for $f(\zeta)$ based on the asymptotic normality result given in \eqref{eqlocal}. We also compare our estimation results to those obtained without addressing the potential endogeneity of the model, reported as the case $\kappa=0$.}
%The estimation results for $\kappa = 1$, which is expected to effectively account for measurement errors yield particularly insightful outcomes.}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth, width=0.9\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Empirical_rlt1.png}
\caption{Density-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top) and heat wave (bottom) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ (left) and $\kappa = 1$ (right).}% The black line indicates the estimation results for the orthornormal Legendre basis functions.}
\label{Fig:Empirical_rlts}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\commWK{The top panel illustrates the demand response to cold wave shocks (blue lines) across different mean temperature levels. Notably, the results from the estimation with $\kappa = 1$, which is expected to be effective in the presence of measurement errors, show a significant increase in electricity demand response as the mean temperature drops. This suggests that cold wave shocks drive electricity demand more intensely, particularly under colder conditions, and as is widely known, this would be closely related to increased heating needs. The bottom panel of the figure shows the demand response to heat wave shocks (red lines), where demand response increases as the mean temperature rises, particularly under $\kappa=1$. This would reflect the heightened demand for cooling during extreme heat events. As shown in the figure, the results with $\kappa=0$ do not clearly reveal these pattern. Given that (i) the estimation results with $\kappa=0$ do not take endogeneity into account and (ii) the results with $\kappa=1$ are more empirically sensible, we consider the latter as our main empirical findings. Overall, the estimation results with this choice of $\kappa$ underscore the non-linear and temperature-sensitive nature of the electricity demand response.}
\indent \commWK{The most severe heat wave shock is defined as the distributional difference, obtained through the CLR transformation, between the temperature PDFs for August 2018 and 2017, with mean values of 26.06°C and 28.54°C, respectively. The latter mean indicates the occurrence of an extreme temperature shock. In contrast, the most modest heat wave shock is characterized by the distributional difference derived from PDFs generated by horizontally shifting the August 2018 and 2017 PDFs, with or without a heat wave, so that the shifted PDFs have the means of 21.06°C and 23.55°C.} \commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)}. The corresponding demand response values are 0.0591 at 23.55°C, 0.0874 at 25.95°C, and 0.0989 at 28.54°C. Given that demand is expressed in natural logarithms and that the demand response at a specific temperature reflects the relative impact of a cold or heat wave shock, the results indicate that an increase in temperature from 23.55°C to 25.95°C leads to a year-over-year monthly demand growth rate that is 2.83\% higher than the year-over-year monthly growth rate observed at 23.55°C, with demand response value rising by 0.0283 from 0.0591 to 0.0874. Furthermore, as the temperature escalates further from 25.95°C to 28.54°C, the demand growth rate increases by an additional 1.15\% compared to the year-over-year monthly growth rate at 25.95°C, with demand response value rising by 0.0115 from 0.0874 to 0.0989.
\indent Notably, cold wave shocks generate a more significant impact than heat wave shocks. The demand response values at 3.46°C, 1.06°C, and -1.53°C are 0.2138, 0.2794, and 0.2806, respectively. These empirical results indicate that when the average temperature decreases from 3.46°C to 1.06°C during a moderate cold wave, the year-over-year monthly demand growth rate is 6.56\% higher than the year-over-year monthly growth rate observed at 3.46°C. Additionally, as the temperature drops further from 1.06°C to -1.53°C during an extreme cold wave, the year-over-year monthly demand growth rate increases by an additional 0.12\% compared to the year-over-year monthly growth rate at 1.06°C. It is important to note that the FSR model with $\kappa=0$, which does not account for measurement error, fails to identify such nonlinearity. %Moreover, utilizing Legendre basis functions results in a slightly lower temperature sensitivity in magnitude, but the overall shape of the sensitivity curve remains nearly identical to that obtained using Fourier basis functions.
\indent The observation that cold wave shocks significantly increase electricity demand more than heat wave shocks implies that electricity demand is more sensitive to the more intense and extreme temperature conditions associated with cold waves. This further implies that the demand response is not just a function of temperature extremes but also the nature of these extremes. This finding departs from existing literature, which primarily focuses on the demand response to temperature level changes alone, and highlights the importance of understanding how shifts in temperature distributions impact electricity demand. Such insights emphasize the need for energy planning that accounts for the varying effects of temperature distribution changes, particularly in the context of increasingly severe cold wave events.
\indent The existing functional approach is susceptible to boundary issues, particularly in estimating the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand using a functional Fourier flexible form (\citealp{gallant1981bias}; \citealp{chang2016new}). A notable drawback of this method is its tendency to produce inaccurate estimates at the boundaries, especially in regions where data are sparse, such as around the critical temperature thresholds of -20°C and 40°C. These boundary estimates are economically significant, as they can lead to substantial implications in policy and energy management. In contrast, our approach does not focus on the demand response at specific temperature levels but rather generates hypothetical functional shocks to analyze the impact of extreme temperatures. This approach is less prone to boundary issues, providing more reliable estimates by effectively circumventing the problems associated with critical temperature points.
\indent Note that our approach involves addressing the measurement error problem to mitigate potential endogeneity issues. If endogeneity exists, it can bias the nonlinear response estimates. The IV approach corrects this bias by using instruments that are correlated with the endogenous regressors but uncorrelated with the error term. However, this correction may introduce larger standard errors and increased variance, which can diminish the model's goodness of fit—meaning the model may not align as closely with the observed data compared to the standard functional approach. This trade-off becomes apparent in our results with orthonormal Fourier basis functions, as reflected by the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) values are recorded as 0.0822 and 0.1227 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Quantile-to-Demand Model}
\noindent Some might wonder if the quantile function models \commWK{capture} extreme temperature events more effectively than the density function. Specifically, the difference lies in how each approach handles the heterogeneous impact of temperature on electricity demand. The temperature density-to-demand model accounts for the varying influence of each temperature level on demand, whereas the temperature quantile-to-demand model considers the heterogeneous effects of temperature quantiles on demand. As a result, while the density function may more accurately capture the average fluctuations in electricity demand, the quantile function, despite its relatively lower model fit, may be better suited to explaining demand responses under extreme temperature conditions. For instance, during a heat wave, where consumers face unprecedented temperatures, the relevance of past temperature impacts (as modeled by the density function) may diminish, making the quantile function more effective in modeling demand changes at extreme temperatures. In addition, the quantile function would better manage the heterogeneous support of the temperature density function.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_desc1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Sensitivity.png}
\caption{Descriptive statistics of quantile function for each temperature quantile (left) and estimated temperature quantile sensitivity with the dotted lines indicating the 95\% local confidence intervals (right).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent In this context, we further examine the effects of temperature quantiles on electricity demand for extreme weather events. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} displays the \commWK{temporal mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis at various qunatile levels (which are computed from the time series $\{X_t(u)\}_{t=1}^T$ for each $u \in [0,1]$}), providing insights into how the temperature changes across different quantiles. The mean temperature increases steadily across the quantiles, reflecting the expected rise in temperature values from lower to higher quantiles. The standard deviation decreases, indicating that temperature values become less variable at higher quantiles. The skewness becomes more negative as the quantile increases, signifying that higher temperatures are more concentrated towards their upper range, leading to a more skewed distribution. Conversely, kurtosis decreases initially but sharply increases at the highest quantiles, suggesting a less peaked distribution initially but with more pronounced tails, indicating more frequent extreme temperature events in these higher quantiles. %The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} shows kernel density estimates for the 1st to 4th \commWK{quartiles}. The density curves illustrate that lower \commWK{quartiles} (1st and 2nd) are more tightly clustered, while higher \commWK{quartiles} (3rd and 4th) exhibit greater dispersion, reflecting the variability and occurrence of extreme temperatures in these ranges.
\indent The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} illustrates the temperature quantile sensitivity with respect to the residential electricity demand. To approximate $\hat{f}(\cdot)$ in equation \eqref{eqest} in the local context and interpret each quantile effect on electricity demand, we construct a sequence of indicator functions, $x$. Note that $\hat{f}(x)$ represents the effect of a change in a given quantile while other quantiles remain fixed, similar to the interpretation in linear regression. In practice, however, it is implausible that a single quantile shifts independently of others, which can introduce interpretational ambiguities. To address this, we introduce a concept of total quantile change, denoted as \( Q \), to capture the cumulative impact of quantile adjustments. Starting with an even shock from the \( 0.5 \) quantile to the \( 1 \) quantile, more specifically, \( Q \) is distributed uniformly over this range, represented as a step function with a value of \( 1 \) from \( x = 0.5 \) onward, with \( Q = 0.5 \times 1 = 0.5 \). Subsequently, we increase the quantile range incrementally while maintaining the same \( Q \), thus gradually concentrating the quantile change at higher quantiles (e.g., function value of \(1.11\) from the \( 0.55 \) quantile to the \( 1 \) quantile). For a negative shock of \( -Q \), similarly, we consider evenly reducing quantiles to the lower end, concentrating the change in lower quantiles. By analyzing the function $\hat{f}(x)$ across these step function sequences, we can observe how electricity demand responds to quantile shocks concentrated at various parts of the quantile function, providing insights into which quantile ranges most significantly influence demand.
%
\indent Not surprisingly, the estimated temperature quantile sensitivity exhibits a U-shaped pattern, consistent with the temperature density sensitivity (\citealp{chang2014time}). However, the nonlinear effect in cooling demand was found to be statistically insignificant. In contrast, the heating demand demonstrates statistically significant sensitivity to temperature changes. Notably, when the temperature rises above the 0.4 quantile, electricity demand decreases, with this reduction intensifying up to the 0.7 quantile before gradually diminishing. This pattern reveals a unique nonlinear pattern in the relationship between temperature quantile and electricity demand, highlighting the asymmetrical effects of temperature on electricity demand across different quantiles.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock.png}
% \includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quantile_shock_Desc.png}
\caption{Estimated quantile functions and functional shocks for cold wave (left) and heat wave (right).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} illustrates the quantile shocks for the cold wave, where the impact is most pronounced in the lower quantiles, especially those associated with the coldest temperatures. This reflects that the January 2021 cold wave caused a significant downward shift in the quantile function compared to January 2020, with the most substantial changes at the lowest quantiles. On the right panel, the quantile shocks for the heat wave reveal a more uniform increase across the quantiles, with a greater effect at the higher quantiles. This suggests that the August 2018 heat wave led to a consistent rise in temperatures, primarily intensifying extreme high-temperature events.
\indent Table \ref{tab:Quant_est} presents the estimation results from the quantile-to-demand model with 95\% local confidence intervals. The demand response estimates for both cold wave and heat wave shocks provided in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} are statistically insignificant. Under conditions where $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$, the demand response to a cold wave shock, as modeled with orthonormal Fourier basis functions, is estimated at -0.0455 and -0.0879, respectively, indicating negligible or non-sensical impacts. Similarly, the demand response to a heat wave shock is estimated at -0.0260 and 0.0386, further reflecting statistically insignificant or implausible effects on electricity demand. These findings suggest that the quantile-to-demand model may have inherent limitations in capturing the time series dynamics of electricity demand influenced by cumulative temperature effects.
\indent Note that when a parallel shift is applied to the temperature density function, as described in Section \ref{Sec_Est_Shocks}, the corresponding quantile functions also shift uniformly. However, the differences between the quantile functions remain constant across all quantiles. This invariance implies that shocks resulting from such density shifts cannot be captured through quantile function differences, making quantile-based shock analysis insensitive to such transformations. The RMSE values from the quantile-to-demand model are 0.0933 and 0.1375 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively. These results indicate a decline in the goodness of fit compared to the density-to-demand model.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Estimation results for quantile-to-demand model}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|c}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for CW} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for HW } & \\
\hline
Fourier & Est & 95\% C.I. & Est & 95\% C.I. & RMSE \\
\hline
$\kappa=0$ & -0.0455 & (-0.0868, -0.0043) & -0.0260 & (-0.0422, -0.0099) & 0.0933\\
$\kappa=1$ & -0.0879 & (-0.2146,0.0.0388) & 0.0386 & (-0.0241,0.1013) & 0.1375 \\
\hline
%Legendre & Est & 95\% C.I. & Est & 95\% C.I. & RMSE \\
%\hline
%$\kappa=0$ & -0.0400 & (-0.0807, 0.0008) & -0.0300 & (-0.0464, -0.0135) & 0.0933\\
%$\kappa=1$ & -0.1387 & (-0.2638,-0.0136) & 0.0893 & (-0.0086,0.1872) & 0.1456 \\
%\hline
\end{tabular}%
\label{tab:Quant_est}%
\end{table}%
%Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_non_est} clearly demonstrates the necessity of incorporating higher-order moments of temperature density function into the quantile-to-demand model. Ignoring these moments consistently results in underestimating demand response, whether assuming no measurement error or serially uncorrelated error. However, it turns out that the quantile-to-demand model no longer shows increasing temperature sensitivity. Unlike the density-to-demand approach, the quantile-based model fails to capture nonlinear temperature sensitivity. This absence of pronounced changes may be due to the quantile-to-demand model’s inability to fully account for higher-order temperature effects, which are crucial for reflecting demand response under extreme conditions. As a result, the quantile-based model may oversimplify the relationship between temperature variations and electricity demand, leading to the observed flat response. %Notably, the quantile-based approach exhibits more pronounced sensitivity to extreme temperature conditions compared to the density-based results, with significant increases in electricity demand under extreme cold and heat waves when higher-order moments are considered and $\kappa=1$ is applied. This comparison highlights the superior ability of the quantile-based approach to capture demand responses under extreme temperature conditions.%, underscoring the critical role of accounting for non-linear characteristics in temperature distributions.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Concluding Remarks}\label{Sec_conclude}
\noindent In this paper, we estimate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand while accounting for measurement errors. Given that residential electricity demand is highly sensitive to temperature fluctuations, accurately capturing these nonlinearities is critical, especially during extreme temperature events where underestimation could jeopardize grid stability. Additionally, measurement errors would stem from the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature densities represent true densities, compounded by data quality issues and limitations within the estimation process.
\indent We tackle these challenges by applying a distribution-to-scalar regression to both temperature density-to-demand and quantile-to-demand models. This approach enables us to effectively identify nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature distribution and electricity demand, even when measurement errors are present. Through the analysis of historical heat wave and cold wave shocks of varying intensities within a distributional context, we discover that residential electricity demand is significantly more sensitive to the extreme conditions associated with intense cold waves. Additionally, the temperature quantile-to-demand model fails to yield reliable estimates.
\indent Given our findings, energy practitioners should prioritize incorporating detailed temperature distribution analysis, particularly when planning for extreme weather events. Our empirical results reveal that residential electricity demand is more sensitive to intense cold waves than to heat waves, highlighting the need for advanced demand estimating models that account for these nonlinear sensitivities. Moreover, it is crucial to address potential measurement errors by adopting robust econometric techniques, in order to ensure that demand response strategies are based on accurate and reliable estimates. Our econometric approach would enhance grid stability and support effective energy management during extreme temperature events.
\bigskip
\section*{Disclosure Statement}
\noindent The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
%%%%%%%%% BIBLIOGRAPHY %%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv} %chicago,elsarticle-harv...ecta, econometrica...informs2014
\bibliography{FRKETQ_P3/FRKET_biblio}
\bigskip
\appendix\label{Sec_Append}
\section{Technical Appendix}\label{sec_app_est}
This technical appendix provides detailed discussion on asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator with necessary mathematical preliminaries.
\subsection{Mathematical preliminaries} \label{sec_app_prelim}
This section briefly reviews essential mathematical concepts for the proposed estimator and introduce notation.
Let $\mathcal H_1$ a separable Hilbert space with inner product $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_1$ and norm $\|\cdot\|_1$. A $\mathcal H_1$-valued random variable $Z$ is defined as a measurable map from the underlying probability space to $\mathcal H_1$. Such a random element $Z$ is said to be square-integrable if $\mathbb{E}[\|Z\|_1^2]<\infty$. Let $\mathcal H_2$ be another such Hilbert space. We let $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product defined by $\mathcal H_1$ and $\mathcal H_2$, i.e., for any $\zeta_1 \in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$,
\begin{equation}
\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2 (\cdot) = \langle \zeta_1,\cdot \rangle \zeta_2;
\end{equation}
note that $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2$ is a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$.
For any mean-zero square-integrable random elements $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, $\mathbb{E}[Z_1 \otimes Z_2]$, defined as a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$, is called the (cross-)covariance of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. We call $A:\mathcal H_1 \mapsto \mathcal H_2$ a bounded linear map if $A$ is a linear map and its operator norm, defined as $\|A\|_{\op}=\sup_{|\zeta|\leq 1} \|A\zeta\|$, is finite. For any bounded linear $A$, we let $A^\ast$ be the adjoint map defined by the property $\langle A\zeta_1,\zeta_2 \rangle_2=\langle \zeta_1,A^\ast\zeta_2 \rangle_1$ for all $\zeta_1\in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$. We say that $A$ is a compact operator if $\mathcal H_1=\mathcal H_2$ and there exist orthonormal bases $\{\zeta_{1,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $\{\zeta_{2,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ such that $A = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j \zeta_{1,j} \otimes \zeta_{2,j}$ with $a_j$ tending to zero as $j$ increases; in this expression, if $A$ is self-adjoint ($A=A^\ast$) and nonnegative ($\langle A\zeta,\zeta \rangle_1\geq 0$), it may be assumed that $a_j\geq 0$ and $\zeta_{1,j}=\zeta_{2,j}$, and furthermore they are understood as the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors. A compact operator $A$ is Hilbert-Schmidt if $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{\zeta_j\}_{j\geq1}$, and in this case, the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\|A\|_{\HS}$ is defined as $\|A\|_{\HS}= \sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2}$. It is well known that $\|A\|_{\op} \leq \|A\|_{\HS}$.
\subsection{Equivalent formulation of the proposed estimator} \label{sec_app_est_1}
Our estimator, discussed in Section \ref{Sec_Model}, is a suitable adaptation of the functional IV estimator proposed by \cite{seong2021functional} for our DSR model. First observe that for an IV $Z_t$ satisfying \eqref{eqreg3}, the following can directly be deduced from \eqref{eqreg2}: $C_{Zy} = fC_{XZ}^\ast$, where $C_{Zy} = \mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (y_t-\mathbb{E}[y_t])]$. This in turn leads to the following identity:
\begin{align} \label{eqpopulation}
C_{Zy}C_{XZ} = f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ},
\end{align}
where $C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes u_t]=0$.
As in \cite{seong2021functional} studying on the FFR model, we construct an estimator mimicking the population relationship \eqref{eqpopulation}. We first replace $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ given in \eqref{eqpopulation} with their sample counterparts $\widehat C_{Zy}\widehat C_{XZ}$ (where $\widehat C_{Zy}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T)\otimes (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$ with $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$) and $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ which is introduced in Section \ref{Sec_Model}. Noting that $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ is not invertible (see e.g., \citealp{Benatia2017}), we employ a regularized inverse of $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ to compute an estimator from the sample equation. Specifically, as in \cite{seong2021functional}, we consider the rank-regularized inverse $(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eqregul}
(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\hat{\lambda}_j^{-2}} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\KK$ is determined as
\begin{equation} \label{eqchoicek}
\KK = \max_{j\geq 1} \{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha$ tending to zero. Note that $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ becomes the $\KK$-dimensional projection $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j$ and similar regularized inverses are widely used in the literature on the functional linear model (see e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional,seo2024optimal}). The estimator $\hat{f}$ is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$
\begin{align} \label{eqest1}
\hat{f} (x)= \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (x).
\end{align}
With some algebra using \eqref{eqregul} and the definitions of the operators above, it can be shown that \eqref{eqest1} is equivalent to the expression given in \eqref{eqest}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem1}
The choice $\KK$ in \eqref{eqchoicek} is adopted from \cite{seong2021functional} concerning the FFR model. Based on this choice, we study the asymptotic properties of our estimator. Of course, with only a minor modification, it is possible to extend the desired asymptotic results, which will be discussed, under an alternative choice of $\KK$, such as $\KK = m + \max_{j\geq 1}\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for some finite $m$, if necessary. This choice may be preferred when researchers want to retain at least $m$ eigenelements for estimation. The case with $m=1$ also has some theoretical justification, given that we need at least one eigenelement for the proposed estimator to be well defined for every $T$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Consistency and local asymptotic normality}\label{sec_app_est_2}
This section examines the consistency and local asymptotic normality of the proposed estimator, both of which are fundamental to our empirical analysis in Section \ref{Sec_Empirics}. For simplicity, we consider the case where \( y_t \), \( X_t \), and \( Z_t \) have zero means, reducing the regression model \eqref{eqreg1} to \( y_t = f(X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t \). Under this assumption, the population (e.g., \( C_{XZ} \)) and sample covariance operators (e.g., \( \widehat{C}_{XZ} \)) introduced in Section \ref{sec_method} are naturally interpreted as being defined without centering or demeaning the associated variables. As discussed by \cite{seong2021functional}, extending the subsequent results to cases where the means are unknown and must be estimated requires only minor modifications, such as replacing variables with their centered or demeaned counterparts. Consequently, we omit these details.
%the consistency and local asymptotic normality to be established remain unchanged with or without this simplification.
\subsubsection{Assumptions and main results}
It turns out that $ C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast $ are compact operators (see \citealp{Bosq2000}, p.\ 117). We thus hereafter let
\begin{equation}
C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 g_j \otimes g_j, \quad C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 h_j \otimes h_j,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_j$, $g_j$, and $h_j$ are relevant eigenelements (see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}). Let $C_{ZZ}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes Z_t]$, $C_{uu}=\mathbb{E}[u_t\otimes u_t]$ and $C_{Zu}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]$. We define $\widehat{C}_{ZZ}$, $\widehat{C}_{uu}$ and $\widehat{C}_{Zu}$ be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{ZZ}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes Z_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{uu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T u_t\otimes u_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{Zu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes u_t,
\end{equation}
which may be understood as the sample counterparts of $C_{ZZ}$, $C_{uu}$ and $C_{Zu}$. We employ the following assumptions: below, $\mathfrak{F}_t$ denotes the natural filtration given by $\sigma(\{Z_s\}_{s\leq t+1}, \{u_s\}_{s\leq t})$ and let $\tau_j = 2\sqrt{2} \max\{ (\lambda_{j-1}^2-\lambda_j^2)^{-1}, (\lambda_{j}^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2)^{-1} \}$ as in \cite{seong2021functional}.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum1}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item Equation \eqref{eqreg2} holds; \item $\{X_t,Z_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is stationary and geometrically strongly mixing, $\mathbb{E}[\|X_t\|^2] < \infty$, and $\mathbb{E}[\|Z_t\|^2] < \infty$; \item $\mathbb{E}[u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=0$, $\mathbb{E}[u_t \otimes u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=C_{uu}$, and $\sup_{1\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}[\|u_t\|^{2+\delta}|\mathfrak F_{t-1}] < \infty$ for some $\delta>0$; \item $\sum_{j=1}^\infty |f(b_j)|^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{b_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ of $\mathcal H$; \item $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ}-{C}_{XZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{ZZ}-{C}_{ZZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{Zu}-{C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and $\|\widehat{C}_{uu} - C_{uu}\|_{\HS}= o_p(1)$; \item $\ker C_{XZ}=\{0\}$; \item \label{eq001a1}$\lambda_1^2 > \lambda_2^2 > \cdots > 0$; \item $T^{-1}\alpha^{-1} \to 0$ and $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \to_p 0$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum1} are adapted from Assumptions M and E of \cite{seong2021functional} studying the FFR model, and similar assumptions have been employed in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{Hall2007}). Condition \ref{eq001a1} is a technical requirement that $\alpha$ decay at an appropriate rate depending on the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $T$. This subtle requirement on $\alpha$ may be relaxed if some additional (but still standard in the literature on the functional linear model) assumptions are employed, which will be discussed later in this section. %it is common to assume that $\lambda_j^2 - \lambda_{j+1}^2$ is eventually convex and bounded above by $O(j^{\gamma})$ for some $\gamma > 3$ (see Assumption 2 below and also Assumption E2 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). In this case, $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\KK4)$ the assumption
We then present the following consistency result, which details Proposition \ref{prop1} given in Section \ref{Sec_Model}:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop1a}
Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}, $\|\hat{f} - f\|_{\op} \to_p 0$.
\end{proposition}
We next obtain the local asymptotic normality result \eqref{eqlocal} for any specified $\zeta \in \mathcal H$. To this end, we employ the following assumptions: below, we let $\upsilon_{t}(j,\ell) = \langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle -\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle]$ for $j,\ell \geq 1$ and $\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle \tilde{\zeta}, {C}_{ZZ} \tilde{\zeta} \rangle$, where $\tilde{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle {g}_j,\zeta \rangle {C}_{XZ}({g}_j)$.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum2} For some $c_\circ>0$, $\rho>2$, $\varsigma>1/2$, $\delta_{\zeta}>1/2$ and $m>1$, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\lambda_j^2 \leq c_\circ j^{-\rho}$; \item $\lambda_j^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2 \geq c_\circ j^{-\rho-1}$; \item $|f(g_j)| \leq c_\circ j^{-\varsigma}$; \item $\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t(j,\ell)\upsilon_{t-s}(j,\ell)] \leq c_\circ s^{-m}\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t^2(j,\ell)]$ for $s\geq 1$, and furthermore, $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle X_t,g_j \rangle Z_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$ and $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle Z_t,h_j \rangle X_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$; \item $\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle \leq c_\circ j^{-\delta_{\zeta}}$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The above assumptions are obvious adaptation of the conditions given by \cite{Hall2007} and \cite{seong2021functional}, which seem to be standard in the literature. Particularly, \cite{seong2021functional} established useful asymptotic results for the FFR model under Assumption \ref{assum2}, which are also used for our estimator. In fact, if Assumption \ref{assum2} is additionally satisfied, the consistency result given in Proposition \ref{prop1} can be established with $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$ without requiring Assumption \ref{assum1}\ref{eq001a1}; this follows directly from Theorem 3 of \cite{seong2021functional}, and extending this result from the FFR model to the DSR model is straightforward. In order to establish the local asymptotic normality result, we need more conditions, which are stated below:
\begin{assumption}\label{assum3}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\alpha^{-1} = o(T^{1/3})$; \item \label{assum3b} $\varsigma + \delta_{\zeta} > \rho/2+2$, $2\delta_{\zeta} \geq \rho+1$ and $T \alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho} = O(1)$; \item\label{assum3c} ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption} Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3b} particularly requires $f$ and $\zeta$ to be sufficiently smooth with respect to the eigenvectors $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ so that the entire map or element can be well approximated by those eigenvectors; this is a standard requirement in asymptotic analysis in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{seong2021functional} and reference therein). Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3c} requires a certain quantity depending on $\zeta$ to diverge to infinity. This condition is expected to be satisfied for many possible choices of $\zeta$ (see Section 3.2 of \citealp{Carrasco2007}; Remark 4 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). We obtain the desired asymptotic normality result under this requirement. However, it turns out that even if such a smoothness condition is not satisfied, a weaker version of \eqref{eqlocal}, with $f(\zeta)$ being replaced by $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, still holds as long as $\alpha$ decays at a sufficiently slow rate. This allows for statistical inference on $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$. As discussed by \citet[Section 3.2]{seong2021functional}, $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ may be understood as the best linear approximation of $\zeta$ based on the covariation of $X_t$ and $Z_t$, thus this weaker result still provides interpretable insights for practitioners.
The desired asymptotic normality result is given as follows:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop2} Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (y_t-\hat{f}(X_t))$ and $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{proposition}
With some algebra, it can be shown that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, as given in Proposition \ref{prop2} can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta2}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t\rangle\right)^2,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to \eqref{eqtheta} without demeaning the variables.
\subsubsection{Mathematical proofs}
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop1a}}
Using \eqref{eqreg2} and the expression given in \eqref{eqest1}, the proposed estimator $\hat{f}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{f} = \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} + \widehat{C}_{Zu} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag, \label{eq:b0}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat \Pi_{\KK}= \sum_{j=1} ^{\KK} \widehat g_j \otimes \widehat g_j$ as earlier introduced.
%Under our assumptions, we apply the central limit theorem for strongly mixing sequences (see, e.g., \citeauthor{heyde1974central}, \citeyear{heyde1974central}) and for martingale difference sequences to find that
% $ T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\langle x_t,w_1 \rangle \langle z_t,w_2 \rangle - \langle \mathcal C_{xz} w_1, w_2 \rangle \right) $ and $T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle $ converge in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1,w_2 \in \mathcal H$.
% \begin{align}\label{pfresult2}
% \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle
% \end{align}
%converges in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1$ and $w_2$.
% Then, by applying Theorem 3 of \citet[Chapter 1]{skorohod2001}, it can be shown that
% \begin{align}
% \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T (x_t \otimes z_t - \mathcal C_{xz}) = O_p(1)\quad\text{and}\quad \quad \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T z_t \otimes u_t = O_p(1); \label{eqcltref}
% \end{align}
% see also Lemma A.1 of \cite{seo2020functional}.
As shown in the proof of Theorem 1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, we have $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq \alpha^{-1/2}$ and $\|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}. Consequently, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|\widehat{f} - f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS} \|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
\end{equation}
We hereafter assume that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ consists of an orthonormal basis; this can simply be achieved by assigning an appropriate vector to each zero eigenvalue with no loss of generality (see e.g., the proof of Lemma A.1 of \citealp{seo2024optimal}). From the properties of the operator norm and that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ is an orthonormal basis, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} -f\|_{\op} \leq \sum_{j=1}^\infty \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f\hat({g}_j)\|.
\end{equation}
Thus the proof becomes complete if $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\hat{g}_j -f\hat{g}_j\| \to_p 0$ is shown. From
% \begin{equation} \label{eqpf0006add2wadd0}
% \|\widehat{\mathcal A}- \mathcal A \widehat{\Pi}_{\K}\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
% \end{equation}
%the following can be shown by
nearly identical arguments used to derive (8.63) of \cite{Bosq2000}, %and (S2.2) of \cite{seong2021functional},
we find that %and the property of the operator norm such that $\Vert \cdot \Vert_{\op} \leq \Vert \cdot \Vert_{\HS}$:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f({g}_j)\|^2 + O_p(1)\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j.\label{eqpf0006add2wadd}
\end{equation}
Since $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f(g_j)\|^2 < \infty$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}, $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \| f(g_j)|^2$ converges in probability to zero as $T$ gets larger (note that $\KK$ diverges as $T \to \infty$). In addition,
$
\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}\|_{\op} + \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast- C_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\| C_{XZ}\|_{\op} = O_p(T^{-1/2})$ as shown by (S2.3) of \cite{seong2021functional}. Combining all these results, we find that \eqref{eqpf0006add2wadd} is $o_p(1)$ as desired. \qed
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop2}}
With some algebra, we find that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}$ in \eqref{eqtheta} can equivalently expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle.
\end{equation}
Let ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$. From Theorem 4 (with its proof and Remark 10) of \cite{seong2021functional}, we find that Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3} lead us to the following:
\begin{equation} \label{eqconv1}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}(\zeta)-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1).
\end{equation}
Note that $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}(\zeta)\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta))$ can be written as $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (A_1+A_2+A_3+A_4)$, where $A_1 = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_2 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_3 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(g_j)$, and $A_4 = f(\Pi_{\KK}-I) \zeta$, where $\Pi_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} g_j \otimes g_j$ and $g_j^s = \sgn \langle g_j, \hat{g}_j \rangle g_j$. Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}, it is shown by \cite{seong2021functional} (see (S2.11), (S2.16) and (S2.33)) that $\KK = O_p(\alpha^{-1/\rho})$ and
\begin{align}
\|f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)\|^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{\rho+2-2\varsigma},\\
\langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}+2 + \rho}.
\end{align}
Combining these results with the conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum3}, it can be shown with nearly identical arguments used in \cite{seong2021functional} that $\|A_1\|, \|A_2\|$ and $\|A_3\|$ are all $O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and, moreover,
\begin{equation}
\|A_4\|^2\leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle f(g_j) \|^2 %\leq\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}} \|f(g_j) \|
\leq O(1)\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma} = O((\KK+1)^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma+1})= O(\alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho}),
\end{equation}
where the first equality follows from the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula for the Riemann zera-function (see e.g., (5.6) of \citealp{ibukiyama2014euler}).
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqconv2}
\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) = O_p(1/\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}) + O(T^{-1/2}\alpha^{(\varsigma+\delta_{\zeta}-1/2)/\rho} /\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}).
\end{equation}
Under Assumption \ref{assum3}, the above is $o_p(1)$.
It remains to show that $|\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)- \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)| \to_p 0$ and replacing $ \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)$ with $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ does not affect the results given in \eqref{eqconv1} and \eqref{eqconv2}. This follows from arguments nearly identical to those used in the proof of Theorem 2 in \cite{seong2021functional}, and thus the details are omitted.
%From this result, we find that, if $f$ and $\zeta$ are smooth enough with respect to $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ (and thus $\varsigma$ and $\delta_{\zeta}$) are large enough, $\alpha$ is allowed to $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{document}
\documentclass[11pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,amsfonts,amstext}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{mathtools}
%\usepackage[longnamesfirst]{natbib}
\usepackage{natbib}
% \bibpunct[, ]{(}{)}{,}{a}{}{,}%
\def\bibfont{\small}%
\def\bibsep{\smallskipamount}%
\def\bibhang{24pt}%
\def\newblock{\ }%
\def\BIBand{and}%
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{cancel}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttable}
\appto\TPTnoteSettings{\linespread{1}\footnotesize} % small text if *not* flushleft
\makeatletter %small text if flushleft
\g@addto@macro\TPT@defaults{\linespread{1}\footnotesize}
\makeatother
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\sisetup{group-digits = true,
group-separator = {,}, % default: \, (thinspace)
round-mode = places,
round-precision = 3 }
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{thrmappendix}
\usepackage{alltt}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{accents}
%\usepackage{hypernat}
\usepackage{mathtools,dsfont}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\definecolor{blue(pigment)}{rgb}{0.2, 0.2, 0.6}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
filecolor=magenta,
urlcolor=cyan,
citecolor=blue(pigment),
}
\usepackage[capitalize,noabbrev]{cleveref}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage[inline,shortlabels]{enumitem}
\newtoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}\toggletrue{SUPPLEMENTAL}
\togglefalse{SUPPLEMENTAL} %COMMENT OUT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
\newcommand{\Supplemental}[2]{\iftoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}{#1}{#2}}
\newtoggle{BLINDED}\toggletrue{BLINDED}
\togglefalse{BLINDED} %COMMENT OUT FOR BLINDED VERSION
\newcommand{\Blinded}[2]{\iftoggle{BLINDED}{#1}{#2}}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.8in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.01in}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newtheorem{axi}{Axiom}[section]
\renewcommand{\theassumption}{A\arabic{assumption}}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[]
\newtheorem{lemma}[]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[]
\newtheorem{example}{Example}[]
\newcommand{\pconv}{\xrightarrow{p}}
\newcommand{\dconv}{\xrightarrow{d}}
\newcommand{\avgt}{\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T}
\newcommand{\avgn}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}}
\newcommand{\tr}{^{\top}}
\newcommand{\KK}{{\rm K}}
\newcommand{\HH}{{\rm F}}
\newcommand{\PP}{{\rm P}}
\newcommand{\QQ}{{\rm Q}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\DeclareMathOperator{\op}{op}
\newcommand{\ASD}[1]{\{\scalebox{0.85}{$\hspace{-0.1em}#1\hspace{-0.1em}$}\}}
\crefformat{footnote}{#2\footnotemark[#1]#3} %cleveref
\crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\Crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{equation}{}{}
\Crefname{equation}{Equation}{Equations}
%
\crefformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}
\crefrangeformat{enumi}{(#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\crefmultiformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
\Crefformat{enumi}{Part (#2#1#3)}
\Crefrangeformat{enumi}{Parts (#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\Crefmultiformat{enumi}{Parts (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
%
\crefname{assumption}{}{}
\Crefname{assumption}{Assumption}{Assumptions}
\newcommand{\creflastconjunction}{, and\nobreakspace} %Oxford comma
\newcommand{\crefrangeconjunction}{--}
\DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `dirname #1`/`basename #1 .tif`.png}
\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.png}
\graphicspath{ {./Figures/} }
\newcommand{\citeposs}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}
\newcommand{\matf}[1]{#1} %matrix formatting
\newcommand{\vecf}[1]{#1} %vector formatting
% \newcommand{\matf}[1]{\underline{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}}} %matrix formatting
% \newcommand{\vecf}[1]{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}} %vector formatting
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{Var}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Cov}{Cov}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Corr}{Corr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\const}{const.}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ran}{ran}
\DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{rank}
\DeclareMathOperator{\spn}{span}
\DeclareMathOperator{\HS}{HS}
\newcommand{\Varp}[1]{\Var\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Covp}[1]{\Cov\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Corrp}[1]{\Corr\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\WP}{\textrm{ w.p.\ }}
\newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{\Hnull}{{\mathbb H}_0}\newcommand{\Halt}{{\mathbb H}_1}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sgn}{sgn}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{E}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{Q}
\let\Pr\relax \DeclareMathOperator{\Pr}{P} %comment out if Pr desired
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\plim}{plim}
\DeclareMathOperator{\1}{\mathds{1}}
\newcommand{\Ind}[1]{\1\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\Normal}{\mathrm{N}}
\newcommand{\Normalp}[2]{\Normal\left(#1,#2\right)}
\newcommand{\BetaDist}{\textrm{Beta}}
\newcommand{\DirDist}{\textrm{Dir}}
\newcommand{\UnifDist}{\textrm{Unif}}
\newcommand{\weaklyto}{\rightsquigarrow}
\newcommand{\diff}{d} %differential operator: easy to change to upright if needed.
%(partial) derivatives:
\newcommand{\pD}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
\newcommand{\pDD}[2]{\frac{\partial^2 #1}{\partial #2^2}}
\newcommand{\D}[2]{\frac{\diff #1}{\diff #2}}
\newcommand{\DD}[2]{\frac{\diff^2 #1}{\diff #2^2}}
\newcommand{\independenT}[2]{\mathrel{\rlap{$#1#2$}\mkern2mu{#1#2}}}
\newcommand\independent{\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}}
\newcommand{\indep}{\independent}
\providecommand{\absbig}[1]{\left\lvert#1\right\rvert}
\providecommand{\normbig}[1]{\left\lVert#1\right\rVert}
\providecommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert}
\providecommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert}
\newcommand\commWK{\textcolor{blue}}
\newcommand\commKS{\textcolor{red}}
\newcommand\commnote{\textcolor{green}} %% make this invisible later
\let\originalleft\left
\let\originalright\right
\renewcommand{\left}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}
\renewcommand{\right}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}
%Bibliography spacing fix
\let\oldthebibliography=\thebibliography
\let\endoldthebibliography=\endthebibliography
\renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1]{%
\begin{oldthebibliography}{#1}%
\setlength{\parskip}{0ex}%
\setlength{\itemsep}{0ex}%
}%
{%
\end{oldthebibliography}%
}
% \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\roman{enumi}}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\theenumi)}
\allowdisplaybreaks[3]
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\title{Estimating the Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity of \\ \vspace{0.5em} Residential Electricity Demand under Measurement Errors\thanks{We deeply appreciate Hyunjin Yang (KEPCO) and Sungro Lee (KOGAS) for generously providing residential electricity demand and local temperature data in the Republic of Korea. Kyungsik Nam's research was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2024.}}
% We deeply appreciate all valuable comments from ... and to participants of the ... for useful feedback.
\author{Kyungsik Nam\thanks{Assistant Professor, Division of Climate Change, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 17035, Republic of Korea. E-mail: \texttt{ksnam@hufs.ac.kr}}, \,\, Won-Ki Seo\thanks{Lecturer, School of Economics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: \texttt{won-ki.seo@sydney.edu.au}}}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\noindent We estimate the temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand during extreme temperature events using a distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model. Instead of relying on simple averages or individual quantile statistics of raw temperature data, we construct distributional summaries—such as probability density functions or quantile functions—to retain more comprehensive information. Beyond our motivation to exploit more information from the raw temperature data, this modeling approach allows us to examine the effects of various temperature extremes, which conventional models cannot capture. Given that pdf or quantile functions are typically estimated from limited discrete observations and thus may include measurement errors, moreover, our econometric approach explicitly addresses this issue. The empirical findings reveal that residential electricity demand is more responsive to cold waves than to heat waves, in a nonlinear fashion. Furthermore, we show that the temperature quantile-to-demand model yields insignificant demand response estimates. These results highlight the importance of robust modeling techniques for accurately forecasting demand under extreme conditions.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{0.4\baselineskip}
\vfill
\noindent JEL Classification: C33, C51, C53, Q41 \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Key words and phrases}: Functional regression, measurement error, electricity demand, temperature sensitivity, heat wave
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\setcounter{page}{0} \thispagestyle{empty}
\baselineskip19.5pt
\pagenumbering{arabic}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newpage
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec_Intro}
\noindent Accurately estimating electricity demand during extreme weather events is vital for ensuring energy security and enhancing grid reliability. For energy practitioners and policymakers, precise demand estimation is crucial for balancing supply and demand, preventing power outages, and ensuring that the energy infrastructure can withstand increased loads during such critical periods. As climate change drives more frequent and severe weather events, the importance of precise demand estimation has grown significantly, making it a cornerstone of sustainable energy management. \commnote{(nearly unchanged)}
%WKNOTE: Grid reliablity? Must be something in the literature.
\indent \commKS{The relationship between temperature and electricity demand is inherently nonlinear, as demand typically rises sharply during extreme hot or cold conditions. Traditional approaches to modeling this relationship rely on nonlinear variables such as Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD). However, these methods have notable limitations, including the need to arbitrarily define threshold temperatures. To address this limitation, a distribution-based approach that incorporates the full information of temperature distribution as an explanatory variable has been studied. This methodology effectively captures the nonlinear dynamics of electricity demand while allowing the threshold temperature to be estimated endogenously within the model, eliminating the need for pre-defined cutoffs.}
\indent Unexpected spikes in electricity demand during extreme temperature events present unique challenges that require advanced econometric modeling to maintain grid stability. Residential electricity demand, in particular, exhibits heightened sensitivity to temperature extremes, with demand increasing more steeply at extreme temperatures compared to moderate conditions. Failing to account for these nonlinearities can result in significant underestimation of demand during critical periods, jeopardizing grid stability. Consequently, accurately modeling the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand is imperative. Such models not only enhance the resilience of energy infrastructure but also enable the development of more effective energy management strategies to address the growing impacts of climate change on electricity demand. \commnote{(slightly changed)}
\commWK{(Introduction, WK STOPPED HERE)}
\commWK{(Paragraph to be inserted: Motivation, why we consider distribution-scalar regression model. Temperare observed at higher-frequency than (reliable data) of residential demand.}
\indent The key challenge in estimating the nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature distribution lies in the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature densities are treated as true densities. This assumption can introduce bias into demand response estimates since errors from the estimation process may distort the results. Furthermore, generating a representative temperature density using hourly regional data adds further estimation errors, which can lead to biased and inconsistent demand response estimates. These errors are particularly problematic during extreme temperature events, compromising the reliability of forecasts critical for energy security and grid stability.
\indent Building on the foundational work of \cite{engle1986semiparametric}, a substantial body of literature has applied the cointegration framework for analyzing electricity demand, with noticeable contributions from \cite{engle1989merging}, \cite{silk1997short}, \cite{beenstock1999demand}, \cite{chang2014time}, \cite{chang2016disentangling}, and \cite{chang2021forecasting}, among others. Subsequently, the literature has focused on incorporating nonlinear temperature variables, such as HDD and CDD, or employing nonlinear econometric methods to evaluate the impact of temperature fluctuations on electricity demand, including \cite{sailor1997sensitivity}, \cite{henley1997non}, \cite{henley1998residential}, \cite{valor2001daily}, \cite{pardo2002temperature}, and \cite{apadula2012relationships}. In particular, smooth transition, panel threshold, and switching regression models have been employed to capture nonlinear demand responses (\citealp{moral2005modelling}; \citealp{bessec2008non}). More recently, density-based functional approaches have emerged to analyze these effects across sectors, providing deeper insights into the nonlinearity between temperature and electricity demand (\citealp{chang2016new}; \citealp{miller2022modeling}).
\indent The nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature has been further explored through various advanced methodologies. For instance, \cite{teixeira2017} integrated linear regression with artificial neural networks to capture diverse consumption patterns, while \cite{caro2020} and \cite{sharma2020} utilized periodically correlated models and synergy of recurrent neural networks with fuzzy logic, respectively, to enhance load forecasting accuracy. Meanwhile, \cite{sigauke2013extreme} applied tail-quantile estimation to analyze extreme daily increases in peak electricity demand, highlighting the critical role of temperature-driven demand fluctuations. Lastly, \cite{sultana2022} refined short-term demand forecasts using machine learning, focusing on managing temperature-induced variability.
\indent Compared to the existing literature, we introduce a functional econometric approach that effectively captures the nonlinearity of residential electricity demand response, even in the presence of measurement errors—a dimension that has not been thoroughly addressed in the existing literature. By addressing the complexities introduced by the measurement errors, our approach provides a more robust estimation, setting it apart from traditional techniques that may overlook these critical factors. Furthermore, our approach differs significantly from existing studies by focusing on the nonlinear demand response of residential electricity to changes in temperature density, rather than just temperature levels. This allows for a more comprehensive analysis, capturing the broader distributional effects of temperature fluctuations, particularly during extreme weather events. By examining shifts in the entire temperature distribution, we provide deeper insights into how extreme temperatures impact electricity demand.
\indent Instead of viewing density and quantile functions as competing methods, we consider them complementary strategies, each providing unique insights to form a comprehensive analytical framework. The density-based approach offers direct interpretability within a compositional data framework, allowing for clear analysis of temperature's impact on electricity demand across the entire distribution. On the other hand, quantile functions address heterogeneous support more effectively and excel in estimating the cumulative effects of temperature at highest or lowest quantiles. Notably, these issues have not been adequately addressed in the existing literature. In this paper, we apply the Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation for density-valued functional data and mean centering for quantile-valued functional data. These transformations enable us to handle the distinct characteristics of each functional data, providing a more robust analysis.
\indent The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec_method} details the econometric methodology employed to estimate the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand in the presence of measurement errors. Section \ref{Sec_Data} discusses the residential electricity demand and local temperature data from the Republic of Korea. Given two extreme weather events, Section \ref{Sec_Empirics} presents empirical results illustrating the nonlinear sensitivity of temperature density and quantile functions. Finally, Section \ref{Sec_conclude} provides concluding remarks, with econometric proofs included in the Appendix.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Econometric methodology}\label{sec_method}
\subsection{Distributional predictors of temperature and measurement errors}
\label{sec_method_1}
We let $y_t$ represent electricity demand, a practical measurement of which for our empirical study is detailed in Section \ref{Sec_Data}, and $X_t^\circ$ be a function that summarizes the distributional properties of temperature. There are various choices for $X_t^\circ$, but in this paper, we focus on two: (i) the CLR transformation of the probability density function (PDF) of temperature, denoted hereafter as $p_t$, and (ii) the quantile function (QF) corresponding to $p_t$. The former appears to be more commonly considered in the literature on density-valued functional data (see e.g., \citealp{kokoszka2019forecasting,SEO2019,seong2021functional}), and we place more emphasis on it accordingly, while the latter offers distinct advantages, particularly for our empirical application.
Assuming that $p_t$ of temperature is supported on $[a,b]$, the CLR transformation $X_t^\circ$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqclr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log p_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \log p_t (s) ds, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
Under some mathematical conditions on the underlying PDF $p_t$, the transformation from $p_t$ to its CLR transformation not only embeds the probability densities on $[a,b]$ into a linear subspace of the $L^2[0,1]$ Hilbert space but also is invertible. Thus, the CLR transformation of $p_t$ has been considered a standard choice in the model involving distributional functional data in the aforementioned articles. In addition to this, we will also consider the case where $X_t^\circ$ is the quantile function corresponding to $p_t$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eqqf}
X_t^\circ(r) = \inf \{x \in [a,b]:\int_{a}^{x} p_t(s) ds \leq r\}, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
It is well known that, for the CLR transformation to be an invertible transformation of a set of probability densities, $p_t$ needs to be supported on a common compact interval $[a,b]$ for every $t$ (see e.g., \citealp{Egozcue2006,Boogaart2014}); more specifically the so-called inverse CLR transformation is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eqinverseclr}
X_t^\circ (r) \quad \mapsto \quad \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) \big/ \int_{a}^b \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) dr, \quad r \in [a,b].
\end{equation}
This requires us to estimate all the temperature densities on a common interval. On the other hand, the quantile functions do not require such a restriction, and the support of the function can vary over time.
In practice, $p_t$ cannot be directly observed, and thus $X_t^\circ$ is not observable. For empirical analysis, it must be constructed from the raw temperature data; specifically, we may replace $p_t$ or $\log p_t$ with its relevant nonparametric estimate in \eqref{eqclr} (as in \citealp{SEO2019}), or replace population quantiles with sample quantiles in \eqref{eqqf}. However, this replacement necessarily introduces estimation/smoothing errors, and it is well known that standard estimation methods for function-to-scalar regression may lead to inconsistent estimation of the model. For a more detailed discussion, see \citet[Section 7]{Benatia2017}, \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}, and \cite{seong2021functional}. Subsequently, we discuss econometric methods for studying the distributional impact of temperature on electricity demand that are robust to the presence of these estimation/smoothing errors in the distributional predictor.
%\noindent In empirical studies involving density- or quantile-valued functional data, two challenges arise: (i) the nonlinear constraints make simple functional data analysis inadequate for properly defining these functions within a Hilbert space, and (ii) the true density or quantile function of an economic or climate variable is unobservable, requiring nonparametric density or quantile estimates as proxies.
%\indent To address the first challenge, researchers often apply invertible transformations such as the CLR transformation introduced by \cite{Egozcue2006} to the estimated density functions. As such, we first apply the CLR transformation to the time series of the temperature density function.\footnote{A small value of 0.001 is added to the entire temperature density function to conduct the CLR transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} We then incorporate the hypothetically generated functional shocks based on the CLR-transformed and temporally demeaned functional data. These CLR-transformed temperature density functions, along with the functional shocks, are represented in the function space using orthonormal Fourier basis vectors.
%\indent Unlike density functions, which exploit the CLR transformation to define linear operators for Hilbert space analysis, quantile functions lack an appropriate invertible transformation, making Hilbert space analysis more challenging. Quantile functions map quantiles to temperature values without the constant sum constraint inherent in density functions. This limitation complicates quantile function analysis within the Hilbert space. Acknowledging this limitation, we simply apply a mean centering operation to represent the quantile function in the function space using Fourier basis functions.
%\indent Regarding the second challenge, researchers typically replace unobservable true density or quantile function with nonparametric density or quantile estimates, and these estimates would be susceptible to measurement errors. As discussed earlier, such measurement errors—stemming from data quality issues or limitations in the estimation process itself—can lead to inconsistent estimates, introducing bias into the analysis of nonlinear responses, particularly regarding temperature's impact on electricity demand. In this light, addressing measurement error is critical for accurately uncovering the true nature of nonlinear demand response, underscoring the need for more robust methodologies.
\iffalse
\subsection{Model and estimator (version with tensor notation)} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated, meaning that $\mathbb{E}[X_t \otimes u_t] \neq 0$, where $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product (defined by defined by $g\otimes h (\cdot) = \langle g,\cdot \rangle h$ for $g\in \mathcal H$ and $h \in \mathbb{R}$; see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim} in the Appendix for more details).\footnote{Specifically, for any $g,h$ taking values in $\mathcal H$, $ g \otimes h (x) = \langle g,x \rangle h = (\int_{a}^{b} g(s)x(r)dr)h$ for any $x\in \mathcal H$.}
As is well known in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition $\mathbb{E}[X_t\otimes u_t]=0$, inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves with measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model by \cite{seong2021functional} to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional instrumental variable (IV) satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}:=\mathbb{E}[(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])\otimes (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
The above consists of only the minimal requirements for the IV $Z_t$. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ exhibits time series dependence, we let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of an instrumental variable considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (X_t-\bar{X}_T) \otimes (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T) \otimes (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
%\widehat{C}_{Zy} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes y_t, \quad
% \quad %\widehat{C}_{Zu} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes u_t,
%\widehat{\Gamma}_{yX} =\widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ}, \quad \widehat{\Gamma}_{X} = \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast (:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2 \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j.
\end{equation}
The eigenelements can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model.
\bigskip
%\newpage
\fi
\subsection{Model and estimator} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated (meaning that $\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x \rangle u_t] \neq 0$ for some $x\in \mathcal H$) and thus $X_t$ is endogenous.
As is well documented in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition ($\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x\rangle u_t]=0$ for every $x\in \mathcal H$), inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves with measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model by \cite{seong2021functional} to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional instrumental variable (IV), which satisfies the following: for every $x \neq 0$,
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}(x):=\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t], x \rangle (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x\rangle u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
$C_{XZ}$ (resp.\ $C_{Zu}$) defined above is called the (cross-)covariance operator of $X_t$ and $Z_t$ (resp.\ $Z_t$ and $u_t$). The conditions given in \eqref{eqreg3} consist of only the necessary requirements for the IV $Z_t$ in our DSR model. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ exhibits time series dependence, we let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of the IV considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle X_t-\bar{X}_T,x\rangle (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle Z_t-\bar{Z}_T,x \rangle (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $C_{XZ}^\ast$ (defined by $C_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x \rangle(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, the composite map $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} \hat{g}_j = \hat{\lambda}_j \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\lambda}_1\geq \hat{\lambda}_2 \geq \ldots \geq 0$. The eigenelements of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
% \begin{align} \label{eqest}
% \hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
% \end{align}
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
%= T^{-2}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{s=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \hat{g}_j, X_{s}-\bar{X}_T\rangle \langle Z_{s}-\bar{Z}_T,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
%;\footnote{An alternative equivalent expression is $\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$.}
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Data}\label{Sec_Data}
\subsection{Raw data and temperature densities} \label{Sec_Data_1}
\noindent To investigate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we analyze an extensive dataset that includes residential electricity demand (in GWh) and local temperature (in degrees Celsius) readings from the Republic of Korea. The dataset spans from January 1999 to December 2023, with 300 monthly observations. The residential electricity demand data is provided by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), the state-owned utility responsible for electricity sales across the country. Due to the inherent variability in the number of days within each month, we have normalized the raw monthly electricity demand by dividing it by the number of effective days per month. This adjustment produces a metric known as electricity demand per effective day, as discussed in \cite{chang2014time}, which underscores the importance of accounting for temporal differences in energy demand analysis.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth, width=0.8\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Y_Graph.png}
\caption{Natural log of residential electricity demand per effective day and its 12-month moving average (top), and their deviation process (down) from January 1999 to December 2023.}
\label{Fig:Y_Graphs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent \cite{chang2016new} found no empirical evidence suggesting that non-climate variables significantly influence the demand response to temperature in the residential sector. Building on this finding, and to isolate the short-run fluctuations in residential electricity demand, we calculate the deviation from the natural logarithm of a 12-month moving average of electricity demand per effective day, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Y_Graphs}. This deviation serves as a proxy for the short-run component of electricity demand, allowing us to focus on the short-run effects of temperature changes while filtering out the long-run effects of income and electricity price. By employing this detrending approach, we ensure that our analysis effectively captures the nonlinear responses of residential electricity demand to temperature fluctuations, independent of other non-climate factors (\citealp{chang2016new}).
\commnote{(All good. It would be better if we cite any reference where (isolated) short-run demand is computed in this way.)}
%(heterogeneous support problem with density generation)
\indent To model the seasonality, we retrieve the hourly temperature data from the KMA National Climate Data Center.\footnote{Downloaded from https://data.kma.go.kr/cmmn/main.do on July 1, 2024.} We then construct the monthly temperature density function over the common support, $[-20,40]$, using hourly temperature observations from the five largest cities (Seoul, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan) covering the territory of the Republic of Korea.\footnote{Instead of estimating the range of the common support, we adopt the common support of $[-20,40]$ with grid difference, $0.1$, as established in the literature (\citealp{chang2014time}; \citealp{chang2016new}).} To represent the temperature density function of the Republic of Korea, we calculate the weighted average of the estimated time series for these five density functions, assigning weights based on the annual proportion of electricity sales in each of the five regions: the Seoul Metropolitan Area (Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi), Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan.\footnote{The combined annual electricity consumption of the five regions accounts for approximately 55.3\% of the national total on average during the period from 1999 to 2021. Due to data availability constraints, the proportions for the years 2022 and 2023 have been substituted with the values from 2021.}\footnote{The annual regional consumption data was obtained from the Korea Energy Statistics Information System (KESIS) and can be accessed at \url{https://www.kesis.net/sub/subChart.jsp?report_id=33150&reportType=0} (data downloaded on July 1, 2024).}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.4\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc0.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.55\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates of the temperature distribution in the Republic of Korea (left) and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics (right). The red lines indicate August 2017 and August 2018, while the blue lines represent January 2020 and January 2021.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip} illustrates the time series of a temperature density function, estimated using Gaussian kernel and Silverman's rule of thumb bandwidth, and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics. Note that the generated monthly temperature density functions exhibit significant heterogeneity, particularly between summer and winter. The time-series analysis of monthly temperature distributions in the Republic of Korea from 1999 to 2023 reveals stable seasonal cycles in the mean temperature, reflecting consistent annual patterns. However, the standard deviation indicates increasing variability, particularly post-2010, suggesting a growing spread in temperature values around the mean. The skewness exhibits seasonal fluctuations, with positive skewness during warmer months indicating a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, and negative skewness during colder months reflecting an increase in extreme low temperatures. However, this skewness does not show a clear trend of increasing asymmetry over time but rather indicates a recurring seasonal pattern. The kurtosis remains relatively stable but experiences significant spikes, particularly after 2010. These spikes suggest periods with more frequent and intense extreme temperature events. Thus, while the skewness reflects consistent seasonal variability, the spikes in kurtosis indicate a rise in temperature extremes, likely influenced by climate change.
% \indent This non-homogeneous support presents challenges for the functional econometric methodologies, potentially rendering them inappropriate for this analysis. To address this issue, we apply the Lorenz Curve transformation combined with the quantile function, as suggested by \cite{bongiorno2019describing}, to mitigate the problem of non-homogeneous support throughout the sample period. Based on the common support range of $[-20, 40]$, more specifically, we extend the estimated quantile function by setting the 0$^\textrm{th}$ and 100$^\textrm{th}$ percentiles to the minimum and maximum values of the generated quantile functions, respectively. This approach allows the entire quantile function over the common support to capture the seasonality throughout the sample period.
% (Lorenz curve implication with L''(p) transformation)
%\indent We generate the Lorenz curve using the formula $\hat{L}(p) = \frac{1}{\bar{X}} \int_0^p \hat{Q}(r) , dr$, where $\hat{Q}(r)$ represents the empirical quantile function at the $r$-th quantile, and $\bar{X}$ is the empirical mean of the quantile function. Next, we derive the second derivative of the Lorenz curve, $L(p)$, using the formula $L''(p) = \frac{1}{\bar{X}} f\{Q(p)\}$, where $f\{Q(p)\}$ is the density-quantile function, as presented in equation (4) of \cite{bongiorno2019describing}. Subsequently, the negative Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation is applied to the empirical $L''(p)$ to ensure it is defined within the Hilbert Space. Note that these transformation processes effectively result in the positive CLR transformation of the density function, although two different approaches would produce different results due to extended grid number and kernel estimation techniques (Do this more...).
\subsection{Construction of the distributional predictors}
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, distributional predictors in practice need to be estimated in advance from the raw data. For the CLR transformations, we use the estimated densities, denoted as $\hat{p}_t$, obtained in Section \ref{Sec_Data_1} (see Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}), and construct $X_t$ as follows:\begin{equation}\label{eqclr2} X_t(r) = \log \hat{p}_t(r) - \int_{-20}^{40} \log \hat{p}_t (s) ds.\footnote{As is common in the literature (see e.g., Section 5.2, \citealp{seoshang22}), a small value of $10^{-3}$ is added to the entire temperature density function $\hat{p}_t$ to implement the log transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} \end{equation}
On the other hand, when \( X_t^\circ \) represents the quantile function corresponding to \( p_t \), we estimate it directly from the raw temperature data by replacing population quantiles with sample quantiles. Specifically, if \( x_{[j]} \) for \( j=1,\ldots,N_t \) are the ordered (smallest to largest) raw temperature observations at time \( t \), we define
\[
X_t(r) = x_{[N_t r]} \quad \text{if \( N_t r \) is an integer,}
\]
for \( r \in [0,1] \). For \( r \in [0,1] \) where \( N_t r \) is not an integer, we employ a linear interpolation scheme to estimate values proportionally between neighboring data points.
%\indent To address the first challenge, researchers often apply invertible transformations such as the CLR transformation introduced by \cite{Egozcue2006} to the estimated density functions. As such, we first apply the CLR transformation to the time series of the temperature density function.\footnote{A small value of 0.001 is added to the entire temperature density function to conduct the CLR transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} We then incorporate the hypothetically generated functional shocks based on the CLR-transformed and temporally demeaned functional data. These CLR-transformed temperature density functions, along with the functional shocks, are represented in the function space using orthonormal Fourier basis vectors.
%\indent Unlike density functions, which exploit the CLR transformation to define linear operators for Hilbert space analysis, quantile functions lack an appropriate invertible transformation, making Hilbert space analysis more challenging. Quantile functions map quantiles to temperature values without the constant sum constraint inherent in density functions. This limitation complicates quantile function analysis within the Hilbert space. Acknowledging this limitation, we simply apply a mean centering operation to represent the quantile function in the function space using Fourier basis functions.
%\indent Regarding the second challenge, researchers typically replace unobservable true density or quantile function with nonparametric density or quantile estimates, and these estimates would be susceptible to measurement errors. As discussed earlier, such measurement errors—stemming from data quality issues or limitations in the estimation process itself—can lead to inconsistent estimates, introducing bias into the analysis of nonlinear responses, particularly regarding temperature's impact on electricity demand. In this light, addressing measurement error is critical for accurately uncovering the true nature of nonlinear demand response, underscoring the need for more robust methodologies.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Empirical Investigation}\label{Sec_Empirics}
% weakness of Chang et al. (2016) approach) no clr transformation \& measurement error: Points: Nonlinear temperature sensitivity with functional approach, CLR transformation for Hilbert space, measurement error
% errors originating from temperature measurement sites can complicate the analysis, potentially skewing density estimation and, by extension, the overall results.
\noindent We first estimate the DSR model given by \eqref{eqreg2} using the CLR predictor $X_t$, which is constructed as in \eqref{eqclr2} with $\hat{p}_t$ appearing in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}. For computation in finite samples, we represent such the distributional predictor with $80$ Fourier basis functions.\footnote{Moderate changes in the number of basis functions only result in minor numerical differences in the estimation results.}
Noting that measurement errors arise from smoothing \( X_t \) from its discrete realizations, we assume that these errors are serially uncorrelated. Under this assumption, and given that the sequence of \( X_t^\circ \) (and also \( X_t \)) is serially correlated, the lagged variable \( X_{t-\kappa} \) for \( \kappa \geq 1 \) may serve as a candidate IV for our empirical analysis. Similar approaches were previously adopted in \cite{seong2021functional} and \cite{Chen_et_al_2020} concerning time-series functional data. Since our approach relies on a high degree of dependence, where possible, of the IV on the endogenous distributional predictor \( X_t \), as in standard IV methods (see Section \ref{sec_app_est_1} for more details), it is not advisable to use a large value of \( \kappa \), as this could make \( X_{t-\kappa} \) only weakly correlated with \( X_t \). Therefore, we have chosen to set \( \kappa \) to 1. We believe that this selection allows us to account for potential errors in the density/quantile estimation process or data quality while enhancing the robustness and reliability of our analysis. Lastly, in our estimation procedure, $K$ (see \eqref{eqest}) is set to 3.\footnote{Following the results given in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix and Remark \ref{rem1}, we set $\KK=1+\max_{j\geq 1}\{\tilde{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for $\alpha = 0.1 \times T^{-0.3}$, where $\tilde{\lambda}_j^2=\lambda_j^2/\sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2$ and this is to obtain a choice of $\KK$ which is independent of the scale of $X_t$ and $Z_t$; see Section S5 of \cite{seong2021functional}.} %Our estimator $\hat{f}$ is visualized in Figure \commWK{(SOMETHING)}.
\indent Instead of conducting a broad inference on temperature effects, we aim to identify the nonlinear impacts of extreme temperature events, represented by $f(\zeta)$, where $\zeta$ indicates the distributional temperature shock associated with these events. This hypothetical relationship is estimated using our proposed estimator, $\hat{f}(\zeta),$ accompanied by an asymptotically valid local confidence interval constructed based on the results in \eqref{eqlocal}. Leveraging the distributional flexibility of our DSR model, we examine two historical scenarios that generate $\zeta$, as detailed in the following section.
% Rather than focusing on inference for the estimator $f$ itself, we are primarily interested in the partial effect of a distributional perturbation $\zeta$ applied to a temperature distribution, which is given by $f(\zeta)$. This effect can be naturally estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$ using our estimator, and an asymptotically valid confidence interval can also be constructed based on the result in \eqref{eqlocal}. Due to the flexibility and generality of our DSR model, various choices of $\zeta$ (beyond simple mean change considered conventional literature), which are empirically relevant and have broader implications, can be considered within this framework. \commnote{(WK: Not very confident about the details. Please check this paragraph again.)}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Functional Shocks for Cold Wave and Heat Wave}\label{Sec_Est_Shocks}
\noindent The Republic of Korea experienced two significant extreme weather events for the sample period.\footnote{See e.g., \url{https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Hottest-Day-Korean-History} and \url{https://watchers.news/2021/01/11/historic-cold-wave-and-heavy-snow-hit-south-korea/}.} In August 2018, the Republic of Korea experienced one of its most intense heat waves on record, with temperatures soaring to an average of 29.2°C, the highest since record-keeping began in 1907. This extreme heat led to the residential electricity demand of 8,851.04 GWh during that month, underscoring the strain placed on the energy grid by cooling needs. Similarly, January 2021 was marked by a significant cold wave, with temperatures plunging to an average of -6.1°C, well below the seasonal norm. During this period, residential electricity demand also spiked to 7,163.28 GWh as households increased heating usage to cope with the severe cold.
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrates changes in the monthly temperature PDF during extreme weather events. Specifically, the heat wave in August 2018 and the cold wave in January 2021. In the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, the blue solid line represents the temperature PDF in January 2021, compared to the blue dashed line for January 2020, with the black line showing the (vertical) difference between the two PDFs, capturing the effect of the cold wave. In the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, similarly, the red solid line represents the temperature PDF in August 2018, while the red dashed line shows the temperature distribution in August 2017, with the black line indicating the difference between these two PDFs. It is worth mentioning that the black line in each plot, say $g(s)$, is included solely to illustrate the shape differences between the two temperature PDFs in the current context. More specifically, it is crucial to note that $g(s)$ is not meaningfully understood as a functional shock, as its addition to any arbitrary PDF does not guarantee that the resulting function remains nonnegative over $[-20,40]$, and thus does not generally form a proper PDF.\footnote{As extensively documented in the literature (see, e.g., \citealp{petersen2016,Hron2016330}), the space of PDFs in $\mathcal H$ is not closed under addition or subtraction.} We ascertain that the black lines in Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} are used only for descriptive purpose, and will construct corresponding CLR shocks in our estimation and inference procedure.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.98\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock0.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates comparing January 2021 (solid) and January 2020 (dotted) on the left, and August 2018 (solid) and August 2017 (dotted) on the right, with the black lines representing their differences.}
\label{Fig:Func_shock2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The temperature distributions during the 2018 heat wave and the 2021 cold wave exhibit distinct shifts, which are indicative of extreme weather conditions. The August 2018 distribution is significantly right-skewed, suggesting a higher frequency of exceptionally high temperatures, with a pronounced right tail representing extreme heat events. In contrast, the January 2021 distribution is heavily left-skewed, highlighting the prevalence of unusually low temperatures, with a long left tail representing severe cold conditions. These graphs reveal the significant changes in temperature distributions during these extreme events, illustrating how both the heat wave and cold wave deviated sharply from typical conditions in the preceding months. % The black lines representing the differences from the previous months underscore the magnitude of these deviations, clearly illustrating the substantial impact of these climatic anomalies.
\indent More specifically, the variance for the cold wave scenario shows a substantial increase from January 2020 to January 2021, reflecting a wider spread of temperatures in 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$). This suggests that 2021 experienced a more varied range of cold temperatures compared to the previous year. However, the decreases in skewness and kurtosis indicate that, while the temperature distribution became more dispersed, it also became more symmetrical and less peaked ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$; $2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$). This suggests that extreme cold events were less frequent in 2021 than in 2020. For the heat wave scenario, the variance increases to a much smaller extent compared to the cold wave ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$). Notably, skewness increases while kurtosis decreases, indicating that the temperature distribution in 2018 became more right-skewed but less peaked compared to 2017 ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$; $2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$). This implies that extreme high-temperature events were more frequent but not as intense in 2018.
In summary, while both cold and heat waves lead to increased variance, reflecting more extreme conditions compared to the previous year, they have overall different effects on the temperature distribution. The cold wave results in a more symmetrical and less extreme distribution, whereas the heat wave leads to greater asymmetry with more frequent but less intense extreme temperatures.
%\begin{figure}[t]
% \begin{center}
% \includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock2.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
% \caption{Selected functional shocks for cold waves (blue), shifted 50 grids to the right, and heat waves (red), shifted 50 grids to the left (left), and the mean change of the functional density shocks during the shifting process (right).}
% \label{Fig:Func_shock3}
% \end{center}
%\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock2.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.7\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.29\textwidth, width=0.29\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Mean_Change_desc.png}
\caption{CLR transformed density for the heat wave and cold wave events (left), the associated CLR transformed shocks with the shifting process (middle), and the mean change of the temperature density during the shifting process (right).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\commWK{To identify nonlinear temperature sensitivity, we analyze the parallel shifts of functional shocks generated by extreme temperature events. This process involves shifting the functional shock corresponding to heat waves to the left and that corresponding to cold waves to the right within the CLR domain. Specifically, to construct the sequence of functional shocks for the DSR model, the temperature densities of August 2018 and August 2017 are shifted to the left across a range of 1 to 50 grids, with the CLR transformation subsequently applied to each shifted density. The resulting differences are computed and used as functional shocks to examine the nonlinear response of electricity demand per effective day (hereafter referred to as the nonlinear demand response) under high extreme temperature events. Similarly, for low extreme temperature events, functional shocks are generated by shifting the temperature densities of January 2020 and January 2021 to the right across the same grid range.}
\commWK{The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock} illustrates the CLR-transformed temperature densities for the aforementioned years, capturing the extreme temperature events in the Republic of Korea. The middle panel compares the non-shifted heat wave shock (red solid line) with the most shifted heat wave shock (50-grid left-shifted; red dashed line) and the non-shifted cold wave shock (blue solid line) with the most shifted cold wave shock (50-grid right-shifted; blue dashed line). The impact of each shock can be analyzed by adding the shock to the CLR of a reference density and subsequently computing the corresponding temperature density using the inverse CLR transformation, as defined in \eqref{eqinverseclr}. Notably, the functional shock represented by the red solid line alters the distribution to reflect a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, whereas the shock represented by the red dashed line exhibits a diminished effect. Similarly, the blue solid line indicates a shift toward more extreme low temperatures compared to the blue dashed line.} %Given that positive hese shocks are added to any arbitrary density Given that positive values of any CLR Obviously, the shocks corresponding to the solid lines have more severe extreme temperature more the most severe extreme temperature shocks while the dashed lines represent the most modest }
\commWK{The functional shocks under a high-temperature scenario are generated as the difference (in the CLR domain) between the extreme temperature PDF of August 2018 and the normal temperature PDF of August 2017, both shifted toward the center of the domain. These shocks can be interpreted as (hypothetical) moderated heat waves. Similarly, functional shocks under a low-temperature scenario represent moderated cold waves. Notably, the shifting procedure inherently introduces proportional changes in the mean of the associated temperature PDFs for both high- and low-temperature scenarios, as illustrated in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}. Specifically, the mean temperature in August 2018 was approximately 28.54°C, compared to 26.02°C in August 2017. As the two PDFs are progressively shifted leftward by up to 50 grids, the mean temperatures decrease to 23.55°C and 21.06°C, respectively.} \commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)} Thus, while the heat wave shock led to a mean temperature increase of 2.49°C, shifting the temperature distributions reveals that the impact of the heat wave shock varies depending on the defined temperature levels. Similarly, we generate the sequence of the functional shock by shifting the cold wave shock (blue solid line) to the right across a range of grids. The observed difference in mean temperatures between these two months is 3.84°C, as shown in the right panel of the figure. Preserving this difference while examining the impact of varying cold wave intensities, a weak cold wave shock is defined by a shift from a temperature distribution with a mean of 7.30°C to one with a mean of 3.46°C, while a strong cold wave shock is characterized by a shift from a mean of 2.30°C to a mean of -1.53°C. % These adjustments maintain the mean difference between the two original temperature densities, while effectively illustrating how different levels of cold wave intensity can be generated and analyzed.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Density-to-Demand Model}
% (Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity)
% (economic implications)
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} presents the estimation results for the density-to-demand model with Fourier basis functions, incorporating the functional shocks generated by heat waves and cold waves. The dotted lines in the Figure indicate 95\% confidence intervals \commWK{for the response of $y_t$ on the specified temperature events}. The short-run estimates for $\kappa = 1$, \commWK{which is expected to effectively account for measurement errors (see e.g., \citealp{seong2021functional})}, yield particularly insightful outcomes.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth, width=0.9\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Empirical_rlt1.png}
\caption{Density-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top) and heat wave (bottom) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ (left) and $\kappa = 1$ (right).}% The black line indicates the estimation results for the orthornormal Legendre basis functions.}
\label{Fig:Empirical_rlts}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The top panel illustrates the demand response to cold wave shocks (blue lines) across different temperature levels. Notably, under $\kappa=1$, which is most effective when measurement errors are \commWK{serially uncorrelated}, there is a pronounced increase in electricity demand response as temperatures drop. This suggests that colder conditions, particularly under intense cold wave shocks, significantly drive up electricity demand due to increased heating needs. The bottom panel of the figure shows the demand response to heat wave shocks (red lines), where demand response increases as temperatures increase, especially under $\kappa=1$. This reflects the heightened demand for cooling during extreme heat events. Overall, the FSR model with $\kappa=1$, where the measurement errors are modeled as \commWK{a serially uncorrelated sequence}, consistently provides the more reliable estimates, underscoring the non-linear and temperature-sensitive nature of the electricity demand response.
\indent Note that a modest heat wave shock is defined by the distributional difference between a mean of 21.06°C and 23.55°C, with the final value of 23.55°C representing the occurrence of the heat wave shock. Similarly, the strongest heat wave shock is characterized by the difference between a mean of 26.06°C and 28.54°C, with the latter value marking the occurrence of the shock. The corresponding demand response values are 0.0591 at 23.55°C, 0.0874 at 25.95°C, and 0.0989 at 28.54°C. Given that demand is expressed in natural logarithms and that the demand response at a specific temperature reflects the relative impact of a cold or heat wave shock, the results indicate that an increase in temperature from 23.55°C to 25.95°C leads to a year-over-year monthly demand growth rate that is 2.83\% higher than the year-over-year monthly growth rate observed at 23.55°C, with demand response value rising by 0.0283 from 0.0591 to 0.0874. Furthermore, as the temperature escalates further from 25.95°C to 28.54°C, the demand growth rate increases by an additional 1.15\% compared to the year-over-year monthly growth rate at 25.95°C, with demand response value rising by 0.0115 from 0.0874 to 0.0989.
\indent Notably, cold wave shocks generate a more significant impact than heat wave shocks. The demand response values at 3.46°C, 1.06°C, and -1.53°C are 0.2138, 0.2794, and 0.2806, respectively. These empirical results indicate that when the average temperature decreases from 3.46°C to 1.06°C during a moderate cold wave, the year-over-year monthly demand growth rate is 6.56\% higher than the year-over-year monthly growth rate observed at 3.46°C. Additionally, as the temperature drops further from 1.06°C to -1.53°C during an extreme cold wave, the year-over-year monthly demand growth rate increases by an additional 0.12\% compared to the year-over-year monthly growth rate at 1.06°C. It is important to note that the FSR model with $\kappa=0$, which does not account for measurement error, fails to identify such nonlinearity. %Moreover, utilizing Legendre basis functions results in a slightly lower temperature sensitivity in magnitude, but the overall shape of the sensitivity curve remains nearly identical to that obtained using Fourier basis functions.
\indent The observation that cold wave shocks significantly increase electricity demand more than heat wave shocks implies that electricity demand is more sensitive to the more intense and extreme temperature conditions associated with cold waves. This further implies that the demand response is not just a function of temperature extremes but also the nature of these extremes. This finding departs from existing literature, which primarily focuses on the demand response to temperature level changes alone, and highlights the importance of understanding how shifts in temperature distributions impact electricity demand. Such insights emphasize the need for energy planning that accounts for the varying effects of temperature distribution changes, particularly in the context of increasingly severe cold wave events.
\indent The existing functional approach is susceptible to boundary issues, particularly in estimating the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand using a functional Fourier flexible form (\citealp{gallant1981bias}; \citealp{chang2016new}). A notable drawback of this method is its tendency to produce inaccurate estimates at the boundaries, especially in regions where data are sparse, such as around the critical temperature thresholds of -20°C and 40°C. These boundary estimates are economically significant, as they can lead to substantial implications in policy and energy management. In contrast, our approach does not focus on the demand response at specific temperature levels but rather generates hypothetical functional shocks to analyze the impact of extreme temperatures. This approach is less prone to boundary issues, providing more reliable estimates by effectively circumventing the problems associated with critical temperature points.
\indent Note that our approach involves addressing the measurement error problem to mitigate potential endogeneity issues. If endogeneity exists, it can bias the nonlinear response estimates. The IV approach corrects this bias by using instruments that are correlated with the endogenous regressors but uncorrelated with the error term. However, this correction may introduce larger standard errors and increased variance, which can diminish the model's goodness of fit—meaning the model may not align as closely with the observed data compared to the standard functional approach. This trade-off becomes apparent in our results with orthonormal Fourier basis functions, as reflected by the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) values are recorded as 0.0822 and 0.1227 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Quantile-to-Demand Model}
\noindent Some might wonder if the quantile function models \commWK{capture} extreme temperature events more effectively than the density function. Specifically, the difference lies in how each approach handles the heterogeneous impact of temperature on electricity demand. The temperature density-to-demand model accounts for the varying influence of each temperature level on demand, whereas the temperature quantile-to-demand model considers the heterogeneous effects of temperature quantiles on demand. As a result, while the density function may more accurately capture the average fluctuations in electricity demand, the quantile function, despite its relatively lower model fit, may be better suited to explaining demand responses under extreme temperature conditions. For instance, during a heat wave, where consumers face unprecedented temperatures, the relevance of past temperature impacts (as modeled by the density function) may diminish, making the quantile function more effective in modeling demand changes at extreme temperatures. In addition, the quantile function would better manage the heterogeneous support of the temperature density function.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_desc1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Sensitivity.png}
\caption{Descriptive statistics of quantile function for each temperature quantile (left) and estimated temperature quantile sensitivity with the dotted lines indicating the 95\% local confidence intervals (right).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent In this context, we further examine the effects of temperature quantiles on electricity demand for extreme weather events. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} displays the \commWK{temporal mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis at various qunatile levels (which are computed from the time series $\{X_t(u)\}_{t=1}^T$ for each $u \in [0,1]$}), providing insights into how the temperature changes across different quantiles. The mean temperature increases steadily across the quantiles, reflecting the expected rise in temperature values from lower to higher quantiles. The standard deviation decreases, indicating that temperature values become less variable at higher quantiles. The skewness becomes more negative as the quantile increases, signifying that higher temperatures are more concentrated towards their upper range, leading to a more skewed distribution. Conversely, kurtosis decreases initially but sharply increases at the highest quantiles, suggesting a less peaked distribution initially but with more pronounced tails, indicating more frequent extreme temperature events in these higher quantiles. %The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} shows kernel density estimates for the 1st to 4th \commWK{quartiles}. The density curves illustrate that lower \commWK{quartiles} (1st and 2nd) are more tightly clustered, while higher \commWK{quartiles} (3rd and 4th) exhibit greater dispersion, reflecting the variability and occurrence of extreme temperatures in these ranges.
\indent The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} illustrates the temperature quantile sensitivity with respect to the residential electricity demand. To approximate $\hat{f}(\cdot)$ in equation \eqref{eqest} in the local context and interpret each quantile effect on electricity demand, we construct a sequence of indicator functions, $x$. Note that $\hat{f}(x)$ represents the effect of a change in a given quantile while other quantiles remain fixed, similar to the interpretation in linear regression. In practice, however, it is implausible that a single quantile shifts independently of others, which can introduce interpretational ambiguities. To address this, we introduce a concept of total quantile change, denoted as \( Q \), to capture the cumulative impact of quantile adjustments. Starting with an even shock from the \( 0.5 \) quantile to the \( 1 \) quantile, more specifically, \( Q \) is distributed uniformly over this range, represented as a step function with a value of \( 1 \) from \( x = 0.5 \) onward, with \( Q = 0.5 \times 1 = 0.5 \). Subsequently, we increase the quantile range incrementally while maintaining the same \( Q \), thus gradually concentrating the quantile change at higher quantiles (e.g., function value of \(1.11\) from the \( 0.55 \) quantile to the \( 1 \) quantile). For a negative shock of \( -Q \), similarly, we consider evenly reducing quantiles to the lower end, concentrating the change in lower quantiles. By analyzing the function $\hat{f}(x)$ across these step function sequences, we can observe how electricity demand responds to quantile shocks concentrated at various parts of the quantile function, providing insights into which quantile ranges most significantly influence demand.
%
\indent Not surprisingly, the estimated temperature quantile sensitivity exhibits a U-shaped pattern, consistent with the temperature density sensitivity (\citealp{chang2014time}). However, the nonlinear effect in cooling demand was found to be statistically insignificant. In contrast, the heating demand demonstrates statistically significant sensitivity to temperature changes. Notably, when the temperature rises above the 0.4 quantile, electricity demand decreases, with this reduction intensifying up to the 0.7 quantile before gradually diminishing. This pattern reveals a unique nonlinear pattern in the relationship between temperature quantile and electricity demand, highlighting the asymmetrical effects of temperature on electricity demand across different quantiles.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock.png}
% \includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quantile_shock_Desc.png}
\caption{Estimated quantile functions and functional shocks for cold wave (left) and heat wave (right).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} illustrates the quantile shocks for the cold wave, where the impact is most pronounced in the lower quantiles, especially those associated with the coldest temperatures. This reflects that the January 2021 cold wave caused a significant downward shift in the quantile function compared to January 2020, with the most substantial changes at the lowest quantiles. On the right panel, the quantile shocks for the heat wave reveal a more uniform increase across the quantiles, with a greater effect at the higher quantiles. This suggests that the August 2018 heat wave led to a consistent rise in temperatures, primarily intensifying extreme high-temperature events.
\indent Table \ref{tab:Quant_est} presents the estimation results from the quantile-to-demand model with 95\% local confidence intervals. The demand response estimates for both cold wave and heat wave shocks provided in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} are statistically insignificant. Under conditions where $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$, the demand response to a cold wave shock, as modeled with orthonormal Fourier basis functions, is estimated at -0.0455 and -0.0879, respectively, indicating negligible or non-sensical impacts. Similarly, the demand response to a heat wave shock is estimated at -0.0260 and 0.0386, further reflecting statistically insignificant or implausible effects on electricity demand. These findings suggest that the quantile-to-demand model may have inherent limitations in capturing the time series dynamics of electricity demand influenced by cumulative temperature effects.
\indent Note that when a parallel shift is applied to the temperature density function, as described in Section \ref{Sec_Est_Shocks}, the corresponding quantile functions also shift uniformly. However, the differences between the quantile functions remain constant across all quantiles. This invariance implies that shocks resulting from such density shifts cannot be captured through quantile function differences, making quantile-based shock analysis insensitive to such transformations. The RMSE values from the quantile-to-demand model are 0.0933 and 0.1375 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively. These results indicate a decline in the goodness of fit compared to the density-to-demand model.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Estimation results for quantile-to-demand model}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|c}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for CW} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for HW } & \\
\hline
Fourier & Est & 95\% C.I. & Est & 95\% C.I. & RMSE \\
\hline
$\kappa=0$ & -0.0455 & (-0.0868, -0.0043) & -0.0260 & (-0.0422, -0.0099) & 0.0933\\
$\kappa=1$ & -0.0879 & (-0.2146,0.0.0388) & 0.0386 & (-0.0241,0.1013) & 0.1375 \\
\hline
%Legendre & Est & 95\% C.I. & Est & 95\% C.I. & RMSE \\
%\hline
%$\kappa=0$ & -0.0400 & (-0.0807, 0.0008) & -0.0300 & (-0.0464, -0.0135) & 0.0933\\
%$\kappa=1$ & -0.1387 & (-0.2638,-0.0136) & 0.0893 & (-0.0086,0.1872) & 0.1456 \\
%\hline
\end{tabular}%
\label{tab:Quant_est}%
\end{table}%
%Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_non_est} clearly demonstrates the necessity of incorporating higher-order moments of temperature density function into the quantile-to-demand model. Ignoring these moments consistently results in underestimating demand response, whether assuming no measurement error or serially uncorrelated error. However, it turns out that the quantile-to-demand model no longer shows increasing temperature sensitivity. Unlike the density-to-demand approach, the quantile-based model fails to capture nonlinear temperature sensitivity. This absence of pronounced changes may be due to the quantile-to-demand model’s inability to fully account for higher-order temperature effects, which are crucial for reflecting demand response under extreme conditions. As a result, the quantile-based model may oversimplify the relationship between temperature variations and electricity demand, leading to the observed flat response. %Notably, the quantile-based approach exhibits more pronounced sensitivity to extreme temperature conditions compared to the density-based results, with significant increases in electricity demand under extreme cold and heat waves when higher-order moments are considered and $\kappa=1$ is applied. This comparison highlights the superior ability of the quantile-based approach to capture demand responses under extreme temperature conditions.%, underscoring the critical role of accounting for non-linear characteristics in temperature distributions.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Concluding Remarks}\label{Sec_conclude}
\noindent In this paper, we estimate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand while accounting for measurement errors. Given that residential electricity demand is highly sensitive to temperature fluctuations, accurately capturing these nonlinearities is critical, especially during extreme temperature events where underestimation could jeopardize grid stability. Additionally, measurement errors would stem from the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature densities represent true densities, compounded by data quality issues and limitations within the estimation process.
\indent We tackle these challenges by applying a distribution-to-scalar regression to both temperature density-to-demand and quantile-to-demand models. This approach enables us to effectively identify nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature distribution and electricity demand, even when measurement errors are present. Through the analysis of historical heat wave and cold wave shocks of varying intensities within a distributional context, we discover that residential electricity demand is significantly more sensitive to the extreme conditions associated with intense cold waves. Additionally, the temperature quantile-to-demand model fails to yield reliable estimates.
\indent Given our findings, energy practitioners should prioritize incorporating detailed temperature distribution analysis, particularly when planning for extreme weather events. Our empirical results reveal that residential electricity demand is more sensitive to intense cold waves than to heat waves, highlighting the need for advanced demand estimating models that account for these nonlinear sensitivities. Moreover, it is crucial to address potential measurement errors by adopting robust econometric techniques, in order to ensure that demand response strategies are based on accurate and reliable estimates. Our econometric approach would enhance grid stability and support effective energy management during extreme temperature events.
\bigskip
\section*{Disclosure Statement}
\noindent The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
%%%%%%%%% BIBLIOGRAPHY %%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv} %chicago,elsarticle-harv...ecta, econometrica...informs2014
\bibliography{FRKETQ_P3/FRKET_biblio}
\bigskip
\appendix\label{Sec_Append}
\section{Technical Appendix}\label{sec_app_est}
This technical appendix provides detailed discussion on asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator with necessary mathematical preliminaries.
\subsection{Mathematical preliminaries} \label{sec_app_prelim}
This section briefly reviews essential mathematical concepts for the proposed estimator and introduce notation.
Let $\mathcal H_1$ a separable Hilbert space with inner product $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_1$ and norm $\|\cdot\|_1$. A $\mathcal H_1$-valued random variable $Z$ is defined as a measurable map from the underlying probability space to $\mathcal H_1$. Such a random element $Z$ is said to be square-integrable if $\mathbb{E}[\|Z\|_1^2]<\infty$. Let $\mathcal H_2$ be another such Hilbert space. We let $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product defined by $\mathcal H_1$ and $\mathcal H_2$, i.e., for any $\zeta_1 \in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$,
\begin{equation}
\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2 (\cdot) = \langle \zeta_1,\cdot \rangle \zeta_2;
\end{equation}
note that $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2$ is a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$.
For any mean-zero square-integrable random elements $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, $\mathbb{E}[Z_1 \otimes Z_2]$, defined as a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$, is called the (cross-)covariance of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. We call $A:\mathcal H_1 \mapsto \mathcal H_2$ a bounded linear map if $A$ is a linear map and its operator norm, defined as $\|A\|_{\op}=\sup_{|\zeta|\leq 1} \|A\zeta\|$, is finite. For any bounded linear $A$, we let $A^\ast$ be the adjoint map defined by the property $\langle A\zeta_1,\zeta_2 \rangle_2=\langle \zeta_1,A^\ast\zeta_2 \rangle_1$ for all $\zeta_1\in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$. We say that $A$ is a compact operator if $\mathcal H_1=\mathcal H_2$ and there exist orthonormal bases $\{\zeta_{1,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $\{\zeta_{2,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ such that $A = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j \zeta_{1,j} \otimes \zeta_{2,j}$ with $a_j$ tending to zero as $j$ increases; in this expression, if $A$ is self-adjoint ($A=A^\ast$) and nonnegative ($\langle A\zeta,\zeta \rangle_1\geq 0$), it may be assumed that $a_j\geq 0$ and $\zeta_{1,j}=\zeta_{2,j}$, and furthermore they are understood as the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors. A compact operator $A$ is Hilbert-Schmidt if $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{\zeta_j\}_{j\geq1}$, and in this case, the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\|A\|_{\HS}$ is defined as $\|A\|_{\HS}= \sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2}$. It is well known that $\|A\|_{\op} \leq \|A\|_{\HS}$.
\subsection{Equivalent formulation of the proposed estimator} \label{sec_app_est_1}
Our estimator, discussed in Section \ref{Sec_Model}, is a suitable adaptation of the functional IV estimator proposed by \cite{seong2021functional} for our DSR model. First observe that for an IV $Z_t$ satisfying \eqref{eqreg3}, the following can directly be deduced from \eqref{eqreg2}: $C_{Zy} = fC_{XZ}^\ast$, where $C_{Zy} = \mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (y_t-\mathbb{E}[y_t])]$. This in turn leads to the following identity:
\begin{align} \label{eqpopulation}
C_{Zy}C_{XZ} = f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ},
\end{align}
where $C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes u_t]=0$.
As in \cite{seong2021functional} studying on the FFR model, we construct an estimator mimicking the population relationship \eqref{eqpopulation}. We first replace $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ given in \eqref{eqpopulation} with their sample counterparts $\widehat C_{Zy}\widehat C_{XZ}$ (where $\widehat C_{Zy}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T)\otimes (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$ with $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$) and $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ which is introduced in Section \ref{Sec_Model}. Noting that $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ is not invertible (see e.g., \citealp{Benatia2017}), we employ a regularized inverse of $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ to compute an estimator from the sample equation. Specifically, as in \cite{seong2021functional}, we consider the rank-regularized inverse $(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eqregul}
(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\hat{\lambda}_j^{-2}} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\KK$ is determined as
\begin{equation} \label{eqchoicek}
\KK = \max_{j\geq 1} \{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha$ tending to zero. Note that $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ becomes the $\KK$-dimensional projection $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j$ and similar regularized inverses are widely used in the literature on the functional linear model (see e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional,seo2024optimal}). The estimator $\hat{f}$ is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$
\begin{align} \label{eqest1}
\hat{f} (x)= \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (x).
\end{align}
With some algebra using \eqref{eqregul} and the definitions of the operators above, it can be shown that \eqref{eqest1} is equivalent to the expression given in \eqref{eqest}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem1}
The choice $\KK$ in \eqref{eqchoicek} is adopted from \cite{seong2021functional} concerning the FFR model. Based on this choice, we study the asymptotic properties of our estimator. Of course, with only a minor modification, it is possible to extend the desired asymptotic results, which will be discussed, under an alternative choice of $\KK$, such as $\KK = m + \max_{j\geq 1}\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for some finite $m$, if necessary. This choice may be preferred when researchers want to retain at least $m$ eigenelements for estimation. The case with $m=1$ also has some theoretical justification, given that we need at least one eigenelement for the proposed estimator to be well defined for every $T$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Consistency and local asymptotic normality}\label{sec_app_est_2}
This section examines the consistency and local asymptotic normality of the proposed estimator, both of which are fundamental to our empirical analysis in Section \ref{Sec_Empirics}. For simplicity, we consider the case where \( y_t \), \( X_t \), and \( Z_t \) have zero means, reducing the regression model \eqref{eqreg1} to \( y_t = f(X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t \). Under this assumption, the population (e.g., \( C_{XZ} \)) and sample covariance operators (e.g., \( \widehat{C}_{XZ} \)) introduced in Section \ref{sec_method} are naturally interpreted as being defined without centering or demeaning the associated variables. As discussed by \cite{seong2021functional}, extending the subsequent results to cases where the means are unknown and must be estimated requires only minor modifications, such as replacing variables with their centered or demeaned counterparts. Consequently, we omit these details.
%the consistency and local asymptotic normality to be established remain unchanged with or without this simplification.
\subsubsection{Assumptions and main results}
It turns out that $ C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast $ are compact operators (see \citealp{Bosq2000}, p.\ 117). We thus hereafter let
\begin{equation}
C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 g_j \otimes g_j, \quad C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 h_j \otimes h_j,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_j$, $g_j$, and $h_j$ are relevant eigenelements (see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}). Let $C_{ZZ}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes Z_t]$, $C_{uu}=\mathbb{E}[u_t\otimes u_t]$ and $C_{Zu}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]$. We define $\widehat{C}_{ZZ}$, $\widehat{C}_{uu}$ and $\widehat{C}_{Zu}$ be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{ZZ}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes Z_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{uu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T u_t\otimes u_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{Zu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes u_t,
\end{equation}
which may be understood as the sample counterparts of $C_{ZZ}$, $C_{uu}$ and $C_{Zu}$. We employ the following assumptions: below, $\mathfrak{F}_t$ denotes the natural filtration given by $\sigma(\{Z_s\}_{s\leq t+1}, \{u_s\}_{s\leq t})$ and let $\tau_j = 2\sqrt{2} \max\{ (\lambda_{j-1}^2-\lambda_j^2)^{-1}, (\lambda_{j}^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2)^{-1} \}$ as in \cite{seong2021functional}.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum1}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item Equation \eqref{eqreg2} holds; \item $\{X_t,Z_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is stationary and geometrically strongly mixing, $\mathbb{E}[\|X_t\|^2] < \infty$, and $\mathbb{E}[\|Z_t\|^2] < \infty$; \item $\mathbb{E}[u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=0$, $\mathbb{E}[u_t \otimes u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=C_{uu}$, and $\sup_{1\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}[\|u_t\|^{2+\delta}|\mathfrak F_{t-1}] < \infty$ for some $\delta>0$; \item $\sum_{j=1}^\infty |f(b_j)|^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{b_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ of $\mathcal H$; \item $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ}-{C}_{XZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{ZZ}-{C}_{ZZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{Zu}-{C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and $\|\widehat{C}_{uu} - C_{uu}\|_{\HS}= o_p(1)$; \item $\ker C_{XZ}=\{0\}$; \item \label{eq001a1}$\lambda_1^2 > \lambda_2^2 > \cdots > 0$; \item $T^{-1}\alpha^{-1} \to 0$ and $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \to_p 0$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum1} are adapted from Assumptions M and E of \cite{seong2021functional} studying the FFR model, and similar assumptions have been employed in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{Hall2007}). Condition \ref{eq001a1} is a technical requirement that $\alpha$ decay at an appropriate rate depending on the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $T$. This subtle requirement on $\alpha$ may be relaxed if some additional (but still standard in the literature on the functional linear model) assumptions are employed, which will be discussed later in this section. %it is common to assume that $\lambda_j^2 - \lambda_{j+1}^2$ is eventually convex and bounded above by $O(j^{\gamma})$ for some $\gamma > 3$ (see Assumption 2 below and also Assumption E2 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). In this case, $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\KK4)$ the assumption
We then present the following consistency result, which details Proposition \ref{prop1} given in Section \ref{Sec_Model}:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop1a}
Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}, $\|\hat{f} - f\|_{\op} \to_p 0$.
\end{proposition}
We next obtain the local asymptotic normality result \eqref{eqlocal} for any specified $\zeta \in \mathcal H$. To this end, we employ the following assumptions: below, we let $\upsilon_{t}(j,\ell) = \langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle -\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle]$ for $j,\ell \geq 1$ and $\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle \tilde{\zeta}, {C}_{ZZ} \tilde{\zeta} \rangle$, where $\tilde{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle {g}_j,\zeta \rangle {C}_{XZ}({g}_j)$.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum2} For some $c_\circ>0$, $\rho>2$, $\varsigma>1/2$, $\delta_{\zeta}>1/2$ and $m>1$, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\lambda_j^2 \leq c_\circ j^{-\rho}$; \item $\lambda_j^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2 \geq c_\circ j^{-\rho-1}$; \item $|f(g_j)| \leq c_\circ j^{-\varsigma}$; \item $\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t(j,\ell)\upsilon_{t-s}(j,\ell)] \leq c_\circ s^{-m}\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t^2(j,\ell)]$ for $s\geq 1$, and furthermore, $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle X_t,g_j \rangle Z_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$ and $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle Z_t,h_j \rangle X_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$; \item $\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle \leq c_\circ j^{-\delta_{\zeta}}$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The above assumptions are obvious adaptation of the conditions given by \cite{Hall2007} and \cite{seong2021functional}, which seem to be standard in the literature. Particularly, \cite{seong2021functional} established useful asymptotic results for the FFR model under Assumption \ref{assum2}, which are also used for our estimator. In fact, if Assumption \ref{assum2} is additionally satisfied, the consistency result given in Proposition \ref{prop1} can be established with $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$ without requiring Assumption \ref{assum1}\ref{eq001a1}; this follows directly from Theorem 3 of \cite{seong2021functional}, and extending this result from the FFR model to the DSR model is straightforward. In order to establish the local asymptotic normality result, we need more conditions, which are stated below:
\begin{assumption}\label{assum3}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\alpha^{-1} = o(T^{1/3})$; \item \label{assum3b} $\varsigma + \delta_{\zeta} > \rho/2+2$, $2\delta_{\zeta} \geq \rho+1$ and $T \alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho} = O(1)$; \item\label{assum3c} ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption} Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3b} particularly requires $f$ and $\zeta$ to be sufficiently smooth with respect to the eigenvectors $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ so that the entire map or element can be well approximated by those eigenvectors; this is a standard requirement in asymptotic analysis in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{seong2021functional} and reference therein). Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3c} requires a certain quantity depending on $\zeta$ to diverge to infinity. This condition is expected to be satisfied for many possible choices of $\zeta$ (see Section 3.2 of \citealp{Carrasco2007}; Remark 4 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). We obtain the desired asymptotic normality result under this requirement. However, it turns out that even if such a smoothness condition is not satisfied, a weaker version of \eqref{eqlocal}, with $f(\zeta)$ being replaced by $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, still holds as long as $\alpha$ decays at a sufficiently slow rate. This allows for statistical inference on $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$. As discussed by \citet[Section 3.2]{seong2021functional}, $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ may be understood as the best linear approximation of $\zeta$ based on the covariation of $X_t$ and $Z_t$, thus this weaker result still provides interpretable insights for practitioners.
The desired asymptotic normality result is given as follows:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop2} Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (y_t-\hat{f}(X_t))$ and $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{proposition}
With some algebra, it can be shown that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, as given in Proposition \ref{prop2} can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta2}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t\rangle\right)^2,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to \eqref{eqtheta} without demeaning the variables.
\subsubsection{Mathematical proofs}
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop1a}}
Using \eqref{eqreg2} and the expression given in \eqref{eqest1}, the proposed estimator $\hat{f}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{f} = \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} + \widehat{C}_{Zu} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag, \label{eq:b0}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat \Pi_{\KK}= \sum_{j=1} ^{\KK} \widehat g_j \otimes \widehat g_j$ as earlier introduced.
%Under our assumptions, we apply the central limit theorem for strongly mixing sequences (see, e.g., \citeauthor{heyde1974central}, \citeyear{heyde1974central}) and for martingale difference sequences to find that
% $ T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\langle x_t,w_1 \rangle \langle z_t,w_2 \rangle - \langle \mathcal C_{xz} w_1, w_2 \rangle \right) $ and $T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle $ converge in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1,w_2 \in \mathcal H$.
% \begin{align}\label{pfresult2}
% \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle
% \end{align}
%converges in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1$ and $w_2$.
% Then, by applying Theorem 3 of \citet[Chapter 1]{skorohod2001}, it can be shown that
% \begin{align}
% \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T (x_t \otimes z_t - \mathcal C_{xz}) = O_p(1)\quad\text{and}\quad \quad \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T z_t \otimes u_t = O_p(1); \label{eqcltref}
% \end{align}
% see also Lemma A.1 of \cite{seo2020functional}.
As shown in the proof of Theorem 1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, we have $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq \alpha^{-1/2}$ and $\|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}. Consequently, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|\widehat{f} - f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS} \|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
\end{equation}
We hereafter assume that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ consists of an orthonormal basis; this can simply be achieved by assigning an appropriate vector to each zero eigenvalue with no loss of generality (see e.g., the proof of Lemma A.1 of \citealp{seo2024optimal}). From the properties of the operator norm and that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ is an orthonormal basis, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} -f\|_{\op} \leq \sum_{j=1}^\infty \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f\hat({g}_j)\|.
\end{equation}
Thus the proof becomes complete if $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\hat{g}_j -f\hat{g}_j\| \to_p 0$ is shown. From
% \begin{equation} \label{eqpf0006add2wadd0}
% \|\widehat{\mathcal A}- \mathcal A \widehat{\Pi}_{\K}\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
% \end{equation}
%the following can be shown by
nearly identical arguments used to derive (8.63) of \cite{Bosq2000}, %and (S2.2) of \cite{seong2021functional},
we find that %and the property of the operator norm such that $\Vert \cdot \Vert_{\op} \leq \Vert \cdot \Vert_{\HS}$:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f({g}_j)\|^2 + O_p(1)\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j.\label{eqpf0006add2wadd}
\end{equation}
Since $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f(g_j)\|^2 < \infty$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}, $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \| f(g_j)|^2$ converges in probability to zero as $T$ gets larger (note that $\KK$ diverges as $T \to \infty$). In addition,
$
\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}\|_{\op} + \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast- C_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\| C_{XZ}\|_{\op} = O_p(T^{-1/2})$ as shown by (S2.3) of \cite{seong2021functional}. Combining all these results, we find that \eqref{eqpf0006add2wadd} is $o_p(1)$ as desired. \qed
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop2}}
With some algebra, we find that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}$ in \eqref{eqtheta} can equivalently expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle.
\end{equation}
Let ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$. From Theorem 4 (with its proof and Remark 10) of \cite{seong2021functional}, we find that Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3} lead us to the following:
\begin{equation} \label{eqconv1}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}(\zeta)-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1).
\end{equation}
Note that $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}(\zeta)\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta))$ can be written as $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (A_1+A_2+A_3+A_4)$, where $A_1 = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_2 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_3 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(g_j)$, and $A_4 = f(\Pi_{\KK}-I) \zeta$, where $\Pi_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} g_j \otimes g_j$ and $g_j^s = \sgn \langle g_j, \hat{g}_j \rangle g_j$. Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}, it is shown by \cite{seong2021functional} (see (S2.11), (S2.16) and (S2.33)) that $\KK = O_p(\alpha^{-1/\rho})$ and
\begin{align}
\|f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)\|^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{\rho+2-2\varsigma},\\
\langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}+2 + \rho}.
\end{align}
Combining these results with the conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum3}, it can be shown with nearly identical arguments used in \cite{seong2021functional} that $\|A_1\|, \|A_2\|$ and $\|A_3\|$ are all $O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and, moreover,
\begin{equation}
\|A_4\|^2\leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle f(g_j) \|^2 %\leq\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}} \|f(g_j) \|
\leq O(1)\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma} = O((\KK+1)^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma+1})= O(\alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho}),
\end{equation}
where the first equality follows from the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula for the Riemann zera-function (see e.g., (5.6) of \citealp{ibukiyama2014euler}).
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqconv2}
\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) = O_p(1/\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}) + O(T^{-1/2}\alpha^{(\varsigma+\delta_{\zeta}-1/2)/\rho} /\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}).
\end{equation}
Under Assumption \ref{assum3}, the above is $o_p(1)$.
It remains to show that $|\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)- \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)| \to_p 0$ and replacing $ \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)$ with $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ does not affect the results given in \eqref{eqconv1} and \eqref{eqconv2}. This follows from arguments nearly identical to those used in the proof of Theorem 2 in \cite{seong2021functional}, and thus the details are omitted.
%From this result, we find that, if $f$ and $\zeta$ are smooth enough with respect to $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ (and thus $\varsigma$ and $\delta_{\zeta}$) are large enough, $\alpha$ is allowed to $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{document}
\documentclass[11pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,amsfonts,amstext,upgreek}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{mathtools}
%\usepackage[longnamesfirst]{natbib}
\usepackage{natbib}
% \bibpunct[, ]{(}{)}{,}{a}{}{,}%
\def\bibfont{\small}%
\def\bibsep{\smallskipamount}%
\def\bibhang{24pt}%
\def\newblock{\ }%
\def\BIBand{and}%
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{cancel}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttable}
\appto\TPTnoteSettings{\linespread{1}\footnotesize} % small text if *not* flushleft
\makeatletter %small text if flushleft
\g@addto@macro\TPT@defaults{\linespread{1}\footnotesize}
\makeatother
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\sisetup{group-digits = true,
group-separator = {,}, % default: \, (thinspace)
round-mode = places,
round-precision = 3 }
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{thrmappendix}
\usepackage{alltt}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{accents}
%\usepackage{hypernat}
\usepackage{mathtools,dsfont}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\definecolor{blue(pigment)}{rgb}{0.2, 0.2, 0.6}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
filecolor=magenta,
urlcolor=cyan,
citecolor=blue(pigment),
}
\usepackage[capitalize,noabbrev]{cleveref}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage[inline,shortlabels]{enumitem}
\newtoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}\toggletrue{SUPPLEMENTAL}
\togglefalse{SUPPLEMENTAL} %COMMENT OUT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
\newcommand{\Supplemental}[2]{\iftoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}{#1}{#2}}
\newtoggle{BLINDED}\toggletrue{BLINDED}
\togglefalse{BLINDED} %COMMENT OUT FOR BLINDED VERSION
\newcommand{\Blinded}[2]{\iftoggle{BLINDED}{#1}{#2}}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.8in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.01in}
\newcommand{\nn}{\text{norm}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\text{extr}}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newtheorem{axi}{Axiom}[section]
\renewcommand{\theassumption}{A\arabic{assumption}}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[]
\newtheorem{lemma}[]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[]
\newtheorem{example}{Example}[]
\newcommand{\pconv}{\xrightarrow{p}}
\newcommand{\dconv}{\xrightarrow{d}}
\newcommand{\avgt}{\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T}
\newcommand{\avgn}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}}
\newcommand{\tr}{^{\top}}
\newcommand{\KK}{{\rm K}}
\newcommand{\HH}{{\rm F}}
\newcommand{\PP}{{\rm P}}
\newcommand{\QQ}{{\rm Q}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\DeclareMathOperator{\op}{op}
\newcommand{\ASD}[1]{\{\scalebox{0.85}{$\hspace{-0.1em}#1\hspace{-0.1em}$}\}}
\crefformat{footnote}{#2\footnotemark[#1]#3} %cleveref
\crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\Crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{equation}{}{}
\Crefname{equation}{Equation}{Equations}
%
\crefformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}
\crefrangeformat{enumi}{(#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\crefmultiformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
\Crefformat{enumi}{Part (#2#1#3)}
\Crefrangeformat{enumi}{Parts (#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\Crefmultiformat{enumi}{Parts (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
%
\crefname{assumption}{}{}
\Crefname{assumption}{Assumption}{Assumptions}
\newcommand{\creflastconjunction}{, and\nobreakspace} %Oxford comma
\newcommand{\crefrangeconjunction}{--}
\DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `dirname #1`/`basename #1 .tif`.png}
\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.png}
\graphicspath{ {./Figures/} }
\newcommand{\citeposs}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}
\newcommand{\matf}[1]{#1} %matrix formatting
\newcommand{\vecf}[1]{#1} %vector formatting
% \newcommand{\matf}[1]{\underline{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}}} %matrix formatting
% \newcommand{\vecf}[1]{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}} %vector formatting
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{Var}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Cov}{Cov}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Corr}{Corr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\const}{const.}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ran}{ran}
\DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{rank}
\DeclareMathOperator{\spn}{span}
\DeclareMathOperator{\HS}{HS}
\newcommand{\Varp}[1]{\Var\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Covp}[1]{\Cov\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Corrp}[1]{\Corr\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\WP}{\textrm{ w.p.\ }}
\newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{\Hnull}{{\mathbb H}_0}\newcommand{\Halt}{{\mathbb H}_1}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sgn}{sgn}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{E}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{Q}
\let\Pr\relax \DeclareMathOperator{\Pr}{P} %comment out if Pr desired
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\plim}{plim}
\DeclareMathOperator{\1}{\mathds{1}}
\newcommand{\Ind}[1]{\1\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\Normal}{\mathrm{N}}
\newcommand{\Normalp}[2]{\Normal\left(#1,#2\right)}
\newcommand{\BetaDist}{\textrm{Beta}}
\newcommand{\DirDist}{\textrm{Dir}}
\newcommand{\UnifDist}{\textrm{Unif}}
\newcommand{\weaklyto}{\rightsquigarrow}
\newcommand{\diff}{d} %differential operator: easy to change to upright if needed.
%(partial) derivatives:
\newcommand{\pD}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
\newcommand{\pDD}[2]{\frac{\partial^2 #1}{\partial #2^2}}
\newcommand{\D}[2]{\frac{\diff #1}{\diff #2}}
\newcommand{\DD}[2]{\frac{\diff^2 #1}{\diff #2^2}}
\newcommand{\independenT}[2]{\mathrel{\rlap{$#1#2$}\mkern2mu{#1#2}}}
\newcommand\independent{\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}}
\newcommand{\indep}{\independent}
\providecommand{\absbig}[1]{\left\lvert#1\right\rvert}
\providecommand{\normbig}[1]{\left\lVert#1\right\rVert}
\providecommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert}
\providecommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert}
\newcommand\commWK{\textcolor{blue}}
\newcommand\commKS{\textcolor{red}}
\newcommand\commnote{\textcolor{green}} %% make this invisible later
\newcommand{\ZZ}{\mathrm{Z}}
\let\originalleft\left
\let\originalright\right
\renewcommand{\left}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}
\renewcommand{\right}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}
%Bibliography spacing fix
\let\oldthebibliography=\thebibliography
\let\endoldthebibliography=\endthebibliography
\renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1]{%
\begin{oldthebibliography}{#1}%
\setlength{\parskip}{0ex}%
\setlength{\itemsep}{0ex}%
}%
{%
\end{oldthebibliography}%
}
% \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\roman{enumi}}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\theenumi)}
\allowdisplaybreaks[3]
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\title{Estimating the Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity of \\ \vspace{0.5em} Residential Electricity Demand under Measurement Errors\thanks{We deeply appreciate Hyunjin Yang (KEPCO) and Sungro Lee (KOGAS) for generously providing residential electricity demand and local temperature data in the Republic of Korea. Kyungsik Nam's research was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2024.}}
% We deeply appreciate all valuable comments from ... and to participants of the ... for useful feedback.
\author{Kyungsik Nam\thanks{Assistant Professor, Division of Climate Change, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 17035, Republic of Korea. E-mail: \texttt{ksnam@hufs.ac.kr}}, \,\, Won-Ki Seo\thanks{Lecturer, School of Economics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: \texttt{won-ki.seo@sydney.edu.au}}}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\noindent We estimate the temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand during extreme temperature events using a distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model. Instead of relying on simple averages or individual quantile statistics of raw temperature data, we construct distributional summaries—such as probability density functions or quantile functions—to retain more comprehensive information. Beyond our motivation to exploit more information from the raw temperature data, this modeling approach allows us to examine the effects of various temperature extremes, which conventional models cannot capture. Given that distribution functions are typically estimated from limited discrete observations and thus may include measurement errors, moreover, our econometric approach explicitly addresses this issue. The empirical findings reveal that residential electricity demand is more responsive to cold waves than to heat waves, in a nonlinear fashion. Furthermore, we show that the temperature quantile-to-demand model reveals a U-shaped nonlinear response but insignificant demand responses to extreme temperatures. %These results highlight the importance of robust modeling techniques for accurately forecasting demand under extreme conditions.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{0.4\baselineskip}
\vfill
\noindent JEL Classification: C33, C51, C53, Q41 \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Key words and phrases}: Functional regression, measurement error, electricity demand, temperature sensitivity, heat wave
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\setcounter{page}{0} \thispagestyle{empty}
\baselineskip19.5pt
\pagenumbering{arabic}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newpage
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec_Intro}
\noindent Accurately estimating electricity demand during extreme weather events is vital for ensuring energy security and enhancing grid reliability. For energy practitioners and policymakers, precise demand estimation is crucial for balancing supply and demand, preventing power outages, and ensuring that the energy infrastructure can withstand increased loads during such critical periods. As climate change drives more frequent and severe weather events, the importance of precise demand estimation has grown significantly, making it a cornerstone of sustainable energy management. \commnote{(nearly unchanged)}
%WKNOTE: Grid reliablity? Must be something in the literature.
\indent The relationship between temperature and electricity demand is inherently nonlinear, as demand typically rises sharply during extreme hot or cold conditions. Traditional approaches to modeling this relationship rely on nonlinear variables such as Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD). However, these methods have notable limitations, including the need to arbitrarily define threshold temperatures. To address this limitation, a distribution-based approach that incorporates the full information of temperature distribution as an explanatory variable has been studied. This methodology effectively captures the nonlinear dynamics of electricity demand while allowing the threshold temperature to be estimated endogenously within the model.%, eliminating the need for pre-defined cutoffs.}
\indent Unexpected spikes in electricity demand during extreme temperature events present unique challenges that require advanced econometric modeling to maintain grid stability. Residential electricity demand, in particular, exhibits heightened sensitivity to temperature extremes, with demand increasing more steeply at extreme temperatures compared to moderate conditions. Failing to account for these nonlinearities would result in significant underestimation of demand during critical periods, jeopardizing grid stability. Consequently, accurately modeling the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand is imperative. Such models not only enhance the resilience of energy infrastructure but also enable the development of more effective energy management strategies to address the growing impacts of climate change on electricity demand. \commnote{(slightly changed)}
\commWK{(Introduction, WK STOPPED HERE)}
\commWK{(Paragraph to be inserted: Motivation, why we consider distribution-scalar regression model. Temperare observed at higher-frequency than (reliable data) of residential demand.}
\indent The key challenge in estimating the nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature lies in the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature distributions are treated as true distributions. This assumption can introduce bias into demand response estimates since errors from the estimation process may distort the results. Furthermore, generating a representative temperature distribution using hourly regional data adds further estimation errors, which can lead to biased and inconsistent demand response estimates. These errors are particularly problematic during extreme temperature events, compromising the reliability of estimates critical for energy security and grid stability.
\indent Building on the foundational work of \cite{engle1986semiparametric}, a substantial body of literature has applied the cointegration framework for analyzing electricity demand, with noticeable contributions from \cite{engle1989merging}, \cite{silk1997short}, \cite{beenstock1999demand}, \cite{chang2014time}, \cite{chang2016disentangling}, and \cite{chang2021forecasting}, among others. Subsequently, the literature has focused on incorporating nonlinear temperature variables, such as HDD and CDD, or employing nonlinear econometric methods to evaluate the impact of temperature fluctuations on electricity demand, including \cite{sailor1997sensitivity}, \cite{henley1997non}, \cite{henley1998residential}, \cite{valor2001daily}, \cite{pardo2002temperature}, and \cite{apadula2012relationships}. In particular, smooth transition, panel threshold, and switching regression models have been employed to capture nonlinear demand responses (\citealp{moral2005modelling}; \citealp{bessec2008non}). More recently, density-based functional approaches have emerged to analyze these effects across sectors, providing deeper insights into the nonlinearity between temperature and electricity demand (\citealp{chang2016new}; \citealp{miller2022modeling}).
\indent The nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature has been further explored through various advanced methodologies. For instance, \cite{teixeira2017} integrated linear regression with artificial neural networks to capture heterogeneous consumption patterns, while \cite{caro2020} and \cite{sharma2020} utilized periodically correlated models and synergy of recurrent neural networks with fuzzy logic, respectively, to enhance load forecasting accuracy. Meanwhile, \cite{sigauke2013extreme} applied tail-quantile estimation to analyze extreme daily increases in peak electricity demand, highlighting the critical role of temperature-driven demand fluctuations. Lastly, \cite{sultana2022} refined short-term demand forecasts using machine learning, focusing on managing temperature-induced variability.
\indent Compared to the existing literature, we introduce a functional econometric approach that effectively captures the nonlinearity of residential electricity demand response, even in the presence of measurement errors—a dimension that has not been thoroughly addressed in the existing literature. By addressing the complexities introduced by the measurement errors, our approach provides a more robust estimation, setting it apart from traditional techniques that may overlook these critical factors. Furthermore, our approach differs significantly from existing studies by focusing on the nonlinear demand response of residential electricity to changes in temperature distribution, rather than just temperature levels. This allows for a more comprehensive analysis, capturing the broader distributional effects of temperature fluctuations, particularly during extreme weather events. %By examining shifts in the entire temperature distribution, we provide deeper insights into how extreme temperatures impact electricity demand.
\indent Instead of viewing density and quantile functions as competing methods, we consider them complementary strategies, each providing unique insights to form a comprehensive analytical framework. The density-based approach offers direct interpretability within a compositional data framework, allowing for clear analysis of temperature's impact on electricity demand across the entire temperature level. On the other hand, quantile functions address heterogeneous support more effectively and excel in estimating the cumulative effects of temperature at highest or lowest quantiles. Notably, these issues have not been adequately addressed in the existing literature. In this paper, we apply the Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation for density-valued functional data and mean centering for quantile-valued functional data. These transformations enable us to handle the distinct characteristics of each functional data.%, providing a more robust analysis.
\indent The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec_method} details the econometric methodology employed to estimate the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand in the presence of measurement errors. Section \ref{Sec_Data} provides the residential electricity demand and local temperature data from the Republic of Korea. Given two extreme weather events, Section \ref{Sec_Empirics} presents empirical results illustrating the nonlinear sensitivity of temperature density and quantile functions. Finally, Section \ref{Sec_conclude} provides concluding remarks, with econometric proofs included in the Appendix.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Econometric methodology}\label{sec_method}
\subsection{Distributional predictors of temperature and measurement errors}
\label{sec_method_1}
We let $y_t$ represent electricity demand, a practical measurement of which for our empirical study is detailed in Section \ref{Sec_Data}, and $X_t^\circ$ be a function that summarizes the distributional properties of temperature. There are various choices for $X_t^\circ$, but in this paper, we focus on two: (i) the CLR transformation of the probability density function (PDF) of temperature, denoted hereafter as $p_t$, and (ii) the quantile function (QF) corresponding to $p_t$. The former appears to be more commonly considered in the literature on density-valued functional data (see e.g., \citealp{kokoszka2019forecasting,SEO2019,seong2021functional}), and we place more emphasis on it accordingly, while the latter offers distinct advantages, particularly for our empirical application.
Assuming that $p_t$ of temperature is supported on $[a,b]$, the CLR transformation $X_t^\circ$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqclr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log p_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \log p_t (s) ds, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
Under some mathematical conditions on the underlying PDF $p_t$, the transformation from $p_t$ to its CLR transformation not only embeds the probability densities on $[a,b]$ into a linear subspace of the $L^2[0,1]$ Hilbert space but also is invertible. Thus, the CLR transformation of $p_t$ has been considered a standard choice in the model involving distributional functional data in the aforementioned articles. In addition to this, we will also consider the case where $X_t^\circ$ is the quantile function corresponding to $p_t$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eqqf}
X_t^\circ(r) = \inf \{x \in [a,b]:\int_{a}^{x} p_t(s) ds \leq r\}, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
It is well known that, for the CLR transformation to be an invertible transformation of a set of probability densities, $p_t$ needs to be supported on a common compact interval $[a,b]$ for every $t$ (see e.g., \citealp{Egozcue2006,Boogaart2014}); more specifically the so-called inverse CLR transformation is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eqinverseclr}
X_t^\circ (r) \quad \mapsto \quad \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) \big/ \int_{a}^b \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) dr, \quad r \in [a,b].
\end{equation}
This requires us to estimate all the temperature densities on a common interval. On the other hand, the quantile functions do not require such a restriction, and the support of the function can vary over time.
In practice, $p_t$ cannot be directly observed, and thus $X_t^\circ$ is not observable. For empirical analysis, it must be constructed from the raw temperature data; specifically, we may replace $p_t$ or $\log p_t$ with its relevant nonparametric estimate in \eqref{eqclr} (as in \citealp{SEO2019}), or replace population quantiles with sample quantiles in \eqref{eqqf}. However, this replacement necessarily introduces estimation/smoothing errors, and it is well known that standard estimation methods for function-to-scalar regression may lead to inconsistent estimation of the model. For a more detailed discussion, see \citet[Section 7]{Benatia2017}, \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}, and \cite{seong2021functional}. Subsequently, we discuss econometric methods for studying the distributional impact of temperature on electricity demand that are robust to the presence of these estimation/smoothing errors in the distributional predictor.
%\noindent In empirical studies involving density- or quantile-valued functional data, two challenges arise: (i) the nonlinear constraints make simple functional data analysis inadequate for properly defining these functions within a Hilbert space, and (ii) the true density or quantile function of an economic or climate variable is unobservable, requiring nonparametric density or quantile estimates as proxies.
%\indent To address the first challenge, researchers often apply invertible transformations such as the CLR transformation introduced by \cite{Egozcue2006} to the estimated density functions. As such, we first apply the CLR transformation to the time series of the temperature density function.\footnote{A small value of 0.001 is added to the entire temperature density function to conduct the CLR transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} We then incorporate the hypothetically generated functional shocks based on the CLR-transformed and temporally demeaned functional data. These CLR-transformed temperature density functions, along with the functional shocks, are represented in the function space using orthonormal Fourier basis vectors.
%\indent Unlike density functions, which exploit the CLR transformation to define linear operators for Hilbert space analysis, quantile functions lack an appropriate invertible transformation, making Hilbert space analysis more challenging. Quantile functions map quantiles to temperature values without the constant sum constraint inherent in density functions. This limitation complicates quantile function analysis within the Hilbert space. Acknowledging this limitation, we simply apply a mean centering operation to represent the quantile function in the function space using Fourier basis functions.
%\indent Regarding the second challenge, researchers typically replace unobservable true density or quantile function with nonparametric density or quantile estimates, and these estimates would be susceptible to measurement errors. As discussed earlier, such measurement errors—stemming from data quality issues or limitations in the estimation process itself—can lead to inconsistent estimates, introducing bias into the analysis of nonlinear responses, particularly regarding temperature's impact on electricity demand. In this light, addressing measurement error is critical for accurately uncovering the true nature of nonlinear demand response, underscoring the need for more robust methodologies.
\iffalse
\subsection{Model and estimator (version with tensor notation)} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated, meaning that $\mathbb{E}[X_t \otimes u_t] \neq 0$, where $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product (defined by defined by $g\otimes h (\cdot) = \langle g,\cdot \rangle h$ for $g\in \mathcal H$ and $h \in \mathbb{R}$; see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim} in the Appendix for more details).\footnote{Specifically, for any $g,h$ taking values in $\mathcal H$, $ g \otimes h (x) = \langle g,x \rangle h = (\int_{a}^{b} g(s)x(r)dr)h$ for any $x\in \mathcal H$.}
As is well known in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition $\mathbb{E}[X_t\otimes u_t]=0$, inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves with measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model by \cite{seong2021functional} to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional instrumental variable (IV) satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}:=\mathbb{E}[(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])\otimes (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
The above consists of only the minimal requirements for the IV $Z_t$. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ exhibits time series dependence, we let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of an instrumental variable considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (X_t-\bar{X}_T) \otimes (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T) \otimes (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
%\widehat{C}_{Zy} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes y_t, \quad
% \quad %\widehat{C}_{Zu} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes u_t,
%\widehat{\Gamma}_{yX} =\widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ}, \quad \widehat{\Gamma}_{X} = \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast (:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2 \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j.
\end{equation}
The eigenelements can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model.
\bigskip
%\newpage
\fi
\subsection{Model and estimator} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated (meaning that $\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x \rangle u_t] \neq 0$ for some $x\in \mathcal H$) and thus $X_t$ is endogenous.
As is well documented in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition ($\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x\rangle u_t]=0$ for every $x\in \mathcal H$), inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves with measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model by \cite{seong2021functional} to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional instrumental variable (IV), which satisfies the following: for every $x \neq 0$,
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}(x):=\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t], x \rangle (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x\rangle u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
$C_{XZ}$ (resp.\ $C_{Zu}$) defined above is called the (cross-)covariance operator of $X_t$ and $Z_t$ (resp.\ $Z_t$ and $u_t$). The conditions given in \eqref{eqreg3} consist of only the necessary requirements for the IV $Z_t$ in our DSR model. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ exhibits time series dependence, we let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of the IV considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle X_t-\bar{X}_T,x\rangle (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle Z_t-\bar{Z}_T,x \rangle (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $C_{XZ}^\ast$ (defined by $C_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x \rangle(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, the composite map $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} \hat{g}_j = \hat{\lambda}_j \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\lambda}_1\geq \hat{\lambda}_2 \geq \ldots \geq 0$. The eigenelements of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
% \begin{align} \label{eqest}
% \hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
% \end{align}
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
%= T^{-2}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{s=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \hat{g}_j, X_{s}-\bar{X}_T\rangle \langle Z_{s}-\bar{Z}_T,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
%;\footnote{An alternative equivalent expression is $\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$.}
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Data}\label{Sec_Data}
\subsection{Raw data and temperature densities} \label{Sec_Data_1}
\noindent To investigate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we analyze an extensive dataset that includes residential electricity demand (in GWh) and local temperature (in degrees Celsius) readings from the Republic of Korea. The dataset spans from January 1999 to December 2023, with 300 monthly observations. The residential electricity demand data is provided by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), the state-owned utility responsible for electricity sales across the country. Due to the inherent variability in the number of days within each month, we have normalized the raw monthly electricity demand by dividing it by the number of effective days per month. This adjustment produces a metric known as electricity demand per effective day, as discussed in \cite{chang2014time}, which underscores the importance of accounting for temporal differences in energy demand analysis.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth, width=0.8\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Y_Graph.png}
\caption{Natural log of residential electricity demand per effective day and its 12-month moving average (top), and their deviation process (down) from January 1999 to December 2023.}
\label{Fig:Y_Graphs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent \cite{chang2016new} found no empirical evidence suggesting that non-climate variables significantly influence the demand response to temperature in the residential sector. Building on this finding, and to isolate the short-run fluctuations in residential electricity demand, we calculate the deviation from the natural logarithm of a 12-month moving average of electricity demand per effective day, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Y_Graphs}. This deviation serves as a proxy for the short-run component of electricity demand, allowing us to focus on the short-run effects of temperature changes while filtering out the long-run effects of income and electricity price. By employing this detrending approach, we ensure that our analysis effectively captures the nonlinear responses of residential electricity demand to temperature fluctuations, independent of other non-climate factors (\citealp{chang2016new}).
\commnote{(All good. It would be better if we cite any reference where (isolated) short-run demand is computed in this way.)}
%(heterogeneous support problem with density generation)
\indent To model the seasonality, we retrieve the hourly temperature data from the KMA National Climate Data Center.\footnote{Downloaded from https://data.kma.go.kr/cmmn/main.do on July 1, 2024.} We then construct the monthly temperature density function over the common support, $[-20,40]$, using hourly temperature observations from the five largest cities (Seoul, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan) covering the territory of the Republic of Korea.\footnote{Instead of estimating the range of the common support, we adopt the common support of $[-20,40]$ with grid difference, $0.1$, as established in the literature (\citealp{chang2014time}; \citealp{chang2016new}).} To represent the temperature density function of the Republic of Korea, we calculate the weighted average of the estimated time series for these five density functions, assigning weights based on the annual proportion of electricity sales in each of the five regions: the Seoul Metropolitan Area (Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi), Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan.\footnote{The combined annual electricity consumption of the five regions accounts for approximately 55.3\% of the national total on average during the period from 1999 to 2021. Due to data availability constraints, the proportions for the years 2022 and 2023 have been substituted with the values from 2021.}\footnote{The annual regional consumption data was obtained from the Korea Energy Statistics Information System (KESIS) and can be accessed at \url{https://www.kesis.net/sub/subChart.jsp?report_id=33150&reportType=0} (data downloaded on July 1, 2024).}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.4\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc0.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.55\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates of the temperature distribution in the Republic of Korea (left) and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics (right). The red lines indicate August 2017 and August 2018, while the blue lines represent January 2020 and January 2021.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip} illustrates the time series of a temperature density function, estimated using Gaussian kernel and Silverman's rule of thumb bandwidth, and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics. Note that the generated monthly temperature density functions exhibit significant heterogeneity, particularly between summer and winter. The time-series analysis of monthly temperature distributions in the Republic of Korea from 1999 to 2023 reveals stable seasonal cycles in the mean temperature, reflecting consistent annual patterns. However, the standard deviation indicates increasing variability, particularly post-2010, suggesting a growing spread in temperature values around the mean. The skewness exhibits seasonal fluctuations, with positive skewness during warmer months indicating a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, and negative skewness during colder months reflecting an increase in extreme low temperatures. However, this skewness does not show a clear trend of increasing asymmetry over time but rather indicates a recurring seasonal pattern. The kurtosis remains relatively stable but experiences significant spikes, particularly after 2010. These spikes suggest periods with more frequent and intense extreme temperature events. Thus, while the skewness reflects consistent seasonal variability, the spikes in kurtosis indicate a rise in temperature extremes, likely influenced by climate change.
% \indent This non-homogeneous support presents challenges for the functional econometric methodologies, potentially rendering them inappropriate for this analysis. To address this issue, we apply the Lorenz Curve transformation combined with the quantile function, as suggested by \cite{bongiorno2019describing}, to mitigate the problem of non-homogeneous support throughout the sample period. Based on the common support range of $[-20, 40]$, more specifically, we extend the estimated quantile function by setting the 0$^\textrm{th}$ and 100$^\textrm{th}$ percentiles to the minimum and maximum values of the generated quantile functions, respectively. This approach allows the entire quantile function over the common support to capture the seasonality throughout the sample period.
% (Lorenz curve implication with L''(p) transformation)
%\indent We generate the Lorenz curve using the formula $\hat{L}(p) = \frac{1}{\bar{X}} \int_0^p \hat{Q}(r) , dr$, where $\hat{Q}(r)$ represents the empirical quantile function at the $r$-th quantile, and $\bar{X}$ is the empirical mean of the quantile function. Next, we derive the second derivative of the Lorenz curve, $L(p)$, using the formula $L''(p) = \frac{1}{\bar{X}} f\{Q(p)\}$, where $f\{Q(p)\}$ is the density-quantile function, as presented in equation (4) of \cite{bongiorno2019describing}. Subsequently, the negative Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation is applied to the empirical $L''(p)$ to ensure it is defined within the Hilbert Space. Note that these transformation processes effectively result in the positive CLR transformation of the density function, although two different approaches would produce different results due to extended grid number and kernel estimation techniques (Do this more...).
\subsection{Construction of the distributional predictors}
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, distributional predictors in practice need to be estimated in advance from the raw data. For the CLR transformations, we use the estimated densities, denoted as $\hat{p}_t$, obtained in Section \ref{Sec_Data_1} (see Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}), and construct $X_t$ as follows:\begin{equation}\label{eqclr2} X_t(r) = \log \hat{p}_t(r) - \int_{-20}^{40} \log \hat{p}_t (s) ds.\footnote{As is common in the literature (see e.g., Section 5.2, \citealp{seoshang22}), a small value of $10^{-3}$ is added to the entire temperature density function $\hat{p}_t$ to implement the log transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} \end{equation}
On the other hand, when \( X_t^\circ \) represents the quantile function corresponding to \( p_t \), we estimate it directly from the raw temperature data by replacing population quantiles with sample quantiles. Specifically, if \( x_{[j]} \) for \( j=1,\ldots,N_t \) are the ordered (smallest to largest) raw temperature observations at time \( t \), we define
\[
X_t(r) = x_{[N_t r]} \quad \text{if \( N_t r \) is an integer,}
\]
for \( r \in [0,1] \). For \( r \in [0,1] \) where \( N_t r \) is not an integer, we employ a linear interpolation scheme to estimate values proportionally between neighboring data points.
%\indent To address the first challenge, researchers often apply invertible transformations such as the CLR transformation introduced by \cite{Egozcue2006} to the estimated density functions. As such, we first apply the CLR transformation to the time series of the temperature density function.\footnote{A small value of 0.001 is added to the entire temperature density function to conduct the CLR transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} We then incorporate the hypothetically generated functional shocks based on the CLR-transformed and temporally demeaned functional data. These CLR-transformed temperature density functions, along with the functional shocks, are represented in the function space using orthonormal Fourier basis vectors.
%\indent Unlike density functions, which exploit the CLR transformation to define linear operators for Hilbert space analysis, quantile functions lack an appropriate invertible transformation, making Hilbert space analysis more challenging. Quantile functions map quantiles to temperature values without the constant sum constraint inherent in density functions. This limitation complicates quantile function analysis within the Hilbert space. Acknowledging this limitation, we simply apply a mean centering operation to represent the quantile function in the function space using Fourier basis functions.
%\indent Regarding the second challenge, researchers typically replace unobservable true density or quantile function with nonparametric density or quantile estimates, and these estimates would be susceptible to measurement errors. As discussed earlier, such measurement errors—stemming from data quality issues or limitations in the estimation process itself—can lead to inconsistent estimates, introducing bias into the analysis of nonlinear responses, particularly regarding temperature's impact on electricity demand. In this light, addressing measurement error is critical for accurately uncovering the true nature of nonlinear demand response, underscoring the need for more robust methodologies.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Empirical Investigation}\label{Sec_Empirics}
% weakness of Chang et al. (2016) approach) no clr transformation \& measurement error: Points: Nonlinear temperature sensitivity with functional approach, CLR transformation for Hilbert space, measurement error
% errors originating from temperature measurement sites can complicate the analysis, potentially skewing density estimation and, by extension, the overall results.
\noindent In this section, we estimate the DSR model specified in \eqref{eqreg2} using the CLR predictor $X_t$, constructed as described in \eqref{eqclr2}, with $\hat{p}_t$ illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}. For the computation of our estimator with finite samples, we represent the distributional predictor using 80 orthonormal Fourier basis functions on $[0,1]$.\footnote{Moderate changes in the number of basis functions result in only minor numerical differences in the estimation results.} Noting that measurement errors arise from smoothing \( X_t \) from its discrete realizations, we assume that these errors are serially uncorrelated. Under this assumption, and given that the sequence of \( X_t^\circ \) (and also \( X_t \)) is serially correlated, the lagged variable \( X_{t-\kappa} \) for \( \kappa \geq 1 \) may serve as a candidate IV for our empirical analysis. Similar approaches were previously adopted in \cite{seong2021functional} and \cite{Chen_et_al_2020} concerning time-series functional data. Since our approach relies on a high degree of dependence, where possible, of the IV on the endogenous distributional predictor \( X_t \), as in standard IV methods (see Section \ref{sec_app_est_1} for more details), it is not advisable to use a large value of \( \kappa \), as this could make \( X_{t-\kappa} \) only weakly correlated with \( X_t \). Therefore, we have chosen to set \( \kappa \) to 1. We believe that this selection allows us to account for potential errors in the density/quantile estimation process or data quality while enhancing the robustness and reliability of our analysis. Lastly, in our estimation procedure, $K$ (see \eqref{eqest}) is set to 3.\footnote{Following the results given in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix and Remark \ref{rem1}, we set $\KK=1+\max_{j\geq 1}\{\tilde{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for $\alpha = 0.1 \times T^{-0.3}$, where $\tilde{\lambda}_j^2=\lambda_j^2/\sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2$ and this is to obtain a choice of $\KK$ which is independent of the scale of $X_t$ and $Z_t$; see Section S5 of \cite{seong2021functional}.} %Our estimator $\hat{f}$ is visualized in Figure \commWK{(SOMETHING)}.
\indent Instead of conducting a broad inference on temperature effects, we aim to identify the nonlinear impacts of extreme temperature events, represented by $f(\zeta)$, where $\zeta$ indicates the distributional temperature shock associated with these events. This hypothetical relationship is estimated using our proposed estimator, $\hat{f}(\zeta),$ accompanied by an asymptotically valid local confidence interval constructed based on the results in \eqref{eqlocal}. Leveraging the distributional flexibility of our DSR model, we examine two historical scenarios that generate $\zeta$, as detailed in the following section.
% Rather than focusing on inference for the estimator $f$ itself, we are primarily interested in the partial effect of a distributional perturbation $\zeta$ applied to a temperature distribution, which is given by $f(\zeta)$. This effect can be naturally estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$ using our estimator, and an asymptotically valid confidence interval can also be constructed based on the result in \eqref{eqlocal}. Due to the flexibility and generality of our DSR model, various choices of $\zeta$ (beyond simple mean change considered conventional literature), which are empirically relevant and have broader implications, can be considered within this framework. \commnote{(WK: Not very confident about the details. Please check this paragraph again.)}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Functional Shocks for Cold Wave and Heat Wave}\label{Sec_Est_Shocks}
\noindent The Republic of Korea experienced two significant extreme weather events for the sample period.\footnote{See e.g., \url{https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Hottest-Day-Korean-History} and \url{https://watchers.news/2021/01/11/historic-cold-wave-and-heavy-snow-hit-south-korea/}.} In August 2018, the Republic of Korea experienced one of its most intense heat waves on record, with temperatures soaring to an average of 29.2°C, the highest since record-keeping began in 1907. This extreme heat led to the residential electricity demand of 8,851.04 GWh during that month, underscoring the strain placed on the energy grid by cooling needs. Similarly, January 2021 was marked by a significant cold wave, with temperatures plunging to an average of -6.1°C, well below the seasonal norm. During this period, residential electricity demand also spiked to 7,163.28 GWh as households increased heating usage to cope with the severe cold.
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrates the year-over-year changes in monthly temperature PDFs associated with extreme weather events, specifically the heat wave of August 2018 and the cold wave of January 2021. In the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, the blue solid line represents the temperature PDF in January 2021, compared to the blue dashed line for January 2020, with the black line showing the (vertical) difference between the two PDFs, capturing the effect of the cold wave. In the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, similarly, the red solid line represents the temperature PDF in August 2018, while the red dashed line shows the temperature distribution in August 2017, with the black line indicating the difference between these two PDFs.
\indent The temperature distributions during the 2018 heat wave and the 2021 cold wave exhibit distinct shifts, which are indicative of extreme weather conditions. The August 2018 distribution is significantly right-skewed, suggesting a higher frequency of exceptionally high temperatures, with a pronounced right tail representing extreme heat events. In contrast, the January 2021 distribution is heavily left-skewed, highlighting the prevalence of unusually low temperatures, with a long left tail representing severe cold conditions. These graphs reveal the significant changes in temperature distributions during these historical extreme events, illustrating how both the heat wave and cold wave deviated sharply from typical conditions in the preceding months.
%We call the function $g(s)$, corresponding to the black line of the left (resp.\ right) panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, as the observed intense heat (resp.\ cold) wave, which is computed from the reference (normal) temperature PDF in August 2017 (resp.\ January 2020), hereafter denoted G_{\nn}(s). We also let G_{\ee}(s) denote the extreme temperature PDF given by G_{\nn}(s) + g(s) (i.e., the August 2018 PDF in the heat wave scenario or January 2021 PDF in the cold wave scenario).
\indent We henceforth refer to the function \( \zeta(s) \), corresponding to the black line in the left (resp.\ right) panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, as the observed intense heat wave (resp.\ cold wave). This function is computed by subtracting \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) from \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \), where \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) denotes the reference (normal) temperature PDF in August 2017 (resp.\ January 2020), and \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) denotes the extreme temperature PDF in August 2018 for the heat wave (resp. \ January 2021 for the cold wave). Consequently, \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) can be expressed as \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) + \zeta(s) \).
We are interested in quantifying the impact of extreme temperature events on electricity demand. To conduct this analysis, we also generate hypothetical functional shocks that represent less extreme temperature scenarios. Specifically, we define a functional shock $\zeta_j(s)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqmoderated}
|\zeta_j(s)| \leq |\zeta(s)|, \qquad \int_{-20}^{40} \zeta_j(s) \, ds = 0
\end{equation}
as a moderated heat (resp.\ cold) wave, if \( \zeta(s) \) represents the observed intense heat (resp.\ cold) wave. Adding a moderated heat or cold wave to the reference PDF \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) results in a new PDF, denoted as \( \ZZ_j(s) \). Furthermore, since the application of \( \zeta_j(s) \) induces a globally more moderate shock compared to \( \zeta(s) \), \( \ZZ_j(s) \) is expected to represent less extreme temperature conditions than the extreme temperature PDF \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) observed in August 2018 for the heat wave or January 2021 for the cold wave.
There are many possible choices of $\zeta_j(s)$ or $\ZZ_j(s)$, but in this section, we focus on the following choices: for some $M>0$ and $ j=0,\ldots, M$, $\zeta_j(s) = ({j}/{M}) \times \zeta(s)$, and hence
\begin{equation} \label{eqhypothetical}
\ZZ_j(s) = \ZZ(s) + (j/M) \times \zeta(s), \quad j=0,\ldots, M. % \left(\frac{j}{M}\right)
\end{equation}
Note that $\zeta_j(s) = (j/M) \times \zeta(s)$ can be naturally interpreted as a possible, but less extreme, heat or cold wave and satisfies all the conditions given in \eqref{eqmoderated}. Moreover, $\zeta_j(s)$ for $j$ close to $M$ can be understood as a temperature event that transforms the reference PDF into another PDF similar to the extreme temperature PDF, while $j$ close to $0$ can be understood as a temperature event causing only a moderate change. Observe that $\ZZ_j(s)$, constructed from $\zeta_j(s)$, starts from the normal temperature PDF ($\ZZ_{\nn}(s)$) and converges to the extreme temperature PDF ($ZZ_{\ee}(s)$) by a constant functional increment $(1/M) \times \zeta(s)$ at each step (see the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} showing a few selected $\ZZ_j$). Under this interpretation of $\zeta_j(s)$ as a shock making the reference PDF progressively approach the extreme temperature PDF at a constant rate, our focus is to analyze the effects of this sequence of functional shocks.
The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} illustrates the change in a few descriptive statistics, caused by $\zeta_j(s)$, during the transition of $\ZZ_j(s)$ from the reference PDF $\ZZ_{\nn}(s)$ to the extreme one $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$ in each scenario. As may well be expected from our construction of $\ZZ_j(s)$, the means of $\ZZ_j(s)$ linearly increase or decrease toward more extreme values ($26.02 \rightarrow 28.54$ in the heat wave scenario and $2.31 \rightarrow -1.53$ in the cold wave scenario) as $\ZZ_j(s)$ gets closer to $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$. On the other hand, other descriptive statistics shift in a nonlinear manner as $\ZZ_j(s)$ moves from $\ZZ_{\nn}$ to $\ZZ_{\ee}$. In the cold wave scenario, the variance increases substantially from January 2020 to January 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating a wider dispersion of temperatures in 2021. However, decreases in skewness ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$) and kurtosis ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$) suggest that the distribution becomes more symmetrical and less peaked, with fewer extreme cold events. In contrast, in the heat wave scenario, we observe a smaller increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), accompanied by rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$) and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), indicating a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution.
%The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} illustrate the change of a few descriptive statistics accompanied by the transition of $G_j(s)$ from the reference PDF $G_{\nn}(s)$ to the extreme one $G_{\ee}(s)$ in each scenario. As may well be expected from our construction of $G_{j}(s)$, the means of $G_j(s)$ linearly increase or decrease toward more extreme values ($26.02 \rightarrow 28.54$ in the heat wave scenario and $2.31 \rightarrow -1.53$ in the cold wave scenario) as $G_j(s)$ gets closer to $G_{\ee}(s)$. On the other hand, other descriptive statistics shift in nonlinear manner as $G_j(s)$ moves from $G_{\nn}$ to $G_{\ee}$. In the cold wave scenario, the variance increases substantially from January 2020 to January 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating a wider dispersion of temperatures in 2021. However, decreases in skewness ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$) and kurtosis ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$) suggest that the distribution becomes more symmetrical and less peaked, with fewer extreme cold events. In contrast, in the heat wave scenario, we observe a smaller increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), accompanied by rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$) and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), indicating a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution.
%While the shift in means toward more extreme values ($26.02 \rightarrow 28.54$ in the heat wave scenario and $2.31 \rightarrow -1.53$ in the cold wave scenario) is expected from our construction of our functional shocks, the variance and higher-order moments provide deeper insights. In the cold wave scenario, the variance increases substantially from January 2020 to January 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating a wider dispersion of temperatures in 2021. However, decreases in skewness ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$) and kurtosis ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$) suggest that the distribution becomes more symmetrical and less peaked, with fewer extreme cold events. In contrast, in the heat wave scenario, we observe a smaller increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), accompanied by rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$) and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), indicating a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution. This reflects more frequent but less intense extreme high-temperature events in 2018 compared to 2017. Overall, while both scenarios demonstrate increased variance, highlighting greater variability and broader temperature ranges, cold waves result in a more symmetrical and less extreme distribution, whereas heat waves lead to greater asymmetry with more frequent but less intense extremes. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock} presents the CLR-transformed temperature densities for the specified periods, while the right panel depicts the progression from moderate to severe shocks, transitioning from the red dashed line to the red solid line for heat waves and from the blue dashed line to the blue solid line for cold waves.
% It is worth noting that the black line in each plot, say $g(s)$, is illustrated exclusively for descriptive purposes and will serve as an intuitive reference point for constructing the corresponding CLR shocks in the estimation and inference procedure. $g(s)$ itself cannot be interpreted as a functional shock, as its addition to any arbitrary PDF does not guarantee that the resulting function remains nonnegative over $[-20,40]$, and thus does not generally form a proper PDF.\footnote{As extensively documented in the literature (see, e.g., \citealp{petersen2016,Hron2016330}), the space of PDFs in $\mathcal H$ is not closed under addition or subtraction.}
%We ascertain that the black lines in Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} are used only for descriptive purpose, and will construct corresponding CLR shocks in our estimation and inference procedure.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.98\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock0.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates comparing January 2021 (solid) and January 2020 (dotted) on the left, and August 2018 (solid) and August 2017 (dotted) on the right, with the black lines representing their differences.}
\label{Fig:Func_shock2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
% The black lines representing the differences from the previous months underscore the magnitude of these deviations, clearly illustrating the substantial impact of these climatic anomalies.
%\indent Statistically speaking, the variance for the cold wave scenario shows a substantial increase from January 2020 to January 2021, reflecting a wider spread of temperatures in 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$). This suggests that 2021 experienced a more varied range of cold temperatures compared to the previous year. However, the decreases in skewness and kurtosis indicate that, while the temperature distribution became more dispersed, it also became more symmetrical and less peaked ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$; $2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$). This suggests that extreme cold events were less frequent in 2021 than in 2020. For the heat wave scenario, the variance increases to a much smaller extent compared to the cold wave ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$). Notably, skewness increases while kurtosis decreases, indicating that the temperature distribution in 2018 became more right-skewed but less peaked compared to 2017 ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$; $2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$). This implies that extreme high-temperature events were more frequent but not as intense in 2018. In summary, while both cold and heat waves lead to increased variance, reflecting more extreme conditions compared to the previous year, they have overall different effects on the temperature distribution. The cold wave results in a more symmetrical and less extreme distribution, whereas the heat wave leads to greater asymmetry with more frequent but less intense extreme temperatures.
%\begin{figure}[t]
% \begin{center}
% \includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock2.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
% \caption{Selected functional shocks for cold waves (blue), shifted 50 grids to the right, and heat waves (red), shifted 50 grids to the left (left), and the mean change of the functional density shocks during the shifting process (right).}
% \label{Fig:Func_shock3}
% \end{center}
%\end{figure}
% \begin{figure}[t]
% \begin{center}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock2.png}
% \includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.29\textwidth, width=0.29\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Mean_Change_desc.png}
% \caption{CLR transformed density for the heat wave and cold wave events (left), and the associated CLR transformed shocks with the shifting process (right).}
% \label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}
% \end{center}
% \end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.54\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Shock_stat_change3.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.31\textwidth, width=0.45\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Shock_stat_change.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\caption{Temperature densities for heat waves and cold waves (left), showing the transition from reference to event periods, and the evolution of distributional statistics (right).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent To identify the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of electricity demand in our model using the CLR-transformed PDFs, we need to generate relevant functional shocks, corresponding to $\zeta_j(s)$, in the CLR domain. This can be easily implemented by applying the CLR transformation to both the reference PDF $\ZZ(s)$ and $\ZZ_j(s)$, and then computing the subtraction of the former from the latter in each of the heat and cold scenarios. The computed functional shocks in the CLR domain are plotted in Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}.
%corresponding generate functional shocks of varying intensities associated with extreme temperature events by shifting temperature PDFs within the CLR domain. Specifically, we consider a sequence of 50 incremental shifts of the August 2017 PDF toward the August 2018 PDF. Specifically, in each step, we add a moderated heat wave, defined as $j/50$ of the historical heat wave (represented by the black line in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}), to the reference PDF for $j=0,\ldots,50$. As a result, we obtain a sequence of proper PDFs that transition from the August 2017 PDF (representing the typical August temperature distribution) to the August 2018 PDF (representing the abnormal August temperature distribution) at a steady rate. The progression of the PDFs generated by this procedure is illustrated in the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0}.
% The CLR transformation is applied to both the reference (August 2017 PDF) and each shifted PDF, and then each functional shock is computed as the subtraction of the former from the latter.
% to examine the response of electricity demand per effective day (hereafter, nonlinear demand response) under the heat wave scenario.
%proper notion of obviously associated with the changes in the PDFs (from the reference PDF) illustrated in the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0},
% Similarly, for the cold wave scenario, the January 2020 PDF (the reference PDF in this scenario) is shifted incrementally toward the January 2021 PDF; the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} illustrates a few selected proper PDFs obtained through this process. Then the functional shocks are constructed by the same approach used for the heat wave scenario.
% Each functional shock is associated with a moderated heat (resp.\ cold) wave, given by $j/50$ of the historical heat (resp.\ cold) wave, and also a proper notion of the distributional difference between the reference and shifted PDFs in the CLR domain. Thus, these functional shocks may be understood as a sequence of increasingly intense heat or cold waves, expressed in the CLR domain. The computed functional shocks are plotted in Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}.
% We will examine the effect of these functional shocks on the response of electricity demand per effective day under the heat wave and cold wave scenarios.
% \indent The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} summarize the distributional changes in terms of a few descriptive statistics when the increasingly intense functional shocks are given to the reference PDF. As may be expected from .... \commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)}
%\indent The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} illustrates the change of distributional statistics during the transition from the reference PDF to the extreme one in each scenario, revealing significant changes in the characteristics of extreme temperature events. While the shift in means toward more extreme values ($26.02 \rightarrow 28.54$ in the heat wave scenario and $2.31 \rightarrow -1.53$ in the cold wave scenario) is expected from our construction of our functional shocks, the variance and higher-order moments provide deeper insights. In the cold wave scenario, the variance increases substantially from January 2020 to January 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating a wider dispersion of temperatures in 2021. However, decreases in skewness ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$) and kurtosis ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$) suggest that the distribution becomes more symmetrical and less peaked, with fewer extreme cold events. In contrast, in the heat wave scenario, we observe a smaller increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), accompanied by rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$) and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), indicating a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution. This reflects more frequent but less intense extreme high-temperature events in 2018 compared to 2017. Overall, while both scenarios demonstrate increased variance, highlighting greater variability and broader temperature ranges, cold waves result in a more symmetrical and less extreme distribution, whereas heat waves lead to greater asymmetry with more frequent but less intense extremes. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock} presents the CLR-transformed temperature densities for the specified periods, while the right panel depicts the progression from moderate to severe shocks, transitioning from the red dashed line to the red solid line for heat waves and from the blue dashed line to the blue solid line for cold waves.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\caption{CLR-transformed temperature densities for the specified periods (left), and the progression of functional shocks (right), transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%\commWK{The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock} illustrates the CLR-transformed temperature densities for the aforementioned periods. The right panel illustrates the progress from the moderate heat wave shock (red dashed line) to the most severe heat wave shock (red solid line) and from the moderate cold wave shock (blue dashed line) to the most severe cold wave shock (blue solid line). % The impact of each shock can be analyzed by adding the shock to the CLR of a reference density and subsequently computing the corresponding temperature density using the inverse CLR transformation, as defined in \eqref{eqinverseclr}. Notably, the functional shock represented by the red solid line alters the distribution to reflect a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, whereas the shock represented by the red dashed line exhibits a moderated effect. Similarly, the blue solid line indicates a shift toward more extreme low temperatures compared to the blue dashed line.} %Given that positive hese shocks are added to any arbitrary density Given that positive values of any CLR Obviously, the shocks corresponding to the solid lines have more severe extreme temperature more the most severe extreme temperature shocks while the dashed lines represent the most modest }
%\commWK{The functional shocks for a heat wave scenario are generated as the difference, in the CLR domain, between the extreme temperature PDF of August 2018 and the normal temperature PDF of August 2017, both shifted toward the center of the domain. These shifts can be interpreted as (hypothetical) moderated heat waves. Similarly, for a cold wave scenario, shifting the functional shocks represents moderated cold waves. Notably, this shifting procedure inherently introduces proportional changes in the mean of the associated temperature PDFs for both heat wave and cold wave scenarios, as illustrated in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}. Specifically, the mean temperature in August 2018 was approximately 28.54°C, compared to 26.02°C in August 2017. As the two PDFs are progressively shifted leftward by up to 50 grids, the mean temperatures decrease to 23.55°C and 21.06°C, respectively.} \commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)} Thus, while the heat wave shock led to a mean temperature increase of 2.49°C, shifting the temperature distributions reveals that the impact of the heat wave shock varies depending on the defined temperature levels. Similarly, we generate the sequence of the functional shock by shifting the cold wave shock (blue solid line) to the right across a range of grids. The observed difference in mean temperatures between these two months is 3.84°C, as shown in the right panel of the figure. Preserving this difference while examining the impact of varying cold wave intensities, a weak cold wave shock is defined by a shift from a temperature distribution with a mean of 7.30°C to one with a mean of 3.46°C, while a strong cold wave shock is characterized by a shift from a mean of 2.30°C to a mean of -1.53°C. % These adjustments maintain the mean difference between the two original temperature densities, while effectively illustrating how different levels of cold wave intensity can be generated and analyzed.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Density-to-Demand Model}
% (Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity)
% (economic implications)
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} presents the estimation results for the density-to-demand model. Observing that the mean temperature of $\ZZ_j(s)$ linearly increases as $\ZZ_j(s)$ gets closer to $\ZZ_{\ee}$ by a constant functional increment, we report the estimated response of electricity demand on the $y$-axis with respect to the mean level of $\ZZ_j(s)$, which is represented on the $x$-axis. The solid lines show the estimates, $\hat{f}(\zeta_j)$, and these are interpreted as the estimated demand responses to progressively, but consistently, intensifying heat or cold wave shocks, as described in \eqref{Sec_Est_Shocks}. The dotted lines indicate the 95\% confidence intervals for $f(\zeta)$ based on the asymptotic normality result given in \eqref{eqlocal}. For comparison, estimation results without addressing potential endogeneity are scaled to half the magnitude on the $y$-axis for $\kappa=1$ and reported for the case $\kappa = 0$.
\commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)}
%The estimation results for $\kappa = 1$, which is expected to effectively account for measurement errors yield particularly insightful outcomes.}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth, width=0.9\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Empirical_rlt1.png}
\caption{Density-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top) and heat wave (bottom) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ (left) and $\kappa = 1$ (right).}% The black line indicates the estimation results for the orthornormal Legendre basis functions.}
\label{Fig:Empirical_rlts}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The top panel illustrates the demand response to cold wave shocks across different magnitudes of functional shocks. Notably, the empirical results from the estimation with $\kappa = 1$, which is expected to be effective in the presence of measurement errors, show a significant increase in electricity demand response as the moderated cold wave gets closer to the severe one. This implies that cold wave shocks drive electricity demand more intensely, particularly under colder conditions, and as is widely known, this would be closely related to increased heating needs. The bottom panel of the figure shows the demand response to heat wave shocks (red lines), where demand response increases as the moderated heat wave gets closer to the severe one, particularly under $\kappa=1$. This would reflect the increased cooling demand during extreme heat events.
\indent As shown in the figure, the empirical results for $\kappa=0$ exhibit a similar increasing pattern but with a significantly lower magnitude. Since the estimation results for $\kappa=0$ do not account for endogeneity, we focus on the estimation results with $\kappa=1$ as our main empirical findings. These empirical results emphasize the non-linear and temperature-sensitive nature of electricity demand response. Notably, under the heat wave scenario, the change of electricity demand increases as heat wave gets more intense, whereas in the cold wave scenario, the change of electricity demand decreases as cold wave gets severe. This aligns with empirical findings in the existing literature, reflecting the surge in cooling load due to increased air conditioning usage during heat waves (\citealp{chang2016new}).
\indent More specifically, the corresponding demand response values for the cold wave event are 0.1677 at -1.23°C, 0.2328 at -2.53°C, and 0.2806 at -3.83°C. Given the electricity demand is expressed in natural logarithms, and the demand response at a specific mean temperature change reflects the relative impact of a heat wave shock, the empirical results indicate that a decline in mean temperature from -1.23°C to -2.53°C since January 2020 corresponds to a 6.51\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. A further decrease in mean temperature from -2.53°C to -3.83°C leads to an additional 4.77\% increase in demand. Collectively, a total reduction of -3.83°C in mean temperature from January 2020 results in a 28.06\% year-over-year rise in monthly electricity demand. It is important to note that the DSR model with $\kappa=0$, which does not account for measurement error, fails to identify such nonlinearity.
\indent Notably, heat wave shocks generate an impact that, while relatively lower in magnitude compared to cold wave shocks, exhibits a more rapid increase. The corresponding demand response values for the heat wave event are 0.0222 at 0.79°C, 0.0498 at 1.63°C, and 0.0989 at 2.48°C. In a similar way, the empirical results indicate that an increase in mean temperature from 0.79°C to 1.63°C since August 2017 corresponds to a 2.76\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. As the mean temperature change rises further from 1.63°C to 2.48°C, the monthly electricity demand increases by an additional 4.91\%. Overall, a total increase of 2.48°C in mean temperature from August 2017 results in 9.89\% year-over-year monthly electricity demand.
\indent The observation that cold wave shocks significantly increase electricity demand more than heat wave shocks implies that electricity demand is more sensitive to the more intense and extreme temperature conditions associated with cold waves. This further implies that the demand response is not just a function of temperature extremes but also the nature of these extremes. This finding departs from existing literature, which primarily focuses on the demand response to temperature level changes alone, and highlights the importance of understanding how shifts in temperature distributions impact electricity demand. Such insights emphasize the need for energy planning that accounts for the varying effects of temperature distribution changes, particularly in the context of increasingly severe cold wave events.
\indent The existing functional approach is susceptible to boundary issues, particularly in estimating the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand using a functional Fourier flexible form (\citealp{gallant1981bias}; \citealp{chang2016new}). A notable drawback of this method is its tendency to produce inaccurate estimates at the boundaries, especially in regions where data are sparse, such as around the critical temperature thresholds of -20°C and 40°C. These boundary estimates are economically significant, as they can lead to substantial implications in policy and energy management. In contrast, our approach does not focus on the demand response at specific temperature levels but rather generates hypothetical functional shocks to analyze the impact of extreme temperatures. This approach is less prone to boundary issues, providing more reliable estimates by effectively circumventing the problems associated with critical temperature points.
\indent Note that our approach involves addressing the measurement error problem to mitigate potential endogeneity issues. If endogeneity exists, it can bias the nonlinear response estimates. The IV approach corrects this bias by using instruments that are correlated with the endogenous regressors but uncorrelated with the error term. However, this correction may introduce larger standard errors and increased variance, which can diminish the model's goodness of fit—meaning the model may not align as closely with the observed data compared to the standard functional approach. This trade-off becomes apparent in our results with orthonormal Fourier basis functions, as reflected by the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) values are recorded as 0.0822 and 0.1227 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Quantile-to-Demand Model}
\noindent Some might wonder if the quantile function models \commWK{capture} extreme temperature events more effectively than the density function. Specifically, the difference lies in how each approach handles the heterogeneous impact of temperature on electricity demand. The temperature density-to-demand model accounts for the varying influence of each temperature level on demand, whereas the temperature quantile-to-demand model considers the heterogeneous effects of temperature quantiles on demand. As a result, while the density function may more accurately capture the average fluctuations in electricity demand, the quantile function, despite its relatively lower model fit, may be better suited to explaining demand responses under extreme temperature conditions. For instance, during a heat wave, where consumers face unprecedented temperatures, the relevance of past temperature impacts (as modeled by the density function) may diminish, making the quantile function more effective in modeling demand changes at extreme temperatures. In addition, the quantile function would better manage the heterogeneous support of the temperature density function.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_desc1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Sensitivity.png}
\caption{Descriptive statistics of quantile function for each temperature quantile (left) and estimated temperature quantile sensitivity with the dotted lines indicating the 95\% local confidence intervals (right).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent In this context, we further examine the effects of temperature quantiles on electricity demand for extreme weather events. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} displays the \commWK{temporal mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis at various quantile levels (which are computed from the time series $\{X_t(u)\}_{t=1}^T$ for each $u \in [0,1]$}), providing insights into how the temperature changes across different quantiles. The mean temperature increases steadily across the quantiles, reflecting the expected rise in temperature values from lower to higher quantiles. The standard deviation decreases, indicating that temperature values become less variable at higher quantiles. The skewness becomes more negative as the quantile increases, signifying that higher temperatures are more concentrated towards their upper range, leading to a more skewed distribution. Conversely, kurtosis decreases initially but sharply increases at the highest quantiles, suggesting a less peaked distribution initially but with more pronounced tails, indicating more frequent extreme temperature events in these higher quantiles. %The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} shows kernel density estimates for the 1st to 4th \commWK{quartiles}. The density curves illustrate that lower \commWK{quartiles} (1st and 2nd) are more tightly clustered, while higher \commWK{quartiles} (3rd and 4th) exhibit greater dispersion, reflecting the variability and occurrence of extreme temperatures in these ranges.
\indent The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} illustrates the temperature quantile sensitivity with respect to the residential electricity demand. To approximate $\hat{f}(\cdot)$ in equation \eqref{eqest} in the local context and interpret each quantile effect on electricity demand, we construct a sequence of indicator functions for each quantile, $x$. As a result, $\hat{f}(x)$ would represent the effect of a change in a given quantile while other quantiles remain fixed, similar to the interpretation in linear regression. In practice, however, it is implausible that a single quantile shifts independently of others, which can introduce interpretational ambiguities. To address this, we introduce a concept of total quantile change, denoted as \( Q \), to capture the cumulative impact of quantile adjustments. Starting with an even shock from the \( 0.5 \) quantile to the \( 1.0 \) quantile, more specifically, \( Q \) is distributed uniformly over this range, represented as a step function with a value of \( 1 \) from \( x = 0.5 \) onward, with \( Q = 0.5 \times 1 = 0.5 \). Subsequently, we increase the quantile range incrementally while maintaining the same \( Q \), thus gradually concentrating the quantile change at higher quantiles (e.g., function value of \(1.11\) from the \( 0.55 \) quantile to the \( 1.0 \) quantile). For a negative shock of \( -Q \), similarly, we consider evenly reducing quantiles to the lower end, concentrating the change in lower quantiles. By analyzing the function $\hat{f}(x)$ across these step function sequences, we can observe how electricity demand responds to quantile shocks concentrated at various parts of the quantile function, providing insights into which quantile ranges most significantly influence electricity demand.
\indent Not surprisingly, the estimated temperature quantile sensitivity exhibits a U-shaped pattern, consistent with the temperature density sensitivity (\citealp{chang2014time}). However, the nonlinear effect in cooling demand was found to be statistically insignificant. In contrast, the heating demand demonstrates statistically significant sensitivity to temperature changes. Notably, when the temperature rises above the 0.4 quantile, electricity demand decreases, with this reduction intensifying up to the 0.7 quantile before gradually diminishing. This pattern reveals a unique nonlinear pattern in the relationship between temperature quantile and electricity demand, highlighting the asymmetrical effects of temperature on electricity demand across different quantiles.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.66\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.33\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock_Progress.png}
\caption{Estimated quantile functions and functional shocks for cold wave (left) and heat wave (middle), and the progression of functional quantile shocks (right), transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} illustrates the quantile shocks for the cold wave, where the impact is most pronounced in the lower quantiles, especially those associated with the coldest temperatures. This reflects that the January 2021 cold wave caused a significant downward shift in the quantile function compared to January 2020, with the most substantial changes at the lowest quantiles. On the middle panel, the quantile shocks for the heat wave reveal a more uniform increase across the quantiles, with a greater effect at the higher quantiles. This suggests that the August 2018 heat wave led to a consistent rise in temperatures, primarily intensifying extreme high-temperature events. The right panel of the figure presents the progression of the heat wave and cold wave shocks, as depicted in Figures \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} - \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}, transformed into their respective quantile functions.
\indent Table \ref{tab:Quant_est} presents the estimation results from the quantile-to-demand model with 95\% local confidence intervals. Note that the demand response estimates for both cold wave and heat wave shocks, as presented in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock}, are statistically insignificant for the majority of the generated functional shocks. Therefore, we report the empirical results only for severe functional shocks. Under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$, the demand response to a cold wave shock, as modeled with orthonormal Fourier basis functions, is estimated by -0.0417 and -0.0645, respectively, indicating negligible or non-sensical impacts. Similarly, the demand response to a heat wave shock is estimated by -0.0258 and 0.0681, further reflecting statistically insignificant or implausible effects on electricity demand. These findings imply that the quantile-to-demand model may have inherent limitations in capturing the time series dynamics of electricity demand influenced by cumulative temperature effects. Lastly, the RMSE values from the quantile-to-demand model are 0.0933 and 0.1375 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively. These results indicate a decline in the goodness of fit compared to the density-to-demand model.
%\indent Note that when a shock shift is applied to the temperature density function, as described in Section \ref{Sec_Est_Shocks}, the corresponding quantile functions also shift uniformly. However, the differences between the quantile functions remain constant across all quantiles. This invariance implies that shocks resulting from such density shifts cannot be captured through quantile function differences, making quantile-based shock analysis insensitive to such transformations.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Estimation results for quantile-to-demand model}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|c}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for CW} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for HW} & \\
\hline
& Est & 95\% C.I. & Est & 95\% C.I. & RMSE \\
\hline
$\kappa=0$ & -0.0417 & (-0.0783, -0.0051) & -0.0258 & (-0.0424, -0.0092) & 0.0933\\
$\kappa=1$ & -0.0645 & (-0.1803,0.0513) & 0.0681 & (-0.0081,0.1442) & 0.1375 \\
\hline
%Legendre & Est & 95\% C.I. & Est & 95\% C.I. & RMSE \\
%\hline
%$\kappa=0$ & -0.0400 & (-0.0807, 0.0008) & -0.0300 & (-0.0464, -0.0135) & 0.0933\\
%$\kappa=1$ & -0.1387 & (-0.2638,-0.0136) & 0.0893 & (-0.0086,0.1872) & 0.1456 \\
%\hline
\end{tabular}%
\label{tab:Quant_est}%
\end{table}%
%Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_non_est} clearly demonstrates the necessity of incorporating higher-order moments of temperature density function into the quantile-to-demand model. Ignoring these moments consistently results in underestimating demand response, whether assuming no measurement error or serially uncorrelated error. However, it turns out that the quantile-to-demand model no longer shows increasing temperature sensitivity. Unlike the density-to-demand approach, the quantile-based model fails to capture nonlinear temperature sensitivity. This absence of pronounced changes may be due to the quantile-to-demand model’s inability to fully account for higher-order temperature effects, which are crucial for reflecting demand response under extreme conditions. As a result, the quantile-based model may oversimplify the relationship between temperature variations and electricity demand, leading to the observed flat response. %Notably, the quantile-based approach exhibits more pronounced sensitivity to extreme temperature conditions compared to the density-based results, with significant increases in electricity demand under extreme cold and heat waves when higher-order moments are considered and $\kappa=1$ is applied. This comparison highlights the superior ability of the quantile-based approach to capture demand responses under extreme temperature conditions.%, underscoring the critical role of accounting for non-linear characteristics in temperature distributions.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Concluding Remarks}\label{Sec_conclude}
\noindent In this paper, we estimate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand while accounting for measurement errors. Given that residential electricity demand is highly sensitive to temperature fluctuations, accurately capturing these nonlinearities is critical, especially during extreme temperature events where underestimation could jeopardize grid stability. Additionally, measurement errors would stem from the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature distributions represent true distributions, compounded by data quality issues and limitations within the estimation process.
\indent We tackle these challenges by applying a distribution-to-scalar regression to both temperature density-to-demand and quantile-to-demand models. This approach enables us to effectively identify nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature distribution and electricity demand, even when measurement errors are present. Through the analysis of historical heat wave and cold wave shocks of varying intensities within a distributional context, we discover that residential electricity demand is significantly more sensitive to the extreme conditions associated with intense cold waves. Additionally, the temperature quantile-to-demand model fails to yield reliable estimates.
\indent Given our findings, energy practitioners should prioritize incorporating detailed temperature distribution analysis, particularly when planning for extreme weather events. Our empirical findings indicate that residential electricity demand exhibits greater sensitivity to cold waves compared to heat waves, albeit with a slower rate of increase in demand, highlighting the need for advanced demand estimating models that account for these nonlinear sensitivities. Moreover, it is crucial to address potential measurement errors by adopting robust econometric techniques, in order to ensure that demand response strategies are based on accurate and reliable estimates. Our econometric approach would enhance grid stability and support effective energy management during extreme temperature events.
\bigskip
\section*{Disclosure Statement}
\noindent The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
%%%%%%%%% BIBLIOGRAPHY %%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv} %chicago,elsarticle-harv...ecta, econometrica...informs2014
\bibliography{FRKETQ_P3/FRKET_biblio}
\bigskip
\appendix\label{Sec_Append}
\section{Technical Appendix}\label{sec_app_est}
This technical appendix provides detailed discussion on asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator with necessary mathematical preliminaries.
\subsection{Mathematical preliminaries} \label{sec_app_prelim}
This section briefly reviews essential mathematical concepts for the proposed estimator and introduce notation.
Let $\mathcal H_1$ a separable Hilbert space with inner product $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_1$ and norm $\|\cdot\|_1$. A $\mathcal H_1$-valued random variable $Z$ is defined as a measurable map from the underlying probability space to $\mathcal H_1$. Such a random element $Z$ is said to be square-integrable if $\mathbb{E}[\|Z\|_1^2]<\infty$. Let $\mathcal H_2$ be another such Hilbert space. We let $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product defined by $\mathcal H_1$ and $\mathcal H_2$, i.e., for any $\zeta_1 \in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$,
\begin{equation}
\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2 (\cdot) = \langle \zeta_1,\cdot \rangle \zeta_2;
\end{equation}
note that $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2$ is a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$.
For any mean-zero square-integrable random elements $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, $\mathbb{E}[Z_1 \otimes Z_2]$, defined as a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$, is called the (cross-)covariance of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. We call $A:\mathcal H_1 \mapsto \mathcal H_2$ a bounded linear map if $A$ is a linear map and its operator norm, defined as $\|A\|_{\op}=\sup_{|\zeta|\leq 1} \|A\zeta\|$, is finite. For any bounded linear $A$, we let $A^\ast$ be the adjoint map defined by the property $\langle A\zeta_1,\zeta_2 \rangle_2=\langle \zeta_1,A^\ast\zeta_2 \rangle_1$ for all $\zeta_1\in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$. We say that $A$ is a compact operator if $\mathcal H_1=\mathcal H_2$ and there exist orthonormal bases $\{\zeta_{1,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $\{\zeta_{2,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ such that $A = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j \zeta_{1,j} \otimes \zeta_{2,j}$ with $a_j$ tending to zero as $j$ increases; in this expression, if $A$ is self-adjoint ($A=A^\ast$) and nonnegative ($\langle A\zeta,\zeta \rangle_1\geq 0$), it may be assumed that $a_j\geq 0$ and $\zeta_{1,j}=\zeta_{2,j}$, and furthermore they are understood as the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors. A compact operator $A$ is Hilbert-Schmidt if $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{\zeta_j\}_{j\geq1}$, and in this case, the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\|A\|_{\HS}$ is defined as $\|A\|_{\HS}= \sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2}$. It is well known that $\|A\|_{\op} \leq \|A\|_{\HS}$.
\subsection{Equivalent formulation of the proposed estimator} \label{sec_app_est_1}
Our estimator, discussed in Section \ref{Sec_Model}, is a suitable adaptation of the functional IV estimator proposed by \cite{seong2021functional} for our DSR model. First observe that for an IV $Z_t$ satisfying \eqref{eqreg3}, the following can directly be deduced from \eqref{eqreg2}: $C_{Zy} = fC_{XZ}^\ast$, where $C_{Zy} = \mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (y_t-\mathbb{E}[y_t])]$. This in turn leads to the following identity:
\begin{align} \label{eqpopulation}
C_{Zy}C_{XZ} = f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ},
\end{align}
where $C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes u_t]=0$.
As in \cite{seong2021functional} studying on the FFR model, we construct an estimator mimicking the population relationship \eqref{eqpopulation}. We first replace $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ given in \eqref{eqpopulation} with their sample counterparts $\widehat C_{Zy}\widehat C_{XZ}$ (where $\widehat C_{Zy}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T)\otimes (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$ with $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$) and $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ which is introduced in Section \ref{Sec_Model}. Noting that $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ is not invertible (see e.g., \citealp{Benatia2017}), we employ a regularized inverse of $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ to compute an estimator from the sample equation. Specifically, as in \cite{seong2021functional}, we consider the rank-regularized inverse $(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eqregul}
(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\hat{\lambda}_j^{-2}} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\KK$ is determined as
\begin{equation} \label{eqchoicek}
\KK = \max_{j\geq 1} \{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha$ tending to zero. Note that $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ becomes the $\KK$-dimensional projection $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j$ and similar regularized inverses are widely used in the literature on the functional linear model (see e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional,seo2024optimal}). The estimator $\hat{f}$ is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$
\begin{align} \label{eqest1}
\hat{f} (x)= \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (x).
\end{align}
With some algebra using \eqref{eqregul} and the definitions of the operators above, it can be shown that \eqref{eqest1} is equivalent to the expression given in \eqref{eqest}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem1}
The choice $\KK$ in \eqref{eqchoicek} is adopted from \cite{seong2021functional} concerning the FFR model. Based on this choice, we study the asymptotic properties of our estimator. Of course, with only a minor modification, it is possible to extend the desired asymptotic results, which will be discussed, under an alternative choice of $\KK$, such as $\KK = m + \max_{j\geq 1}\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for some finite $m$, if necessary. This choice may be preferred when researchers want to retain at least $m$ eigenelements for estimation. The case with $m=1$ also has some theoretical justification, given that we need at least one eigenelement for the proposed estimator to be well defined for every $T$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Consistency and local asymptotic normality}\label{sec_app_est_2}
This section examines the consistency and local asymptotic normality of the proposed estimator, both of which are fundamental to our empirical analysis in Section \ref{Sec_Empirics}. For simplicity, we consider the case where \( y_t \), \( X_t \), and \( Z_t \) have zero means, reducing the regression model \eqref{eqreg1} to \( y_t = f(X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t \). Under this assumption, the population (e.g., \( C_{XZ} \)) and sample covariance operators (e.g., \( \widehat{C}_{XZ} \)) introduced in Section \ref{sec_method} are naturally interpreted as being defined without centering or demeaning the associated variables. As discussed by \cite{seong2021functional}, extending the subsequent results to cases where the means are unknown and must be estimated requires only minor modifications, such as replacing variables with their centered or demeaned counterparts. Consequently, we omit these details.
%the consistency and local asymptotic normality to be established remain unchanged with or without this simplification.
\subsubsection{Assumptions and main results}
It turns out that $ C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast $ are compact operators (see \citealp{Bosq2000}, p.\ 117). We thus hereafter let
\begin{equation}
C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 g_j \otimes g_j, \quad C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 h_j \otimes h_j,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_j$, $g_j$, and $h_j$ are relevant eigenelements (see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}). Let $C_{ZZ}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes Z_t]$, $C_{uu}=\mathbb{E}[u_t\otimes u_t]$ and $C_{Zu}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]$. We define $\widehat{C}_{ZZ}$, $\widehat{C}_{uu}$ and $\widehat{C}_{Zu}$ be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{ZZ}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes Z_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{uu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T u_t\otimes u_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{Zu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes u_t,
\end{equation}
which may be understood as the sample counterparts of $C_{ZZ}$, $C_{uu}$ and $C_{Zu}$. We employ the following assumptions: below, $\mathfrak{F}_t$ denotes the natural filtration given by $\sigma(\{Z_s\}_{s\leq t+1}, \{u_s\}_{s\leq t})$ and let $\tau_j = 2\sqrt{2} \max\{ (\lambda_{j-1}^2-\lambda_j^2)^{-1}, (\lambda_{j}^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2)^{-1} \}$ as in \cite{seong2021functional}.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum1}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item Equation \eqref{eqreg2} holds; \item $\{X_t,Z_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is stationary and geometrically strongly mixing, $\mathbb{E}[\|X_t\|^2] < \infty$, and $\mathbb{E}[\|Z_t\|^2] < \infty$; \item $\mathbb{E}[u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=0$, $\mathbb{E}[u_t \otimes u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=C_{uu}$, and $\sup_{1\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}[\|u_t\|^{2+\delta}|\mathfrak F_{t-1}] < \infty$ for some $\delta>0$; \item $\sum_{j=1}^\infty |f(b_j)|^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{b_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ of $\mathcal H$; \item $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ}-{C}_{XZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{ZZ}-{C}_{ZZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{Zu}-{C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and $\|\widehat{C}_{uu} - C_{uu}\|_{\HS}= o_p(1)$; \item $\ker C_{XZ}=\{0\}$; \item \label{eq001a1}$\lambda_1^2 > \lambda_2^2 > \cdots > 0$; \item $T^{-1}\alpha^{-1} \to 0$ and $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \to_p 0$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum1} are adapted from Assumptions M and E of \cite{seong2021functional} studying the FFR model, and similar assumptions have been employed in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{Hall2007}). Condition \ref{eq001a1} is a technical requirement that $\alpha$ decay at an appropriate rate depending on the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $T$. This subtle requirement on $\alpha$ may be relaxed if some additional (but still standard in the literature on the functional linear model) assumptions are employed, which will be discussed later in this section. %it is common to assume that $\lambda_j^2 - \lambda_{j+1}^2$ is eventually convex and bounded above by $O(j^{\gamma})$ for some $\gamma > 3$ (see Assumption 2 below and also Assumption E2 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). In this case, $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\KK4)$ the assumption
We then present the following consistency result, which details Proposition \ref{prop1} given in Section \ref{Sec_Model}:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop1a}
Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}, $\|\hat{f} - f\|_{\op} \to_p 0$.
\end{proposition}
We next obtain the local asymptotic normality result \eqref{eqlocal} for any specified $\zeta \in \mathcal H$. To this end, we employ the following assumptions: below, we let $\upsilon_{t}(j,\ell) = \langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle -\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle]$ for $j,\ell \geq 1$ and $\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle \tilde{\zeta}, {C}_{ZZ} \tilde{\zeta} \rangle$, where $\tilde{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle {g}_j,\zeta \rangle {C}_{XZ}({g}_j)$.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum2} For some $c_\circ>0$, $\rho>2$, $\varsigma>1/2$, $\delta_{\zeta}>1/2$ and $m>1$, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\lambda_j^2 \leq c_\circ j^{-\rho}$; \item $\lambda_j^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2 \geq c_\circ j^{-\rho-1}$; \item $|f(g_j)| \leq c_\circ j^{-\varsigma}$; \item $\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t(j,\ell)\upsilon_{t-s}(j,\ell)] \leq c_\circ s^{-m}\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t^2(j,\ell)]$ for $s\geq 1$, and furthermore, $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle X_t,g_j \rangle Z_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$ and $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle Z_t,h_j \rangle X_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$; \item $\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle \leq c_\circ j^{-\delta_{\zeta}}$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The above assumptions are obvious adaptation of the conditions given by \cite{Hall2007} and \cite{seong2021functional}, which seem to be standard in the literature. Particularly, \cite{seong2021functional} established useful asymptotic results for the FFR model under Assumption \ref{assum2}, which are also used for our estimator. In fact, if Assumption \ref{assum2} is additionally satisfied, the consistency result given in Proposition \ref{prop1} can be established with $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$ without requiring Assumption \ref{assum1}\ref{eq001a1}; this follows directly from Theorem 3 of \cite{seong2021functional}, and extending this result from the FFR model to the DSR model is straightforward. In order to establish the local asymptotic normality result, we need more conditions, which are stated below:
\begin{assumption}\label{assum3}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\alpha^{-1} = o(T^{1/3})$; \item \label{assum3b} $\varsigma + \delta_{\zeta} > \rho/2+2$, $2\delta_{\zeta} \geq \rho+1$ and $T \alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho} = O(1)$; \item\label{assum3c} ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption} Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3b} particularly requires $f$ and $\zeta$ to be sufficiently smooth with respect to the eigenvectors $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ so that the entire map or element can be well approximated by those eigenvectors; this is a standard requirement in asymptotic analysis in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{seong2021functional} and reference therein). Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3c} requires a certain quantity depending on $\zeta$ to diverge to infinity. This condition is expected to be satisfied for many possible choices of $\zeta$ (see Section 3.2 of \citealp{Carrasco2007}; Remark 4 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). We obtain the desired asymptotic normality result under this requirement. However, it turns out that even if such a smoothness condition is not satisfied, a weaker version of \eqref{eqlocal}, with $f(\zeta)$ being replaced by $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, still holds as long as $\alpha$ decays at a sufficiently slow rate. This allows for statistical inference on $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$. As discussed by \citet[Section 3.2]{seong2021functional}, $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ may be understood as the best linear approximation of $\zeta$ based on the covariation of $X_t$ and $Z_t$, thus this weaker result still provides interpretable insights for practitioners.
The desired asymptotic normality result is given as follows:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop2} Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (y_t-\hat{f}(X_t))$ and $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{proposition}
With some algebra, it can be shown that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, as given in Proposition \ref{prop2} can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta2}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t\rangle\right)^2,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to \eqref{eqtheta} without demeaning the variables.
\subsubsection{Mathematical proofs}
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop1a}}
Using \eqref{eqreg2} and the expression given in \eqref{eqest1}, the proposed estimator $\hat{f}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{f} = \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} + \widehat{C}_{Zu} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag, \label{eq:b0}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat \Pi_{\KK}= \sum_{j=1} ^{\KK} \widehat g_j \otimes \widehat g_j$ as earlier introduced.
%Under our assumptions, we apply the central limit theorem for strongly mixing sequences (see, e.g., \citeauthor{heyde1974central}, \citeyear{heyde1974central}) and for martingale difference sequences to find that
% $ T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\langle x_t,w_1 \rangle \langle z_t,w_2 \rangle - \langle \mathcal C_{xz} w_1, w_2 \rangle \right) $ and $T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle $ converge in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1,w_2 \in \mathcal H$.
% \begin{align}\label{pfresult2}
% \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle
% \end{align}
%converges in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1$ and $w_2$.
% Then, by applying Theorem 3 of \citet[Chapter 1]{skorohod2001}, it can be shown that
% \begin{align}
% \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T (x_t \otimes z_t - \mathcal C_{xz}) = O_p(1)\quad\text{and}\quad \quad \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T z_t \otimes u_t = O_p(1); \label{eqcltref}
% \end{align}
% see also Lemma A.1 of \cite{seo2020functional}.
As shown in the proof of Theorem 1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, we have $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq \alpha^{-1/2}$ and $\|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}. Consequently, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|\widehat{f} - f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS} \|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
\end{equation}
We hereafter assume that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ consists of an orthonormal basis; this can simply be achieved by assigning an appropriate vector to each zero eigenvalue with no loss of generality (see e.g., the proof of Lemma A.1 of \citealp{seo2024optimal}). From the properties of the operator norm and that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ is an orthonormal basis, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} -f\|_{\op} \leq \sum_{j=1}^\infty \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f\hat({g}_j)\|.
\end{equation}
Thus the proof becomes complete if $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\hat{g}_j -f\hat{g}_j\| \to_p 0$ is shown. From
% \begin{equation} \label{eqpf0006add2wadd0}
% \|\widehat{\mathcal A}- \mathcal A \widehat{\Pi}_{\K}\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
% \end{equation}
%the following can be shown by
nearly identical arguments used to derive (8.63) of \cite{Bosq2000}, %and (S2.2) of \cite{seong2021functional},
we find that %and the property of the operator norm such that $\Vert \cdot \Vert_{\op} \leq \Vert \cdot \Vert_{\HS}$:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f({g}_j)\|^2 + O_p(1)\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j.\label{eqpf0006add2wadd}
\end{equation}
Since $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f(g_j)\|^2 < \infty$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}, $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \| f(g_j)|^2$ converges in probability to zero as $T$ gets larger (note that $\KK$ diverges as $T \to \infty$). In addition,
$
\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}\|_{\op} + \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast- C_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\| C_{XZ}\|_{\op} = O_p(T^{-1/2})$ as shown by (S2.3) of \cite{seong2021functional}. Combining all these results, we find that \eqref{eqpf0006add2wadd} is $o_p(1)$ as desired. \qed
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop2}}
With some algebra, we find that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}$ in \eqref{eqtheta} can equivalently expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle.
\end{equation}
Let ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$. From Theorem 4 (with its proof and Remark 10) of \cite{seong2021functional}, we find that Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3} lead us to the following:
\begin{equation} \label{eqconv1}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}(\zeta)-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1).
\end{equation}
Note that $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}(\zeta)\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta))$ can be written as $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (A_1+A_2+A_3+A_4)$, where $A_1 = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_2 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_3 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(g_j)$, and $A_4 = f(\Pi_{\KK}-I) \zeta$, where $\Pi_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} g_j \otimes g_j$ and $g_j^s = \sgn \langle g_j, \hat{g}_j \rangle g_j$. Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}, it is shown by \cite{seong2021functional} (see (S2.11), (S2.16) and (S2.33)) that $\KK = O_p(\alpha^{-1/\rho})$ and
\begin{align}
\|f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)\|^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{\rho+2-2\varsigma},\\
\langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}+2 + \rho}.
\end{align}
Combining these results with the conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum3}, it can be shown with nearly identical arguments used in \cite{seong2021functional} that $\|A_1\|, \|A_2\|$ and $\|A_3\|$ are all $O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and, moreover,
\begin{equation}
\|A_4\|^2\leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle f(g_j) \|^2 %\leq\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}} \|f(g_j) \|
\leq O(1)\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma} = O((\KK+1)^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma+1})= O(\alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho}),
\end{equation}
where the first equality follows from the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula for the Riemann zera-function (see e.g., (5.6) of \citealp{ibukiyama2014euler}).
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqconv2}
\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) = O_p(1/\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}) + O(T^{-1/2}\alpha^{(\varsigma+\delta_{\zeta}-1/2)/\rho} /\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}).
\end{equation}
Under Assumption \ref{assum3}, the above is $o_p(1)$.
It remains to show that $|\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)- \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)| \to_p 0$ and replacing $ \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)$ with $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ does not affect the results given in \eqref{eqconv1} and \eqref{eqconv2}. This follows from arguments nearly identical to those used in the proof of Theorem 2 in \cite{seong2021functional}, and thus the details are omitted.
%From this result, we find that, if $f$ and $\zeta$ are smooth enough with respect to $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ (and thus $\varsigma$ and $\delta_{\zeta}$) are large enough, $\alpha$ is allowed to $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{document}
\documentclass[11pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,amsfonts,amstext,upgreek}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{mathtools}
%\usepackage[longnamesfirst]{natbib}
\usepackage{natbib}
% \bibpunct[, ]{(}{)}{,}{a}{}{,}%
\def\bibfont{\small}%
\def\bibsep{\smallskipamount}%
\def\bibhang{24pt}%
\def\newblock{\ }%
\def\BIBand{and}%
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{cancel}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttable}
\appto\TPTnoteSettings{\linespread{1}\footnotesize} % small text if *not* flushleft
\makeatletter %small text if flushleft
\g@addto@macro\TPT@defaults{\linespread{1}\footnotesize}
\makeatother
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\sisetup{group-digits = true,
group-separator = {,}, % default: \, (thinspace)
round-mode = places,
round-precision = 3 }
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{thrmappendix}
\usepackage{alltt}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{accents}
%\usepackage{hypernat}
\usepackage{mathtools,dsfont}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\definecolor{blue(pigment)}{rgb}{0.2, 0.2, 0.6}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
filecolor=magenta,
urlcolor=cyan,
citecolor=blue(pigment),
}
\usepackage[capitalize,noabbrev]{cleveref}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage[inline,shortlabels]{enumitem}
\newtoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}\toggletrue{SUPPLEMENTAL}
\togglefalse{SUPPLEMENTAL} %COMMENT OUT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
\newcommand{\Supplemental}[2]{\iftoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}{#1}{#2}}
\newtoggle{BLINDED}\toggletrue{BLINDED}
\togglefalse{BLINDED} %COMMENT OUT FOR BLINDED VERSION
\newcommand{\Blinded}[2]{\iftoggle{BLINDED}{#1}{#2}}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.8in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.01in}
\newcommand{\nn}{\text{norm}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\text{extr}}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newtheorem{axi}{Axiom}[section]
\renewcommand{\theassumption}{A\arabic{assumption}}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[]
\newtheorem{lemma}[]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[]
\newtheorem{example}{Example}[]
\newcommand{\pconv}{\xrightarrow{p}}
\newcommand{\dconv}{\xrightarrow{d}}
\newcommand{\avgt}{\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T}
\newcommand{\avgn}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}}
\newcommand{\tr}{^{\top}}
\newcommand{\KK}{{\rm K}}
\newcommand{\HH}{{\rm F}}
\newcommand{\PP}{{\rm P}}
\newcommand{\QQ}{{\rm Q}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\DeclareMathOperator{\op}{op}
\newcommand{\ASD}[1]{\{\scalebox{0.85}{$\hspace{-0.1em}#1\hspace{-0.1em}$}\}}
\crefformat{footnote}{#2\footnotemark[#1]#3} %cleveref
\crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\Crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{equation}{}{}
\Crefname{equation}{Equation}{Equations}
%
\crefformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}
\crefrangeformat{enumi}{(#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\crefmultiformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
\Crefformat{enumi}{Part (#2#1#3)}
\Crefrangeformat{enumi}{Parts (#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\Crefmultiformat{enumi}{Parts (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
%
\crefname{assumption}{}{}
\Crefname{assumption}{Assumption}{Assumptions}
\newcommand{\creflastconjunction}{, and\nobreakspace} %Oxford comma
\newcommand{\crefrangeconjunction}{--}
\DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `dirname #1`/`basename #1 .tif`.png}
\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.png}
\graphicspath{ {./Figures/} }
\newcommand{\citeposs}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}
\newcommand{\matf}[1]{#1} %matrix formatting
\newcommand{\vecf}[1]{#1} %vector formatting
% \newcommand{\matf}[1]{\underline{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}}} %matrix formatting
% \newcommand{\vecf}[1]{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}} %vector formatting
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{Var}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Cov}{Cov}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Corr}{Corr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\const}{const.}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ran}{ran}
\DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{rank}
\DeclareMathOperator{\spn}{span}
\DeclareMathOperator{\HS}{HS}
\newcommand{\Varp}[1]{\Var\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Covp}[1]{\Cov\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Corrp}[1]{\Corr\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\WP}{\textrm{ w.p.\ }}
\newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{\Hnull}{{\mathbb H}_0}\newcommand{\Halt}{{\mathbb H}_1}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sgn}{sgn}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{E}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{Q}
\let\Pr\relax \DeclareMathOperator{\Pr}{P} %comment out if Pr desired
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\plim}{plim}
\DeclareMathOperator{\1}{\mathds{1}}
\newcommand{\Ind}[1]{\1\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\Normal}{\mathrm{N}}
\newcommand{\Normalp}[2]{\Normal\left(#1,#2\right)}
\newcommand{\BetaDist}{\textrm{Beta}}
\newcommand{\DirDist}{\textrm{Dir}}
\newcommand{\UnifDist}{\textrm{Unif}}
\newcommand{\weaklyto}{\rightsquigarrow}
\newcommand{\diff}{d} %differential operator: easy to change to upright if needed.
%(partial) derivatives:
\newcommand{\pD}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
\newcommand{\pDD}[2]{\frac{\partial^2 #1}{\partial #2^2}}
\newcommand{\D}[2]{\frac{\diff #1}{\diff #2}}
\newcommand{\DD}[2]{\frac{\diff^2 #1}{\diff #2^2}}
\newcommand{\independenT}[2]{\mathrel{\rlap{$#1#2$}\mkern2mu{#1#2}}}
\newcommand\independent{\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}}
\newcommand{\indep}{\independent}
\providecommand{\absbig}[1]{\left\lvert#1\right\rvert}
\providecommand{\normbig}[1]{\left\lVert#1\right\rVert}
\providecommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert}
\providecommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert}
\newcommand\commWK{\textcolor{blue}}
\newcommand\commKS{\textcolor{red}}
\newcommand\commnote{\textcolor{green}} %% make this invisible later
\newcommand{\ZZ}{\mathrm{Z}}
\let\originalleft\left
\let\originalright\right
\renewcommand{\left}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}
\renewcommand{\right}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}
%Bibliography spacing fix
\let\oldthebibliography=\thebibliography
\let\endoldthebibliography=\endthebibliography
\renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1]{%
\begin{oldthebibliography}{#1}%
\setlength{\parskip}{0ex}%
\setlength{\itemsep}{0ex}%
}%
{%
\end{oldthebibliography}%
}
% \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\roman{enumi}}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\theenumi)}
\allowdisplaybreaks[3]
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\title{Estimating the Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity of \\ \vspace{0.5em} Residential Electricity Demand under Measurement Errors\thanks{We deeply appreciate Hyunjin Yang (KEPCO) and Sungro Lee (KOGAS) for generously providing residential electricity demand and local temperature data in the Republic of Korea. Kyungsik Nam's research was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2024.}}
% We deeply appreciate all valuable comments from ... and to participants of the ... for useful feedback.
\author{Kyungsik Nam\thanks{Assistant Professor, Division of Climate Change, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 17035, Republic of Korea. E-mail: \texttt{ksnam@hufs.ac.kr}}, \,\, Won-Ki Seo\thanks{Lecturer, School of Economics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: \texttt{won-ki.seo@sydney.edu.au}}}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\noindent We estimate the temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand during extreme temperature events using a distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model. Instead of relying on simple averages or individual quantile statistics of raw temperature data, we construct distributional summaries—such as probability density functions or quantile functions—to retain more comprehensive information. Beyond our motivation to exploit more information from the raw temperature data, this modeling approach allows us to examine the effects of various temperature extremes, which conventional models cannot capture. Given that distribution functions are typically estimated from limited discrete observations and thus may include measurement errors, moreover, our econometric approach explicitly addresses this issue. The empirical findings reveal that residential electricity demand is more responsive to cold waves than to heat waves, in a nonlinear fashion. Furthermore, we show that the temperature quantile-to-demand model reveals a U-shaped nonlinear response but insignificant demand responses to extreme temperatures. %These results highlight the importance of robust modeling techniques for accurately forecasting demand under extreme conditions.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{0.4\baselineskip}
\vfill
\noindent JEL Classification: C33, C51, C53, Q41 \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Key words and phrases}: Functional regression, measurement error, electricity demand, temperature sensitivity, heat wave
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\setcounter{page}{0} \thispagestyle{empty}
\baselineskip19.5pt
\pagenumbering{arabic}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newpage
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec_Intro}
\noindent Accurately estimating electricity demand during extreme weather events is vital for ensuring energy security and enhancing grid reliability. For energy practitioners and policymakers, precise demand estimation is crucial for balancing supply and demand, preventing power outages, and ensuring that the energy infrastructure can withstand increased loads during such critical periods. As climate change drives more frequent and severe weather events, the importance of precise demand estimation has grown significantly, making it a cornerstone of sustainable energy management. \commnote{(nearly unchanged)}
%WKNOTE: Grid reliablity? Must be something in the literature.
\indent The relationship between temperature and electricity demand is inherently nonlinear, as demand typically rises sharply during extreme hot or cold conditions. Traditional approaches to modeling this relationship rely on nonlinear variables such as Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD). However, these methods have notable limitations, including the need to arbitrarily define threshold temperatures. To address this limitation, a distribution-based approach that incorporates the full information of temperature distribution as an explanatory variable has been studied. This methodology effectively captures the nonlinear dynamics of electricity demand while allowing the threshold temperature to be estimated endogenously within the model.%, eliminating the need for pre-defined cutoffs.}
\indent Unexpected spikes in electricity demand during extreme temperature events present unique challenges that require advanced econometric modeling to maintain grid stability. Residential electricity demand, in particular, exhibits heightened sensitivity to temperature extremes, with demand increasing more steeply at extreme temperatures compared to moderate conditions. Failing to account for these nonlinearities would result in significant underestimation of demand during critical periods, jeopardizing grid stability. Consequently, accurately modeling the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand is imperative. Such models not only enhance the resilience of energy infrastructure but also enable the development of more effective energy management strategies to address the growing impacts of climate change on electricity demand. \commnote{(slightly changed)}
\commWK{(Introduction, WK STOPPED HERE)}
\commWK{(Paragraph to be inserted: Motivation, why we consider distribution-scalar regression model. Temperare observed at higher-frequency than (reliable data) of residential demand.}
\indent The key challenge in estimating the nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature lies in the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature distributions are treated as true distributions. This assumption can introduce bias into demand response estimates since errors from the estimation process may distort the results. Furthermore, generating a representative temperature distribution using hourly regional data adds further estimation errors, which can lead to biased and inconsistent demand response estimates. These errors are particularly problematic during extreme temperature events, compromising the reliability of estimates critical for energy security and grid stability.
\indent Building on the foundational work of \cite{engle1986semiparametric}, a substantial body of literature has applied the cointegration framework for analyzing electricity demand, with noticeable contributions from \cite{engle1989merging}, \cite{silk1997short}, \cite{beenstock1999demand}, \cite{chang2014time}, \cite{chang2016disentangling}, and \cite{chang2021forecasting}, among others. Subsequently, the literature has focused on incorporating nonlinear temperature variables, such as HDD and CDD, or employing nonlinear econometric methods to evaluate the impact of temperature fluctuations on electricity demand, including \cite{sailor1997sensitivity}, \cite{henley1997non}, \cite{henley1998residential}, \cite{valor2001daily}, \cite{pardo2002temperature}, and \cite{apadula2012relationships}. In particular, smooth transition, panel threshold, and switching regression models have been employed to capture nonlinear demand responses (\citealp{moral2005modelling}; \citealp{bessec2008non}). More recently, density-based functional approaches have emerged to analyze these effects across sectors, providing deeper insights into the nonlinearity between temperature and electricity demand (\citealp{chang2016new}; \citealp{miller2022modeling}).
\indent The nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature has been further explored through various advanced methodologies. For instance, \cite{teixeira2017} integrated linear regression with artificial neural networks to capture heterogeneous consumption patterns, while \cite{caro2020} and \cite{sharma2020} utilized periodically correlated models and synergy of recurrent neural networks with fuzzy logic, respectively, to enhance load forecasting accuracy. Meanwhile, \cite{sigauke2013extreme} applied tail-quantile estimation to analyze extreme daily increases in peak electricity demand, highlighting the critical role of temperature-driven demand fluctuations. Lastly, \cite{sultana2022} refined short-term demand forecasts using machine learning, focusing on managing temperature-induced variability.
\indent Compared to the existing literature, we introduce a functional econometric approach that effectively captures the nonlinearity of residential electricity demand response, even in the presence of measurement errors—a dimension that has not been thoroughly addressed in the existing literature. By addressing the complexities introduced by the measurement errors, our approach provides a more robust estimation, setting it apart from traditional techniques that may overlook these critical factors. Furthermore, our approach differs significantly from existing studies by focusing on the nonlinear demand response of residential electricity to changes in temperature distribution, rather than just temperature levels. This allows for a more comprehensive analysis, capturing the broader distributional effects of temperature fluctuations, particularly during extreme weather events. %By examining shifts in the entire temperature distribution, we provide deeper insights into how extreme temperatures impact electricity demand.
\indent Instead of viewing density and quantile functions as competing methods, we consider them complementary strategies, each providing unique insights to form a comprehensive analytical framework. The density-based approach offers direct interpretability within a compositional data framework, allowing for clear analysis of temperature's impact on electricity demand across the entire temperature level. On the other hand, quantile functions address heterogeneous support more effectively and excel in estimating the cumulative effects of temperature at highest or lowest quantiles. Notably, these issues have not been adequately addressed in the existing literature. In this paper, we apply the Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation for density-valued functional data and mean centering for quantile-valued functional data. These transformations enable us to handle the distinct characteristics of each functional data.%, providing a more robust analysis.
\indent The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec_method} details the econometric methodology employed to estimate the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand in the presence of measurement errors. Section \ref{Sec_Data} provides the residential electricity demand and local temperature data from the Republic of Korea. Given two extreme weather events, Section \ref{Sec_Empirics} presents empirical results illustrating the nonlinear sensitivity of temperature density and quantile functions. Finally, Section \ref{Sec_conclude} provides concluding remarks, with econometric proofs included in the Appendix.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Econometric methodology}\label{sec_method}
\subsection{Distributional predictors of temperature and measurement errors}
\label{sec_method_1}
We let $y_t$ represent electricity demand, a practical measurement of which for our empirical study is detailed in Section \ref{Sec_Data}, and $X_t^\circ$ be a function that summarizes the distributional properties of temperature. There are various choices for $X_t^\circ$, but in this paper, we focus on two: (i) the CLR transformation of the probability density function (PDF) of temperature, denoted hereafter as $p_t$, and (ii) the quantile function (QF) corresponding to $p_t$. The former appears to be more commonly considered in the literature on density-valued functional data (see e.g., \citealp{kokoszka2019forecasting,SEO2019,seong2021functional}), and we place more emphasis on it accordingly, while the latter offers distinct advantages, particularly for our empirical application.
Assuming that $p_t$ of temperature is supported on $[a,b]$, the CLR transformation $X_t^\circ$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqclr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log p_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \log p_t (s) ds, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
Under some mathematical conditions on the underlying PDF $p_t$, the transformation from $p_t$ to its CLR transformation not only embeds the probability densities on $[a,b]$ into a linear subspace of the $L^2[0,1]$ Hilbert space but also is invertible. Thus, the CLR transformation of $p_t$ has been considered a standard choice in the model involving distributional functional data in the aforementioned articles. In addition to this, we will also consider the case where $X_t^\circ$ is the quantile function corresponding to $p_t$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eqqf}
X_t^\circ(r) = \inf \{x \in [a,b]:\int_{a}^{x} p_t(s) ds \leq r\}, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
It is well known that, for the CLR transformation to be an invertible transformation of a set of probability densities, $p_t$ needs to be supported on a common compact interval $[a,b]$ for every $t$ (see e.g., \citealp{Egozcue2006,Boogaart2014}); more specifically the so-called inverse CLR transformation is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eqinverseclr}
X_t^\circ (r) \quad \mapsto \quad \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) \big/ \int_{a}^b \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) dr, \quad r \in [a,b].
\end{equation}
This requires us to estimate all the temperature densities on a common interval. On the other hand, the quantile functions do not require such a restriction, and the support of the function can vary over time.
In practice, $p_t$ cannot be directly observed, and thus $X_t^\circ$ is not observable. For empirical analysis, it must be constructed from the raw temperature data; specifically, we may replace $p_t$ or $\log p_t$ with its relevant nonparametric estimate in \eqref{eqclr} (as in \citealp{SEO2019}), or replace population quantiles with sample quantiles in \eqref{eqqf}. However, this replacement necessarily introduces estimation/smoothing errors, and it is well known that standard estimation methods for function-to-scalar regression may lead to inconsistent estimation of the model. For a more detailed discussion, see \citet[Section 7]{Benatia2017}, \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}, and \cite{seong2021functional}. Subsequently, we discuss econometric methods for studying the distributional impact of temperature on electricity demand that are robust to the presence of these estimation/smoothing errors in the distributional predictor.
%\noindent In empirical studies involving density- or quantile-valued functional data, two challenges arise: (i) the nonlinear constraints make simple functional data analysis inadequate for properly defining these functions within a Hilbert space, and (ii) the true density or quantile function of an economic or climate variable is unobservable, requiring nonparametric density or quantile estimates as proxies.
%\indent To address the first challenge, researchers often apply invertible transformations such as the CLR transformation introduced by \cite{Egozcue2006} to the estimated density functions. As such, we first apply the CLR transformation to the time series of the temperature density function.\footnote{A small value of 0.001 is added to the entire temperature density function to conduct the CLR transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} We then incorporate the hypothetically generated functional shocks based on the CLR-transformed and temporally demeaned functional data. These CLR-transformed temperature density functions, along with the functional shocks, are represented in the function space using orthonormal Fourier basis vectors.
%\indent Unlike density functions, which exploit the CLR transformation to define linear operators for Hilbert space analysis, quantile functions lack an appropriate invertible transformation, making Hilbert space analysis more challenging. Quantile functions map quantiles to temperature values without the constant sum constraint inherent in density functions. This limitation complicates quantile function analysis within the Hilbert space. Acknowledging this limitation, we simply apply a mean centering operation to represent the quantile function in the function space using Fourier basis functions.
%\indent Regarding the second challenge, researchers typically replace unobservable true density or quantile function with nonparametric density or quantile estimates, and these estimates would be susceptible to measurement errors. As discussed earlier, such measurement errors—stemming from data quality issues or limitations in the estimation process itself—can lead to inconsistent estimates, introducing bias into the analysis of nonlinear responses, particularly regarding temperature's impact on electricity demand. In this light, addressing measurement error is critical for accurately uncovering the true nature of nonlinear demand response, underscoring the need for more robust methodologies.
\iffalse
\subsection{Model and estimator (version with tensor notation)} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated, meaning that $\mathbb{E}[X_t \otimes u_t] \neq 0$, where $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product (defined by defined by $g\otimes h (\cdot) = \langle g,\cdot \rangle h$ for $g\in \mathcal H$ and $h \in \mathbb{R}$; see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim} in the Appendix for more details).\footnote{Specifically, for any $g,h$ taking values in $\mathcal H$, $ g \otimes h (x) = \langle g,x \rangle h = (\int_{a}^{b} g(s)x(r)dr)h$ for any $x\in \mathcal H$.}
As is well known in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition $\mathbb{E}[X_t\otimes u_t]=0$, inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves with measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model by \cite{seong2021functional} to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional instrumental variable (IV) satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}:=\mathbb{E}[(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])\otimes (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
The above consists of only the minimal requirements for the IV $Z_t$. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ exhibits time series dependence, we let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of an instrumental variable considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (X_t-\bar{X}_T) \otimes (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T) \otimes (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
%\widehat{C}_{Zy} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes y_t, \quad
% \quad %\widehat{C}_{Zu} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes u_t,
%\widehat{\Gamma}_{yX} =\widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ}, \quad \widehat{\Gamma}_{X} = \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast (:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2 \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j.
\end{equation}
The eigenelements can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model.
\bigskip
%\newpage
\fi
\subsection{Model and estimator} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated (meaning that $\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x \rangle u_t] \neq 0$ for some $x\in \mathcal H$) and thus $X_t$ is endogenous.
As is well documented in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition ($\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x\rangle u_t]=0$ for every $x\in \mathcal H$), inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves with measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model by \cite{seong2021functional} to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional instrumental variable (IV), which satisfies the following: for every $x \neq 0$,
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}(x):=\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t], x \rangle (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x\rangle u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
$C_{XZ}$ (resp.\ $C_{Zu}$) defined above is called the (cross-)covariance operator of $X_t$ and $Z_t$ (resp.\ $Z_t$ and $u_t$). The conditions given in \eqref{eqreg3} consist of only the necessary requirements for the IV $Z_t$ in our DSR model. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ exhibits time series dependence, we let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of the IV considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle X_t-\bar{X}_T,x\rangle (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle Z_t-\bar{Z}_T,x \rangle (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $C_{XZ}^\ast$ (defined by $C_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x \rangle(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, the composite map $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} \hat{g}_j = \hat{\lambda}_j \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\lambda}_1\geq \hat{\lambda}_2 \geq \ldots \geq 0$. The eigenelements of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
% \begin{align} \label{eqest}
% \hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
% \end{align}
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
%= T^{-2}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{s=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \hat{g}_j, X_{s}-\bar{X}_T\rangle \langle Z_{s}-\bar{Z}_T,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
%;\footnote{An alternative equivalent expression is $\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$.}
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Data}\label{Sec_Data}
\subsection{Raw data and temperature densities} \label{Sec_Data_1}
\noindent To investigate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we analyze an extensive dataset that includes residential electricity demand (in GWh) and local temperature (in degrees Celsius) readings from the Republic of Korea. The dataset spans from January 1999 to December 2023, with 300 monthly observations. The residential electricity demand data is provided by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), the state-owned utility responsible for electricity sales across the country. Due to the inherent variability in the number of days within each month, we have normalized the raw monthly electricity demand by dividing it by the number of effective days per month. This adjustment produces a metric known as electricity demand per effective day, as discussed in \cite{chang2014time}, which underscores the importance of accounting for temporal differences in energy demand analysis.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth, width=0.8\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Y_Graph.png}
\caption{Natural log of residential electricity demand per effective day and its 12-month moving average (top), and their deviation process (down) from January 1999 to December 2023.}
\label{Fig:Y_Graphs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent \cite{chang2016new} found no empirical evidence suggesting that non-climate variables significantly influence the demand response to temperature in the residential sector. Building on this finding, and to isolate the short-run fluctuations in residential electricity demand, we calculate the deviation from the natural logarithm of a 12-month moving average of electricity demand per effective day, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Y_Graphs}. This deviation serves as a proxy for the short-run component of electricity demand, allowing us to focus on the short-run effects of temperature changes while filtering out the long-run effects of income and electricity price. By employing this detrending approach, we ensure that our analysis effectively captures the nonlinear responses of residential electricity demand to temperature fluctuations, independent of other non-climate factors (\citealp{chang2016new}).
\commnote{(All good. It would be better if we cite any reference where (isolated) short-run demand is computed in this way.)}
%(heterogeneous support problem with density generation)
\indent To model the seasonality, we retrieve the hourly temperature data from the KMA National Climate Data Center.\footnote{Downloaded from https://data.kma.go.kr/cmmn/main.do on July 1, 2024.} We then construct the monthly temperature density function over the common support, $[-20,40]$, using hourly temperature observations from the five largest cities (Seoul, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan) covering the territory of the Republic of Korea.\footnote{Instead of estimating the range of the common support, we adopt the common support of $[-20,40]$ with grid difference, $0.1$, as established in the literature (\citealp{chang2014time}; \citealp{chang2016new}).} To represent the temperature density function of the Republic of Korea, we calculate the weighted average of the estimated time series for these five density functions, assigning weights based on the annual proportion of electricity sales in each of the five regions: the Seoul Metropolitan Area (Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi), Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan.\footnote{The combined annual electricity consumption of the five regions accounts for approximately 55.3\% of the national total on average during the period from 1999 to 2021. Due to data availability constraints, the proportions for the years 2022 and 2023 have been substituted with the values from 2021.}\footnote{The annual regional consumption data was obtained from the Korea Energy Statistics Information System (KESIS) and can be accessed at \url{https://www.kesis.net/sub/subChart.jsp?report_id=33150&reportType=0} (data downloaded on July 1, 2024).}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.4\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc0.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.55\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates of the temperature distribution in the Republic of Korea (left) and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics (right). The red lines indicate August 2017 and August 2018, while the blue lines represent January 2020 and January 2021.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip} illustrates the time series of a temperature density function, estimated using Gaussian kernel and Silverman's rule of thumb bandwidth, and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics. Note that the generated monthly temperature density functions exhibit significant heterogeneity, particularly between summer and winter. The time-series analysis of monthly temperature distributions in the Republic of Korea from 1999 to 2023 reveals stable seasonal cycles in the mean temperature, reflecting consistent annual patterns. However, the standard deviation indicates increasing variability, particularly post-2010, suggesting a growing spread in temperature values around the mean. The skewness exhibits seasonal fluctuations, with positive skewness during warmer months indicating a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, and negative skewness during colder months reflecting an increase in extreme low temperatures. However, this skewness does not show a clear trend of increasing asymmetry over time but rather indicates a recurring seasonal pattern. The kurtosis remains relatively stable but experiences significant spikes, particularly after 2010. These spikes suggest periods with more frequent and intense extreme temperature events. Thus, while the skewness reflects consistent seasonal variability, the spikes in kurtosis indicate a rise in temperature extremes, likely influenced by climate change.
% \indent This non-homogeneous support presents challenges for the functional econometric methodologies, potentially rendering them inappropriate for this analysis. To address this issue, we apply the Lorenz Curve transformation combined with the quantile function, as suggested by \cite{bongiorno2019describing}, to mitigate the problem of non-homogeneous support throughout the sample period. Based on the common support range of $[-20, 40]$, more specifically, we extend the estimated quantile function by setting the 0$^\textrm{th}$ and 100$^\textrm{th}$ percentiles to the minimum and maximum values of the generated quantile functions, respectively. This approach allows the entire quantile function over the common support to capture the seasonality throughout the sample period.
% (Lorenz curve implication with L''(p) transformation)
%\indent We generate the Lorenz curve using the formula $\hat{L}(p) = \frac{1}{\bar{X}} \int_0^p \hat{Q}(r) , dr$, where $\hat{Q}(r)$ represents the empirical quantile function at the $r$-th quantile, and $\bar{X}$ is the empirical mean of the quantile function. Next, we derive the second derivative of the Lorenz curve, $L(p)$, using the formula $L''(p) = \frac{1}{\bar{X}} f\{Q(p)\}$, where $f\{Q(p)\}$ is the density-quantile function, as presented in equation (4) of \cite{bongiorno2019describing}. Subsequently, the negative Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation is applied to the empirical $L''(p)$ to ensure it is defined within the Hilbert Space. Note that these transformation processes effectively result in the positive CLR transformation of the density function, although two different approaches would produce different results due to extended grid number and kernel estimation techniques (Do this more...).
\subsection{Construction of the distributional predictors}
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, distributional predictors in practice need to be estimated in advance from the raw data. For the CLR transformations, we use the estimated densities, denoted as $\hat{p}_t$, obtained in Section \ref{Sec_Data_1} (see Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}), and construct $X_t$ as follows:\begin{equation}\label{eqclr2} X_t(r) = \log \hat{p}_t(r) - \int_{-20}^{40} \log \hat{p}_t (s) ds.\footnote{As is common in the literature (see e.g., Section 5.2, \citealp{seoshang22}), a small value of $10^{-3}$ is added to the entire temperature density function $\hat{p}_t$ to implement the log transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} \end{equation}
On the other hand, when \( X_t^\circ \) represents the quantile function corresponding to \( p_t \), we estimate it directly from the raw temperature data by replacing population quantiles with sample quantiles. Specifically, if \( x_{[j]} \) for \( j=1,\ldots,N_t \) are the ordered (smallest to largest) raw temperature observations at time \( t \), we define
\[
X_t(r) = x_{[N_t r]} \quad \text{if \( N_t r \) is an integer,}
\]
for \( r \in [0,1] \). For \( r \in [0,1] \) where \( N_t r \) is not an integer, we employ a linear interpolation scheme to estimate values proportionally between neighboring data points.
%\indent To address the first challenge, researchers often apply invertible transformations such as the CLR transformation introduced by \cite{Egozcue2006} to the estimated density functions. As such, we first apply the CLR transformation to the time series of the temperature density function.\footnote{A small value of 0.001 is added to the entire temperature density function to conduct the CLR transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} We then incorporate the hypothetically generated functional shocks based on the CLR-transformed and temporally demeaned functional data. These CLR-transformed temperature density functions, along with the functional shocks, are represented in the function space using orthonormal Fourier basis vectors.
%\indent Unlike density functions, which exploit the CLR transformation to define linear operators for Hilbert space analysis, quantile functions lack an appropriate invertible transformation, making Hilbert space analysis more challenging. Quantile functions map quantiles to temperature values without the constant sum constraint inherent in density functions. This limitation complicates quantile function analysis within the Hilbert space. Acknowledging this limitation, we simply apply a mean centering operation to represent the quantile function in the function space using Fourier basis functions.
%\indent Regarding the second challenge, researchers typically replace unobservable true density or quantile function with nonparametric density or quantile estimates, and these estimates would be susceptible to measurement errors. As discussed earlier, such measurement errors—stemming from data quality issues or limitations in the estimation process itself—can lead to inconsistent estimates, introducing bias into the analysis of nonlinear responses, particularly regarding temperature's impact on electricity demand. In this light, addressing measurement error is critical for accurately uncovering the true nature of nonlinear demand response, underscoring the need for more robust methodologies.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Empirical Investigation}\label{Sec_Empirics}
% weakness of Chang et al. (2016) approach) no clr transformation \& measurement error: Points: Nonlinear temperature sensitivity with functional approach, CLR transformation for Hilbert space, measurement error
% errors originating from temperature measurement sites can complicate the analysis, potentially skewing density estimation and, by extension, the overall results.
\noindent In this section, we estimate the DSR model specified in \eqref{eqreg2} using the CLR predictor $X_t$, constructed as described in \eqref{eqclr2}, with $\hat{p}_t$ illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}. For the computation of our estimator with finite samples, we represent the distributional predictor using 80 orthonormal Fourier basis functions on $[0,1]$.\footnote{Moderate changes in the number of basis functions result in only minor numerical differences in the estimation results.} Noting that measurement errors arise from smoothing \( X_t \) from its discrete realizations, we assume that these errors are serially uncorrelated. Under this assumption, and given that the sequence of \( X_t^\circ \) (and also \( X_t \)) is serially correlated, the lagged variable \( X_{t-\kappa} \) for \( \kappa \geq 1 \) may serve as a candidate IV for our empirical analysis. Similar approaches were previously adopted in \cite{seong2021functional} and \cite{Chen_et_al_2020} concerning dependent functional data. Since our approach relies on a high degree of dependence, where possible, of the IV on the endogenous distributional predictor \( X_t \), as in standard IV methods (see Section \ref{sec_app_est_1} for more details), it is not advisable to use a large value of \( \kappa \), as this could make \( X_{t-\kappa} \) only weakly correlated with \( X_t \). Therefore, we have chosen to set \( \kappa \) to 1. We believe that this selection allows us to account for potential errors in the density/quantile estimation process or data quality while enhancing the robustness and reliability of our analysis. Lastly, in our estimation procedure, $K$ (see \eqref{eqest}) is set to 3.\footnote{Following the results given in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix and Remark \ref{rem1}, we set $\KK=1+\max_{j\geq 1}\{\tilde{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for $\alpha = 0.1 \times T^{-0.3}$, where $\tilde{\lambda}_j^2=\lambda_j^2/\sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2$ and this is to obtain a choice of $\KK$ which is independent of the scale of $X_t$ and $Z_t$; see Section S5 of \cite{seong2021functional}.} %Our estimator $\hat{f}$ is visualized in Figure \commWK{(SOMETHING)}.
% \indent
We hereafter focus on statistical inference regarding the impact of temperature events on electricity demand, given by $f(\zeta)$, where $\zeta$ denotes the distributional shocks given to the distributional predictor. This quantity is estimated using our proposed estimator, $\hat{f}(\zeta)$, and is accompanied by an asymptotically valid local confidence interval constructed based on the results in \eqref{eqlocal}. Taking advantage of the distributional flexibility of our DSR model, we examine two hypothetical scenarios that generate $\zeta$, as detailed in the following section.
%Instead of conducting a broad inference on temperature effects, we aim to identify the nonlinear impacts of extreme temperature events, represented by $f(\zeta)$, where $\zeta$ indicates the distributional temperature shock associated with these events. This hypothetical relationship is estimated using our proposed estimator, $\hat{f}(\zeta),$ accompanied by an asymptotically valid local confidence interval constructed based on the results in \eqref{eqlocal}. Leveraging the distributional flexibility of our DSR model, we examine two historical scenarios that generate $\zeta$, as detailed in the following section.
% Rather than focusing on inference for the estimator $f$ itself, we are primarily interested in the partial effect of a distributional perturbation $\zeta$ applied to a temperature distribution, which is given by $f(\zeta)$. This effect can be naturally estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$ using our estimator, and an asymptotically valid confidence interval can also be constructed based on the result in \eqref{eqlocal}. Due to the flexibility and generality of our DSR model, various choices of $\zeta$ (beyond simple mean change considered conventional literature), which are empirically relevant and have broader implications, can be considered within this framework. \commnote{(WK: Not very confident about the details. Please check this paragraph again.)}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Functional Shocks for Cold Wave and Heat Wave}\label{Sec_Est_Shocks}
\noindent The Republic of Korea experienced two significant extreme weather events for the sample period.\footnote{See e.g., \url{https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Hottest-Day-Korean-History} and \url{https://watchers.news/2021/01/11/historic-cold-wave-and-heavy-snow-hit-south-korea/}.} In August 2018, the Republic of Korea experienced one of its most intense heat waves on record, with temperatures soaring to an average of 29.2°C, the highest since record-keeping began in 1907. This extreme heat led to the residential electricity demand of 8,851.04 GWh during that month, underscoring the strain placed on the energy grid by cooling needs. Similarly, January 2021 was marked by a significant cold wave, with temperatures plunging to an average of -6.1°C, well below the seasonal norm. During this period, residential electricity demand also spiked to 7,163.28 GWh as households increased heating usage to cope with the severe cold.
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrates the year-over-year changes in monthly temperature PDFs associated with extreme weather events, specifically the heat wave of August 2018 and the cold wave of January 2021. In the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, the blue solid line represents the temperature PDF in January 2021, compared to the blue dashed line for January 2020, with the black line showing the (vertical) difference between the two PDFs, capturing the effect of the cold wave. In the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, similarly, the red solid line represents the temperature PDF in August 2018, while the red dashed line shows the temperature distribution in August 2017, with the black line indicating the difference between these two PDFs.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.98\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock0.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates comparing January 2021 (solid) and January 2020 (dotted) on the left, and August 2018 (solid) and August 2017 (dotted) on the right, with the black lines representing their differences.}
\label{Fig:Func_shock2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The temperature distributions during the 2018 heat wave and the 2021 cold wave exhibit distinct shifts, which are indicative of extreme weather conditions. The August 2018 distribution is significantly right-skewed, suggesting a higher frequency of exceptionally high temperatures, with a pronounced right tail representing extreme heat events. In contrast, the January 2021 distribution is heavily left-skewed, highlighting the prevalence of unusually low temperatures, with a long left tail representing severe cold conditions. These graphs reveal the significant changes in temperature distributions during these historical extreme events, illustrating how both the heat wave and cold wave deviated sharply from typical conditions in the preceding months.
%We call the function $g(s)$, corresponding to the black line of the left (resp.\ right) panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, as the observed intense heat (resp.\ cold) wave, which is computed from the reference (normal) temperature PDF in August 2017 (resp.\ January 2020), hereafter denoted G_{\nn}(s). We also let G_{\ee}(s) denote the extreme temperature PDF given by G_{\nn}(s) + g(s) (i.e., the August 2018 PDF in the heat wave scenario or January 2021 PDF in the cold wave scenario).
\indent To identify the nonlinearity of temperature effects, we utilize these historical extreme temperature events. This approach aims to provide practitioners with insights into the potential increase in future electricity demand when similar extreme temperature events occur. We henceforth refer to the function \( \zeta_{\ee}(s) \), corresponding to the black line in the left (resp.\ right) panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, as the observed intense heat wave (resp.\ cold wave). This function is computed by subtracting \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) from \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \), where \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) denotes the reference (normal) temperature PDF in August 2017 (resp.\ January 2020), and \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) denotes the extreme temperature PDF in August 2018 for the heat wave (resp. \ January 2021 for the cold wave). Consequently, \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) can be expressed as \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) + \zeta_{\ee}(s) \).
%We are interested in quantifying the impact of extreme temperature events on electricity demand. To support this analysis,
\indent In what follows, we generate a sequence of hypothetical functional shocks that represent less extreme temperature scenarios. These generated functional shocks are exploited to identify the nonlinear increase in temperature effects as temperature conditions shift from moderate to severe. Specifically, we define a functional shock $\zeta_m(s)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqmoderated}
|\zeta_m(s)| \leq |\zeta_{\ee}(s)|, \qquad \int_{-20}^{40} \zeta_m(s) \, ds = 0
\end{equation}
as a moderated heat (resp.\ cold) wave, if \( \zeta(s) \) represents the observed intense heat (resp.\ cold) wave. Adding a moderated heat or cold wave to the reference PDF \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) results in a new PDF, denoted as \( \ZZ_m(s) \). Furthermore, since the application of \( \zeta_m(s) \) induces a globally more moderate shock compared to \( \zeta_{\ee}(s) \), \( \ZZ_m(s) \) is expected to represent less extreme temperature conditions than the extreme temperature PDF \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) observed in August 2018 for the heat wave or January 2021 for the cold wave. There are many possible ways to generate a sequence of functional shocks satisfying \eqref{eqmoderated}. For example, if there is any $\zeta_{m}$ satisfying the requirements, then any convex combination of $\zeta_{m}$ and $\zeta_{\ee}$ also satisfies them. For this reason, any convex combinations of $\zeta_{\ee}(s)$ with the ``zero shock" $\zeta_0$ (i.e., $\zeta_0(s) = 0$ for $s\in [-20,40]$), given by
\begin{equation}
\zeta_a(s) = a \times \zeta_{\ee}(s), \quad a=\frac{1}{M},\frac{2}{M},\ldots,1,
\end{equation}
for some large positive integer $M$, satisfies all the requirements in \eqref{eqmoderated}, which will be considered subsequently. Accordingly, we let $Z_a$ be defined as
\begin{equation} \label{eqhypothetical}
\ZZ_a(s) = \ZZ(s) + \zeta_{a}(s). % \left(\frac{j}{M}\right)
\end{equation}
Note that $\zeta_a(s)$ can be naturally interpreted as a possible, but less extreme, heat or cold wave. Moreover, $\zeta_a(s)$ for $a$ close to $1$ can be understood as a temperature event that transforms the reference PDF into another PDF similar to the extreme temperature PDF, while $a$ close to $0$ can be understood as a temperature event causing only a moderate change. Observe that $\ZZ_a(s)$, constructed from $\zeta_a(s)$, starts from the normal temperature PDF ($\ZZ_{\nn}(s)$) and converges to the extreme temperature PDF ($\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$) by a constant functional increment $(1/M) \times \zeta_{\ee}(s)$ at each step (see the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} showing a few selected $\ZZ_a$). Under this interpretation of $\zeta_a(s)$ as a shock making the reference PDF progressively approach the extreme temperature PDF at a constant rate, our focus is to analyze the effects of this sequence of functional shocks. Moreover, it also should be noted that, under this construction, the changes in the mean temperature are determined by $a \int_{-20}^{40} s \zeta_{\ee}(s) ds$, which is a linear function in on the mean temperature ... \commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)}
\commWK{Further note that \( \zeta_{\ee}(s) \) illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} spans the range $[-20, 19]$ for cold waves, with a sign change at -2.7°C, and $[14, 40]$ for heat waves, with a sign change at 27.8°C. We estimate the temperature effect by examining the likelihood of temperatures within the range $[-20, -2.7]$ for cold waves and $[27.8, 40]$ for heat waves, where the likelihood follows an inverted U-shape. The maximum likelihood occurs at -7.4°C for cold waves and 33.4°C for heat waves. Subsequently, we identify nonlinearities by introducing functional shocks of varying magnitudes, $\zeta_m(s)$. (WK Note: Cannot understand what is the blue paragraph for.)}
%Consequently, we may define $Z_a(s)$ as
%\begin{equation} \label{eqhypothetical}
%\ZZ_a(s) = \ZZ(s) + a \times \zeta_{\ee}(s), \quad j=0,\ldots, M. % \left(\frac{j}{M}\right)
%\end{equation}
%In this section, we focus on the following choices: for some $M>0$ and $ j=0,\ldots, M$, $\zeta_j(s) = ({j}/{M}) \times \zeta(s)$, and hence Note that the nonlinear temperature effect, $f(\zeta)$, can be locally identified using a sequence of functional shocks.
%In Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, more specifically, \( \zeta_{\ee}(s) \) spans the range $[-20, 19]$ for cold waves, with a sign change at -2.7°C, and $[14, 40]$ for heat waves, with a sign change at 27.8°C. We estimate the temperature effect by examining the likelihood of temperatures within the range $[-20, -2.7]$ for cold waves and $[27.8, 40]$ for heat waves, where the likelihood follows an inverted U-shape. The maximum likelihood occurs at -7.4°C for cold waves and 33.4°C for heat waves. Subsequently, we identify nonlinearities by introducing functional shocks of varying magnitudes, $\zeta_m(s)$. % This simulation design can be interpreted as a convex combination of the PDFs of normal and extreme temperatures.
The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} illustrates the change in a few descriptive statistics, caused by $\zeta_m(s)$, during the transition of $\ZZ_m(s)$ from the reference PDF $\ZZ_{\nn}(s)$ to the extreme one $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$ in each scenario. As may well be expected from our construction of $\ZZ_m(s)$, the means of $\ZZ_m(s)$ linearly increase or decrease toward more extreme values ($26.02 \rightarrow 28.54$ in the heat wave scenario and $2.31 \rightarrow -1.53$ in the cold wave scenario) as $\ZZ_m(s)$ gets closer to $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$. On the other hand, other descriptive statistics shift in a nonlinear manner as $\ZZ_m(s)$ moves from $\ZZ_{\nn}$ to $\ZZ_{\ee}$. In the cold wave scenario, the variance increases substantially from January 2020 to January 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating a wider dispersion of temperatures in 2021. However, decreases in skewness ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$) and kurtosis ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$) suggest that the distribution becomes more symmetrical and less peaked, with fewer extreme cold events. In contrast, in the heat wave scenario, we observe a smaller increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), accompanied by rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$) and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), indicating a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution.
%The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} illustrate the change of a few descriptive statistics accompanied by the transition of $G_j(s)$ from the reference PDF $G_{\nn}(s)$ to the extreme one $G_{\ee}(s)$ in each scenario. As may well be expected from our construction of $G_{j}(s)$, the means of $G_j(s)$ linearly increase or decrease toward more extreme values ($26.02 \rightarrow 28.54$ in the heat wave scenario and $2.31 \rightarrow -1.53$ in the cold wave scenario) as $G_j(s)$ gets closer to $G_{\ee}(s)$. On the other hand, other descriptive statistics shift in nonlinear manner as $G_j(s)$ moves from $G_{\nn}$ to $G_{\ee}$. In the cold wave scenario, the variance increases substantially from January 2020 to January 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating a wider dispersion of temperatures in 2021. However, decreases in skewness ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$) and kurtosis ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$) suggest that the distribution becomes more symmetrical and less peaked, with fewer extreme cold events. In contrast, in the heat wave scenario, we observe a smaller increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), accompanied by rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$) and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), indicating a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution.
%While the shift in means toward more extreme values ($26.02 \rightarrow 28.54$ in the heat wave scenario and $2.31 \rightarrow -1.53$ in the cold wave scenario) is expected from our construction of our functional shocks, the variance and higher-order moments provide deeper insights. In the cold wave scenario, the variance increases substantially from January 2020 to January 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating a wider dispersion of temperatures in 2021. However, decreases in skewness ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$) and kurtosis ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$) suggest that the distribution becomes more symmetrical and less peaked, with fewer extreme cold events. In contrast, in the heat wave scenario, we observe a smaller increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), accompanied by rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$) and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), indicating a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution. This reflects more frequent but less intense extreme high-temperature events in 2018 compared to 2017. Overall, while both scenarios demonstrate increased variance, highlighting greater variability and broader temperature ranges, cold waves result in a more symmetrical and less extreme distribution, whereas heat waves lead to greater asymmetry with more frequent but less intense extremes. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock} presents the CLR-transformed temperature densities for the specified periods, while the right panel depicts the progression from moderate to severe shocks, transitioning from the red dashed line to the red solid line for heat waves and from the blue dashed line to the blue solid line for cold waves.
% It is worth noting that the black line in each plot, say $g(s)$, is illustrated exclusively for descriptive purposes and will serve as an intuitive reference point for constructing the corresponding CLR shocks in the estimation and inference procedure. $g(s)$ itself cannot be interpreted as a functional shock, as its addition to any arbitrary PDF does not guarantee that the resulting function remains nonnegative over $[-20,40]$, and thus does not generally form a proper PDF.\footnote{As extensively documented in the literature (see, e.g., \citealp{petersen2016,Hron2016330}), the space of PDFs in $\mathcal H$ is not closed under addition or subtraction.}
%We ascertain that the black lines in Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} are used only for descriptive purpose, and will construct corresponding CLR shocks in our estimation and inference procedure.
% The black lines representing the differences from the previous months underscore the magnitude of these deviations, clearly illustrating the substantial impact of these climatic anomalies.
%\indent Statistically speaking, the variance for the cold wave scenario shows a substantial increase from January 2020 to January 2021, reflecting a wider spread of temperatures in 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$). This suggests that 2021 experienced a more varied range of cold temperatures compared to the previous year. However, the decreases in skewness and kurtosis indicate that, while the temperature distribution became more dispersed, it also became more symmetrical and less peaked ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$; $2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$). This suggests that extreme cold events were less frequent in 2021 than in 2020. For the heat wave scenario, the variance increases to a much smaller extent compared to the cold wave ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$). Notably, skewness increases while kurtosis decreases, indicating that the temperature distribution in 2018 became more right-skewed but less peaked compared to 2017 ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$; $2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$). This implies that extreme high-temperature events were more frequent but not as intense in 2018. In summary, while both cold and heat waves lead to increased variance, reflecting more extreme conditions compared to the previous year, they have overall different effects on the temperature distribution. The cold wave results in a more symmetrical and less extreme distribution, whereas the heat wave leads to greater asymmetry with more frequent but less intense extreme temperatures.
%\begin{figure}[t]
% \begin{center}
% \includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock2.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
% \caption{Selected functional shocks for cold waves (blue), shifted 50 grids to the right, and heat waves (red), shifted 50 grids to the left (left), and the mean change of the functional density shocks during the shifting process (right).}
% \label{Fig:Func_shock3}
% \end{center}
%\end{figure}
% \begin{figure}[t]
% \begin{center}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock2.png}
% \includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.29\textwidth, width=0.29\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Mean_Change_desc.png}
% \caption{CLR transformed density for the heat wave and cold wave events (left), and the associated CLR transformed shocks with the shifting process (right).}
% \label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}
% \end{center}
% \end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.54\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Shock_stat_change3.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.31\textwidth, width=0.45\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Shock_stat_change.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\caption{Temperature densities for heat waves and cold waves (left), showing the transition from reference to event periods, and the evolution of distributional statistics (right).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent To identify the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of electricity demand in our model using the CLR-transformed PDFs, we need to generate relevant functional shocks, corresponding to $\zeta_m(s)$, in the CLR domain. This can be easily implemented by applying the CLR transformation to both the reference PDF $\ZZ(s)$ and $\ZZ_m(s)$, and then computing the subtraction of the former from the latter in each of the heat and cold scenarios. The computed functional shocks in the CLR domain are plotted in Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}.
%corresponding generate functional shocks of varying intensities associated with extreme temperature events by shifting temperature PDFs within the CLR domain. Specifically, we consider a sequence of 50 incremental shifts of the August 2017 PDF toward the August 2018 PDF. Specifically, in each step, we add a moderated heat wave, defined as $j/50$ of the historical heat wave (represented by the black line in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}), to the reference PDF for $j=0,\ldots,50$. As a result, we obtain a sequence of proper PDFs that transition from the August 2017 PDF (representing the typical August temperature distribution) to the August 2018 PDF (representing the abnormal August temperature distribution) at a steady rate. The progression of the PDFs generated by this procedure is illustrated in the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0}.
% The CLR transformation is applied to both the reference (August 2017 PDF) and each shifted PDF, and then each functional shock is computed as the subtraction of the former from the latter.
% to examine the response of electricity demand per effective day (hereafter, nonlinear demand response) under the heat wave scenario.
%proper notion of obviously associated with the changes in the PDFs (from the reference PDF) illustrated in the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0},
% Similarly, for the cold wave scenario, the January 2020 PDF (the reference PDF in this scenario) is shifted incrementally toward the January 2021 PDF; the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} illustrates a few selected proper PDFs obtained through this process. Then the functional shocks are constructed by the same approach used for the heat wave scenario.
% Each functional shock is associated with a moderated heat (resp.\ cold) wave, given by $j/50$ of the historical heat (resp.\ cold) wave, and also a proper notion of the distributional difference between the reference and shifted PDFs in the CLR domain. Thus, these functional shocks may be understood as a sequence of increasingly intense heat or cold waves, expressed in the CLR domain. The computed functional shocks are plotted in Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}.
% We will examine the effect of these functional shocks on the response of electricity demand per effective day under the heat wave and cold wave scenarios.
% \indent The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} summarize the distributional changes in terms of a few descriptive statistics when the increasingly intense functional shocks are given to the reference PDF. As may be expected from .... \commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)}
%\indent The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} illustrates the change of distributional statistics during the transition from the reference PDF to the extreme one in each scenario, revealing significant changes in the characteristics of extreme temperature events. While the shift in means toward more extreme values ($26.02 \rightarrow 28.54$ in the heat wave scenario and $2.31 \rightarrow -1.53$ in the cold wave scenario) is expected from our construction of our functional shocks, the variance and higher-order moments provide deeper insights. In the cold wave scenario, the variance increases substantially from January 2020 to January 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating a wider dispersion of temperatures in 2021. However, decreases in skewness ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$) and kurtosis ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$) suggest that the distribution becomes more symmetrical and less peaked, with fewer extreme cold events. In contrast, in the heat wave scenario, we observe a smaller increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), accompanied by rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$) and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), indicating a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution. This reflects more frequent but less intense extreme high-temperature events in 2018 compared to 2017. Overall, while both scenarios demonstrate increased variance, highlighting greater variability and broader temperature ranges, cold waves result in a more symmetrical and less extreme distribution, whereas heat waves lead to greater asymmetry with more frequent but less intense extremes. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock} presents the CLR-transformed temperature densities for the specified periods, while the right panel depicts the progression from moderate to severe shocks, transitioning from the red dashed line to the red solid line for heat waves and from the blue dashed line to the blue solid line for cold waves.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\caption{CLR-transformed temperature densities for the specified periods (left), and the progression of functional shocks (right), transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%\commWK{The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock} illustrates the CLR-transformed temperature densities for the aforementioned periods. The right panel illustrates the progress from the moderate heat wave shock (red dashed line) to the most severe heat wave shock (red solid line) and from the moderate cold wave shock (blue dashed line) to the most severe cold wave shock (blue solid line). % The impact of each shock can be analyzed by adding the shock to the CLR of a reference density and subsequently computing the corresponding temperature density using the inverse CLR transformation, as defined in \eqref{eqinverseclr}. Notably, the functional shock represented by the red solid line alters the distribution to reflect a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, whereas the shock represented by the red dashed line exhibits a moderated effect. Similarly, the blue solid line indicates a shift toward more extreme low temperatures compared to the blue dashed line.} %Given that positive hese shocks are added to any arbitrary density Given that positive values of any CLR Obviously, the shocks corresponding to the solid lines have more severe extreme temperature more the most severe extreme temperature shocks while the dashed lines represent the most modest }
%\commWK{The functional shocks for a heat wave scenario are generated as the difference, in the CLR domain, between the extreme temperature PDF of August 2018 and the normal temperature PDF of August 2017, both shifted toward the center of the domain. These shifts can be interpreted as (hypothetical) moderated heat waves. Similarly, for a cold wave scenario, shifting the functional shocks represents moderated cold waves. Notably, this shifting procedure inherently introduces proportional changes in the mean of the associated temperature PDFs for both heat wave and cold wave scenarios, as illustrated in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}. Specifically, the mean temperature in August 2018 was approximately 28.54°C, compared to 26.02°C in August 2017. As the two PDFs are progressively shifted leftward by up to 50 grids, the mean temperatures decrease to 23.55°C and 21.06°C, respectively.} \commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)} Thus, while the heat wave shock led to a mean temperature increase of 2.49°C, shifting the temperature distributions reveals that the impact of the heat wave shock varies depending on the defined temperature levels. Similarly, we generate the sequence of the functional shock by shifting the cold wave shock (blue solid line) to the right across a range of grids. The observed difference in mean temperatures between these two months is 3.84°C, as shown in the right panel of the figure. Preserving this difference while examining the impact of varying cold wave intensities, a weak cold wave shock is defined by a shift from a temperature distribution with a mean of 7.30°C to one with a mean of 3.46°C, while a strong cold wave shock is characterized by a shift from a mean of 2.30°C to a mean of -1.53°C. % These adjustments maintain the mean difference between the two original temperature densities, while effectively illustrating how different levels of cold wave intensity can be generated and analyzed.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Density-to-Demand Model}
% (Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity)
% (economic implications)
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} presents the estimation results for the density-to-demand model. In the left panel of the figure, \commKS{(explain how to estimate the nonlinear TRF with Gaussian kernel here)}. As the black lines of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrate the increase in density across the range of 12.2°C (17.3°C) associated with heat (cold) wave shocks, we apply a bandwidth of 15°C.
\indent Observing that the mean temperature of $\ZZ_j(s)$ increases linearly as $\ZZ_j(s)$ approaches $\ZZ_{\ee}$ with a constant functional increment, we report the estimated response of electricity demand on the $y$-axis with respect to the convex parameter of $\ZZ_j(s)$, which is depicted on the $x$-axis in the right panel of the figure. The solid lines show the estimates, $\hat{f}(\zeta_j)$, and these are interpreted as the estimated demand responses to progressively, but consistently, intensifying heat or cold wave shocks, as described in \eqref{Sec_Est_Shocks}. The dotted lines indicate the 95\% confidence intervals for $f(\zeta_j)$ based on the asymptotic normality result given in \eqref{eqlocal}. For comparison, estimation results without addressing potential endogeneity are scaled to half the magnitude on the $y$-axis for $\kappa=1$ and reported for the case $\kappa = 0$.
%The estimation results for $\kappa = 1$, which is expected to effectively account for measurement errors yield particularly insightful outcomes.}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.41\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/DtoD_TRF.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.58\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Empirical_rlt1.png}
\caption{Estimated nonlinear temperature response function with the 95\% local confidence intervals (left), and density-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top right) and heat wave (bottom right) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$.}% The black line indicates the estimation results for the orthornormal Legendre basis functions.}
\label{Fig:Empirical_rlts}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The middle and right panels illustrate the demand response to cold and heat wave shocks across different magnitudes of functional shocks. As shown in the figure, the empirical results for $\kappa=0$ exhibit a similar upward trend, but with a substantially lower magnitude compared to $\kappa=1$. Since the estimation results for $\kappa=0$ do not account for endogeneity, we focus on interpreting the estimation results with $\kappa=1$ as our main empirical findings. The empirical results from the estimation with $\kappa = 1$, which is designed to account for potential measurement errors, indicate a more pronounced increase in electricity demand response as the moderated cold wave approaches a severe cold wave, compared to the corresponding progression from a moderated heat wave to a severe heat wave. This implies that cold wave shocks drive electricity demand more intensely, particularly under colder conditions. On the contrary, the change of electricity demand increases as heat wave gets more intense, whereas the change of electricity demand decreases as cold wave gets severe. This aligns with empirical findings in the existing literature, reflecting the surge in cooling load due to increased air conditioning usage during heat waves (\citealp{chang2016new}).
\indent More specifically, the demand response values for the cold wave event at the convex parameters of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are 0.1677, 0.2328, and 0.2806, respectively. Since electricity demand is expressed in natural logarithms, these results indicate that as normal temperatures approach extreme levels by 33\%, monthly electricity demand increases by 6.51\% on a year-over-year basis. A further progression toward extreme temperatures by 66\% leads to an additional 4.77\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. Overall, the transition from normal temperatures in January 2020 to extreme temperatures in January 2021 corresponds to a 28.06\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. It is important to note that the DSR model with $\kappa=0$, which does not account for measurement error, fails to identify such nonlinearity.
%\indent More specifically, the corresponding demand response values for the cold wave event are 0.1677 at -1.23°C, 0.2328 at -2.53°C, and 0.2806 at -3.83°C. Given the electricity demand is expressed in natural logarithms, and the demand response at a specific maximum likelihood temperature change reflects the relative impact of a heat wave shock, the empirical results indicate that a decline in the maximum likelihood temperature from -1.23°C to -2.53°C since January 2020 corresponds to a 6.51\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. A further decrease in the maximum likelihood temperature from -2.53°C to -3.83°C leads to an additional 4.77\% increase in demand. Collectively, a total reduction of -3.83°C in the maximum likelihood temperature from January 2020 results in a 28.06\% year-over-year rise in monthly electricity demand. It is important to note that the DSR model with $\kappa=0$, which does not account for measurement error, fails to identify such nonlinearity.
\indent Notably, heat wave shocks generate an impact that, while relatively lower in magnitude compared to cold wave shocks, exhibits a more rapid increase. The demand response values for the heat wave event at the convex parameters of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are 0.0222, 0.0498, and 0.0989, respectively. Using a similar way, these results indicate that as normal temperatures approach extreme temperature levels by 33\%, monthly electricity demand increases by 2.76\% on a year-over-year basis. A further progression of normal temperatures toward extreme levels by an additional 33\% leads to a further 4.91\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. Collectively, the cumulative transition from normal temperatures in August 2017 to extreme temperatures in August 2018 corresponds to a 9.89\% year-over-year rise in monthly electricity demand.
\indent The observation that cold wave shocks significantly increase electricity demand more than heat wave shocks implies that electricity demand is more sensitive to the more intense and extreme temperature conditions associated with cold waves. This further implies that the demand response is not just a function of temperature extremes but also the nature of these extremes. This finding departs from existing literature, which primarily focuses on the demand response to temperature level changes alone, and highlights the importance of understanding how shifts in temperature distributions impact electricity demand. Such insights emphasize the need for energy planning that accounts for the varying effects of temperature distribution changes, particularly in the context of increasingly severe cold wave events.
\indent Note that the existing functional approach is susceptible to boundary issues with misled interpretation, particularly in estimating the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand using a functional Fourier flexible form (\citealp{gallant1981bias}; \citealp{chang2016new}). \commKS{(write weakness of Chang et al. (2016) about nonlinear TRF with local density change)} A notable drawback of this method is its tendency to produce inaccurate estimates at the boundaries, especially in regions where data are sparse, such as around the critical temperature thresholds of -20°C and 40°C. These boundary estimates are economically significant, as they can lead to substantial implications in policy and energy management. In contrast, our approach does not focus on the demand response at specific temperature levels but rather generates hypothetical functional shocks to analyze the impact of extreme temperatures. This approach is less prone to boundary issues, providing more reliable estimates by effectively circumventing the problems associated with critical temperature points.
\indent Note that our approach involves addressing the measurement error problem to mitigate potential endogeneity issues. If endogeneity exists, it can bias the nonlinear response estimates. The IV approach corrects this bias by using instruments that are correlated with the endogenous regressors but uncorrelated with the error term. However, this correction may introduce larger standard errors and increased variance, which can diminish the model's goodness of fit—meaning the model may not align as closely with the observed data compared to the standard functional approach. This trade-off becomes apparent in our results with orthonormal Fourier basis functions, as reflected by the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) values are recorded as 0.0822 and 0.1227 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Quantile-to-Demand Model}
\noindent Some might wonder if the quantile function models \commWK{capture} extreme temperature events more effectively than the density function. Specifically, the difference lies in how each approach handles the heterogeneous impact of temperature on electricity demand. The temperature density-to-demand model accounts for the varying influence of each temperature level on demand, whereas the temperature quantile-to-demand model considers the heterogeneous effects of temperature quantiles on demand. As a result, while the density function may more accurately capture the average fluctuations in electricity demand, the quantile function, despite its relatively lower model fit, may be better suited to explaining demand responses under extreme temperature conditions. For instance, during a heat wave, where consumers face unprecedented temperatures, the relevance of past temperature impacts (as modeled by the density function) may diminish, making the quantile function more effective in modeling demand changes at extreme temperatures. In addition, the quantile function would better manage the heterogeneous support of the temperature density function.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_desc1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Sensitivity.png}
\caption{Descriptive statistics of quantile function for each temperature quantile (left) and estimated temperature quantile sensitivity with the dotted lines indicating the 95\% local confidence intervals (right).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent In this context, we further examine the effects of temperature quantiles on electricity demand for extreme weather events. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} displays the \commWK{temporal mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis at various quantile levels (which are computed from the time series $\{X_t(u)\}_{t=1}^T$ for each $u \in [0,1]$}), providing insights into how the temperature changes across different quantiles. The mean temperature increases steadily across the quantiles, reflecting the expected rise in temperature values from lower to higher quantiles. The standard deviation decreases, indicating that temperature values become less variable at higher quantiles. The skewness becomes more negative as the quantile increases, signifying that higher temperatures are more concentrated towards their upper range, leading to a more skewed distribution. Conversely, kurtosis decreases initially but sharply increases at the highest quantiles, suggesting a less peaked distribution initially but with more pronounced tails, indicating more frequent extreme temperature events in these higher quantiles. %The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} shows kernel density estimates for the 1st to 4th \commWK{quartiles}. The density curves illustrate that lower \commWK{quartiles} (1st and 2nd) are more tightly clustered, while higher \commWK{quartiles} (3rd and 4th) exhibit greater dispersion, reflecting the variability and occurrence of extreme temperatures in these ranges.
\indent The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} illustrates the temperature quantile sensitivity with respect to the residential electricity demand. To approximate $\hat{f}(\cdot)$ in equation \eqref{eqest} in the local context and interpret each quantile effect on electricity demand, we construct a sequence of indicator functions for each quantile, $x$. As a result, $\hat{f}(x)$ would represent the effect of a change in a given quantile while other quantiles remain fixed, similar to the interpretation in linear regression. In practice, however, it is implausible that a single quantile shifts independently of others, which can introduce interpretational ambiguities. To address this, we introduce a concept of total quantile change, denoted as \( Q \), to capture the cumulative impact of quantile adjustments. Starting with an even shock from the \( 0.5 \) quantile to the \( 1.0 \) quantile, more specifically, \( Q \) is distributed uniformly over this range, represented as a step function with a value of \( 1 \) from \( x = 0.5 \) onward, with \( Q = 0.5 \times 1 = 0.5 \). Subsequently, we increase the quantile range incrementally while maintaining the same \( Q \), thus gradually concentrating the quantile change at higher quantiles (e.g., function value of \(1.11\) from the \( 0.55 \) quantile to the \( 1.0 \) quantile). For a negative shock of \( -Q \), similarly, we consider evenly reducing quantiles to the lower end, concentrating the change in lower quantiles. By analyzing the function $\hat{f}(x)$ across these step function sequences, we can observe how electricity demand responds to quantile shocks concentrated at various parts of the quantile function, providing insights into which quantile ranges most significantly influence electricity demand.
\indent Not surprisingly, the estimated temperature quantile sensitivity exhibits a U-shaped pattern, consistent with the temperature density sensitivity (\citealp{chang2014time}). However, the nonlinear effect in cooling demand was found to be statistically insignificant. In contrast, the heating demand demonstrates statistically significant sensitivity to temperature changes. Notably, when the temperature rises above the 0.4 quantile, electricity demand decreases, with this reduction intensifying up to the 0.7 quantile before gradually diminishing. This pattern reveals a unique nonlinear pattern in the relationship between temperature quantile and electricity demand, highlighting the asymmetrical effects of temperature on electricity demand across different quantiles.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.66\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.33\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock_Progress.png}
\caption{Estimated quantile functions and functional shocks for cold wave (left) and heat wave (middle), and the progression of functional quantile shocks (right), transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} illustrates the quantile shocks for the cold wave, where the impact is most pronounced in the lower quantiles, especially those associated with the coldest temperatures. This reflects that the January 2021 cold wave caused a significant downward shift in the quantile function compared to January 2020, with the most substantial changes at the lowest quantiles. On the middle panel, the quantile shocks for the heat wave reveal a more uniform increase across the quantiles, with a greater effect at the higher quantiles. This suggests that the August 2018 heat wave led to a consistent rise in temperatures, primarily intensifying extreme high-temperature events. The right panel of the figure presents the progression of the heat wave and cold wave shocks, as depicted in Figures \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} - \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}, transformed into their respective quantile functions.
\indent Table \ref{tab:Quant_est} presents the estimation results from the quantile-to-demand model with 95\% local confidence intervals. Note that the demand response estimates for both cold wave and heat wave shocks, as presented in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock}, are statistically insignificant for the majority of the generated functional shocks. Therefore, we report the empirical results only for severe functional shocks. Under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$, the demand response to a cold wave shock, as modeled with orthonormal Fourier basis functions, is estimated by -0.0417 and -0.0645, respectively, indicating negligible or non-sensical impacts. Similarly, the demand response to a heat wave shock is estimated by -0.0258 and 0.0681, further reflecting statistically insignificant or implausible effects on electricity demand. These findings imply that the quantile-to-demand model may have inherent limitations in capturing the time series dynamics of electricity demand influenced by cumulative temperature effects. Lastly, the RMSE values from the quantile-to-demand model are 0.0933 and 0.1375 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively. These results indicate a decline in the goodness of fit compared to the density-to-demand model.
%\indent Note that when a shock shift is applied to the temperature density function, as described in Section \ref{Sec_Est_Shocks}, the corresponding quantile functions also shift uniformly. However, the differences between the quantile functions remain constant across all quantiles. This invariance implies that shocks resulting from such density shifts cannot be captured through quantile function differences, making quantile-based shock analysis insensitive to such transformations.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Estimation results for quantile-to-demand model}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|c}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for CW} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for HW} & \\
\hline
& Est & 95\% C.I. & Est & 95\% C.I. & RMSE \\
\hline
$\kappa=0$ & -0.0417 & (-0.0783, -0.0051) & -0.0258 & (-0.0424, -0.0092) & 0.0933\\
$\kappa=1$ & -0.0645 & (-0.1803,0.0513) & 0.0681 & (-0.0081,0.1442) & 0.1375 \\
\hline
%Legendre & Est & 95\% C.I. & Est & 95\% C.I. & RMSE \\
%\hline
%$\kappa=0$ & -0.0400 & (-0.0807, 0.0008) & -0.0300 & (-0.0464, -0.0135) & 0.0933\\
%$\kappa=1$ & -0.1387 & (-0.2638,-0.0136) & 0.0893 & (-0.0086,0.1872) & 0.1456 \\
%\hline
\end{tabular}%
\label{tab:Quant_est}%
\end{table}%
%Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_non_est} clearly demonstrates the necessity of incorporating higher-order moments of temperature density function into the quantile-to-demand model. Ignoring these moments consistently results in underestimating demand response, whether assuming no measurement error or serially uncorrelated error. However, it turns out that the quantile-to-demand model no longer shows increasing temperature sensitivity. Unlike the density-to-demand approach, the quantile-based model fails to capture nonlinear temperature sensitivity. This absence of pronounced changes may be due to the quantile-to-demand model’s inability to fully account for higher-order temperature effects, which are crucial for reflecting demand response under extreme conditions. As a result, the quantile-based model may oversimplify the relationship between temperature variations and electricity demand, leading to the observed flat response. %Notably, the quantile-based approach exhibits more pronounced sensitivity to extreme temperature conditions compared to the density-based results, with significant increases in electricity demand under extreme cold and heat waves when higher-order moments are considered and $\kappa=1$ is applied. This comparison highlights the superior ability of the quantile-based approach to capture demand responses under extreme temperature conditions.%, underscoring the critical role of accounting for non-linear characteristics in temperature distributions.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Concluding Remarks}\label{Sec_conclude}
\noindent In this paper, we estimate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand while accounting for measurement errors. Given that residential electricity demand is highly sensitive to temperature fluctuations, accurately capturing these nonlinearities is critical, especially during extreme temperature events where underestimation could jeopardize grid stability. Additionally, measurement errors would stem from the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature distributions represent true distributions, compounded by data quality issues and limitations within the estimation process.
\indent We tackle these challenges by applying a distribution-to-scalar regression to both temperature density-to-demand and quantile-to-demand models. This approach enables us to effectively identify nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature distribution and electricity demand, even when measurement errors are present. Through the analysis of historical heat wave and cold wave shocks of varying intensities within a distributional context, we discover that residential electricity demand is significantly more sensitive to the extreme conditions associated with intense cold waves. Additionally, the temperature quantile-to-demand model fails to yield reliable estimates.
\indent Given our findings, energy practitioners should prioritize incorporating detailed temperature distribution analysis, particularly when planning for extreme weather events. Our empirical findings indicate that residential electricity demand exhibits greater sensitivity to cold waves compared to heat waves, albeit with a slower rate of increase in demand, highlighting the need for advanced demand estimating models that account for these nonlinear sensitivities. Moreover, it is crucial to address potential measurement errors by adopting robust econometric techniques, in order to ensure that demand response strategies are based on accurate and reliable estimates. Our econometric approach would enhance grid stability and support effective energy management during extreme temperature events.
\bigskip
\section*{Disclosure Statement}
\noindent The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
%%%%%%%%% BIBLIOGRAPHY %%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv} %chicago,elsarticle-harv...ecta, econometrica...informs2014
\bibliography{FRKETQ_P3/FRKET_biblio}
\bigskip
\appendix\label{Sec_Append}
\section{Technical Appendix}\label{sec_app_est}
This technical appendix provides detailed discussion on asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator with necessary mathematical preliminaries.
\subsection{Mathematical preliminaries} \label{sec_app_prelim}
This section briefly reviews essential mathematical concepts for the proposed estimator and introduce notation.
Let $\mathcal H_1$ a separable Hilbert space with inner product $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_1$ and norm $\|\cdot\|_1$. A $\mathcal H_1$-valued random variable $Z$ is defined as a measurable map from the underlying probability space to $\mathcal H_1$. Such a random element $Z$ is said to be square-integrable if $\mathbb{E}[\|Z\|_1^2]<\infty$. Let $\mathcal H_2$ be another such Hilbert space. We let $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product defined by $\mathcal H_1$ and $\mathcal H_2$, i.e., for any $\zeta_1 \in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$,
\begin{equation}
\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2 (\cdot) = \langle \zeta_1,\cdot \rangle \zeta_2;
\end{equation}
note that $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2$ is a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$.
For any mean-zero square-integrable random elements $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, $\mathbb{E}[Z_1 \otimes Z_2]$, defined as a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$, is called the (cross-)covariance of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. We call $A:\mathcal H_1 \mapsto \mathcal H_2$ a bounded linear map if $A$ is a linear map and its operator norm, defined as $\|A\|_{\op}=\sup_{|\zeta|\leq 1} \|A\zeta\|$, is finite. For any bounded linear $A$, we let $A^\ast$ be the adjoint map defined by the property $\langle A\zeta_1,\zeta_2 \rangle_2=\langle \zeta_1,A^\ast\zeta_2 \rangle_1$ for all $\zeta_1\in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$. We say that $A$ is a compact operator if $\mathcal H_1=\mathcal H_2$ and there exist orthonormal bases $\{\zeta_{1,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $\{\zeta_{2,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ such that $A = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j \zeta_{1,j} \otimes \zeta_{2,j}$ with $a_j$ tending to zero as $j$ increases; in this expression, if $A$ is self-adjoint ($A=A^\ast$) and nonnegative ($\langle A\zeta,\zeta \rangle_1\geq 0$), it may be assumed that $a_j\geq 0$ and $\zeta_{1,j}=\zeta_{2,j}$, and furthermore they are understood as the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors. A compact operator $A$ is Hilbert-Schmidt if $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{\zeta_j\}_{j\geq1}$, and in this case, the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\|A\|_{\HS}$ is defined as $\|A\|_{\HS}= \sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2}$. It is well known that $\|A\|_{\op} \leq \|A\|_{\HS}$.
\subsection{Equivalent formulation of the proposed estimator} \label{sec_app_est_1}
Our estimator, discussed in Section \ref{Sec_Model}, is a suitable adaptation of the functional IV estimator proposed by \cite{seong2021functional} for our DSR model. First observe that for an IV $Z_t$ satisfying \eqref{eqreg3}, the following can directly be deduced from \eqref{eqreg2}: $C_{Zy} = fC_{XZ}^\ast$, where $C_{Zy} = \mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (y_t-\mathbb{E}[y_t])]$. This in turn leads to the following identity:
\begin{align} \label{eqpopulation}
C_{Zy}C_{XZ} = f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ},
\end{align}
where $C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes u_t]=0$.
As in \cite{seong2021functional} studying on the FFR model, we construct an estimator mimicking the population relationship \eqref{eqpopulation}. We first replace $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ given in \eqref{eqpopulation} with their sample counterparts $\widehat C_{Zy}\widehat C_{XZ}$ (where $\widehat C_{Zy}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T)\otimes (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$ with $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$) and $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ which is introduced in Section \ref{Sec_Model}. Noting that $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ is not invertible (see e.g., \citealp{Benatia2017}), we employ a regularized inverse of $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ to compute an estimator from the sample equation. Specifically, as in \cite{seong2021functional}, we consider the rank-regularized inverse $(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eqregul}
(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\hat{\lambda}_j^{-2}} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\KK$ is determined as
\begin{equation} \label{eqchoicek}
\KK = \max_{j\geq 1} \{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha$ tending to zero. Note that $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ becomes the $\KK$-dimensional projection $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j$ and similar regularized inverses are widely used in the literature on the functional linear model (see e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional,seo2024optimal}). The estimator $\hat{f}$ is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$
\begin{align} \label{eqest1}
\hat{f} (x)= \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (x).
\end{align}
With some algebra using \eqref{eqregul} and the definitions of the operators above, it can be shown that \eqref{eqest1} is equivalent to the expression given in \eqref{eqest}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem1}
The choice $\KK$ in \eqref{eqchoicek} is adopted from \cite{seong2021functional} concerning the FFR model. Based on this choice, we study the asymptotic properties of our estimator. Of course, with only a minor modification, it is possible to extend the desired asymptotic results, which will be discussed, under an alternative choice of $\KK$, such as $\KK = m + \max_{j\geq 1}\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for some finite $m$, if necessary. This choice may be preferred when researchers want to retain at least $m$ eigenelements for estimation. The case with $m=1$ also has some theoretical justification, given that we need at least one eigenelement for the proposed estimator to be well defined for every $T$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Consistency and local asymptotic normality}\label{sec_app_est_2}
This section examines the consistency and local asymptotic normality of the proposed estimator, both of which are fundamental to our empirical analysis in Section \ref{Sec_Empirics}. For simplicity, we consider the case where \( y_t \), \( X_t \), and \( Z_t \) have zero means, reducing the regression model \eqref{eqreg1} to \( y_t = f(X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t \). Under this assumption, the population (e.g., \( C_{XZ} \)) and sample covariance operators (e.g., \( \widehat{C}_{XZ} \)) introduced in Section \ref{sec_method} are naturally interpreted as being defined without centering or demeaning the associated variables. As discussed by \cite{seong2021functional}, extending the subsequent results to cases where the means are unknown and must be estimated requires only minor modifications, such as replacing variables with their centered or demeaned counterparts. Consequently, we omit these details.
%the consistency and local asymptotic normality to be established remain unchanged with or without this simplification.
\subsubsection{Assumptions and main results}
It turns out that $ C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast $ are compact operators (see \citealp{Bosq2000}, p.\ 117). We thus hereafter let
\begin{equation}
C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 g_j \otimes g_j, \quad C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 h_j \otimes h_j,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_j$, $g_j$, and $h_j$ are relevant eigenelements (see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}). Let $C_{ZZ}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes Z_t]$, $C_{uu}=\mathbb{E}[u_t\otimes u_t]$ and $C_{Zu}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]$. We define $\widehat{C}_{ZZ}$, $\widehat{C}_{uu}$ and $\widehat{C}_{Zu}$ be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{ZZ}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes Z_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{uu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T u_t\otimes u_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{Zu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes u_t,
\end{equation}
which may be understood as the sample counterparts of $C_{ZZ}$, $C_{uu}$ and $C_{Zu}$. We employ the following assumptions: below, $\mathfrak{F}_t$ denotes the natural filtration given by $\sigma(\{Z_s\}_{s\leq t+1}, \{u_s\}_{s\leq t})$ and let $\tau_j = 2\sqrt{2} \max\{ (\lambda_{j-1}^2-\lambda_j^2)^{-1}, (\lambda_{j}^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2)^{-1} \}$ as in \cite{seong2021functional}.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum1}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item Equation \eqref{eqreg2} holds; \item $\{X_t,Z_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is stationary and geometrically strongly mixing, $\mathbb{E}[\|X_t\|^2] < \infty$, and $\mathbb{E}[\|Z_t\|^2] < \infty$; \item $\mathbb{E}[u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=0$, $\mathbb{E}[u_t \otimes u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=C_{uu}$, and $\sup_{1\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}[\|u_t\|^{2+\delta}|\mathfrak F_{t-1}] < \infty$ for some $\delta>0$; \item $\sum_{j=1}^\infty |f(b_j)|^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{b_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ of $\mathcal H$; \item $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ}-{C}_{XZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{ZZ}-{C}_{ZZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{Zu}-{C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and $\|\widehat{C}_{uu} - C_{uu}\|_{\HS}= o_p(1)$; \item $\ker C_{XZ}=\{0\}$; \item \label{eq001a1}$\lambda_1^2 > \lambda_2^2 > \cdots > 0$; \item $T^{-1}\alpha^{-1} \to 0$ and $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \to_p 0$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum1} are adapted from Assumptions M and E of \cite{seong2021functional} studying the FFR model, and similar assumptions have been employed in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{Hall2007}). Condition \ref{eq001a1} is a technical requirement that $\alpha$ decay at an appropriate rate depending on the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $T$. This subtle requirement on $\alpha$ may be relaxed if some additional (but still standard in the literature on the functional linear model) assumptions are employed, which will be discussed later in this section. %it is common to assume that $\lambda_j^2 - \lambda_{j+1}^2$ is eventually convex and bounded above by $O(j^{\gamma})$ for some $\gamma > 3$ (see Assumption 2 below and also Assumption E2 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). In this case, $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\KK4)$ the assumption
We then present the following consistency result, which details Proposition \ref{prop1} given in Section \ref{Sec_Model}:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop1a}
Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}, $\|\hat{f} - f\|_{\op} \to_p 0$.
\end{proposition}
We next obtain the local asymptotic normality result \eqref{eqlocal} for any specified $\zeta \in \mathcal H$. To this end, we employ the following assumptions: below, we let $\upsilon_{t}(j,\ell) = \langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle -\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle]$ for $j,\ell \geq 1$ and $\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle \tilde{\zeta}, {C}_{ZZ} \tilde{\zeta} \rangle$, where $\tilde{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle {g}_j,\zeta \rangle {C}_{XZ}({g}_j)$.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum2} For some $c_\circ>0$, $\rho>2$, $\varsigma>1/2$, $\delta_{\zeta}>1/2$ and $m>1$, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\lambda_j^2 \leq c_\circ j^{-\rho}$; \item $\lambda_j^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2 \geq c_\circ j^{-\rho-1}$; \item $|f(g_j)| \leq c_\circ j^{-\varsigma}$; \item $\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t(j,\ell)\upsilon_{t-s}(j,\ell)] \leq c_\circ s^{-m}\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t^2(j,\ell)]$ for $s\geq 1$, and furthermore, $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle X_t,g_j \rangle Z_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$ and $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle Z_t,h_j \rangle X_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$; \item $\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle \leq c_\circ j^{-\delta_{\zeta}}$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The above assumptions are obvious adaptation of the conditions given by \cite{Hall2007} and \cite{seong2021functional}, which seem to be standard in the literature. Particularly, \cite{seong2021functional} established useful asymptotic results for the FFR model under Assumption \ref{assum2}, which are also used for our estimator. In fact, if Assumption \ref{assum2} is additionally satisfied, the consistency result given in Proposition \ref{prop1} can be established with $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$ without requiring Assumption \ref{assum1}\ref{eq001a1}; this follows directly from Theorem 3 of \cite{seong2021functional}, and extending this result from the FFR model to the DSR model is straightforward. In order to establish the local asymptotic normality result, we need more conditions, which are stated below:
\begin{assumption}\label{assum3}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\alpha^{-1} = o(T^{1/3})$; \item \label{assum3b} $\varsigma + \delta_{\zeta} > \rho/2+2$, $2\delta_{\zeta} \geq \rho+1$ and $T \alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho} = O(1)$; \item\label{assum3c} ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption} Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3b} particularly requires $f$ and $\zeta$ to be sufficiently smooth with respect to the eigenvectors $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ so that the entire map or element can be well approximated by those eigenvectors; this is a standard requirement in asymptotic analysis in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{seong2021functional} and reference therein). Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3c} requires a certain quantity depending on $\zeta$ to diverge to infinity. This condition is expected to be satisfied for many possible choices of $\zeta$ (see Section 3.2 of \citealp{Carrasco2007}; Remark 4 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). We obtain the desired asymptotic normality result under this requirement. However, it turns out that even if such a smoothness condition is not satisfied, a weaker version of \eqref{eqlocal}, with $f(\zeta)$ being replaced by $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, still holds as long as $\alpha$ decays at a sufficiently slow rate. This allows for statistical inference on $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$. As discussed by \citet[Section 3.2]{seong2021functional}, $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ may be understood as the best linear approximation of $\zeta$ based on the covariation of $X_t$ and $Z_t$, thus this weaker result still provides interpretable insights for practitioners.
The desired asymptotic normality result is given as follows:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop2} Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (y_t-\hat{f}(X_t))$ and $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{proposition}
With some algebra, it can be shown that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, as given in Proposition \ref{prop2} can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta2}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t\rangle\right)^2,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to \eqref{eqtheta} without demeaning the variables.
\subsubsection{Mathematical proofs}
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop1a}}
Using \eqref{eqreg2} and the expression given in \eqref{eqest1}, the proposed estimator $\hat{f}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{f} = \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} + \widehat{C}_{Zu} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag, \label{eq:b0}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat \Pi_{\KK}= \sum_{j=1} ^{\KK} \widehat g_j \otimes \widehat g_j$ as earlier introduced.
%Under our assumptions, we apply the central limit theorem for strongly mixing sequences (see, e.g., \citeauthor{heyde1974central}, \citeyear{heyde1974central}) and for martingale difference sequences to find that
% $ T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\langle x_t,w_1 \rangle \langle z_t,w_2 \rangle - \langle \mathcal C_{xz} w_1, w_2 \rangle \right) $ and $T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle $ converge in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1,w_2 \in \mathcal H$.
% \begin{align}\label{pfresult2}
% \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle
% \end{align}
%converges in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1$ and $w_2$.
% Then, by applying Theorem 3 of \citet[Chapter 1]{skorohod2001}, it can be shown that
% \begin{align}
% \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T (x_t \otimes z_t - \mathcal C_{xz}) = O_p(1)\quad\text{and}\quad \quad \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T z_t \otimes u_t = O_p(1); \label{eqcltref}
% \end{align}
% see also Lemma A.1 of \cite{seo2020functional}.
As shown in the proof of Theorem 1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, we have $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq \alpha^{-1/2}$ and $\|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}. Consequently, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|\widehat{f} - f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS} \|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
\end{equation}
We hereafter assume that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ consists of an orthonormal basis; this can simply be achieved by assigning an appropriate vector to each zero eigenvalue with no loss of generality (see e.g., the proof of Lemma A.1 of \citealp{seo2024optimal}). From the properties of the operator norm and that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ is an orthonormal basis, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} -f\|_{\op} \leq \sum_{j=1}^\infty \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f\hat({g}_j)\|.
\end{equation}
Thus the proof becomes complete if $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\hat{g}_j -f\hat{g}_j\| \to_p 0$ is shown. From
% \begin{equation} \label{eqpf0006add2wadd0}
% \|\widehat{\mathcal A}- \mathcal A \widehat{\Pi}_{\K}\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
% \end{equation}
%the following can be shown by
nearly identical arguments used to derive (8.63) of \cite{Bosq2000}, %and (S2.2) of \cite{seong2021functional},
we find that %and the property of the operator norm such that $\Vert \cdot \Vert_{\op} \leq \Vert \cdot \Vert_{\HS}$:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f({g}_j)\|^2 + O_p(1)\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j.\label{eqpf0006add2wadd}
\end{equation}
Since $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f(g_j)\|^2 < \infty$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}, $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \| f(g_j)|^2$ converges in probability to zero as $T$ gets larger (note that $\KK$ diverges as $T \to \infty$). In addition,
$
\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}\|_{\op} + \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast- C_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\| C_{XZ}\|_{\op} = O_p(T^{-1/2})$ as shown by (S2.3) of \cite{seong2021functional}. Combining all these results, we find that \eqref{eqpf0006add2wadd} is $o_p(1)$ as desired. \qed
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop2}}
With some algebra, we find that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}$ in \eqref{eqtheta} can equivalently expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle.
\end{equation}
Let ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$. From Theorem 4 (with its proof and Remark 10) of \cite{seong2021functional}, we find that Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3} lead us to the following:
\begin{equation} \label{eqconv1}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}(\zeta)-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1).
\end{equation}
Note that $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}(\zeta)\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta))$ can be written as $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (A_1+A_2+A_3+A_4)$, where $A_1 = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_2 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_3 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(g_j)$, and $A_4 = f(\Pi_{\KK}-I) \zeta$, where $\Pi_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} g_j \otimes g_j$ and $g_j^s = \sgn \langle g_j, \hat{g}_j \rangle g_j$. Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}, it is shown by \cite{seong2021functional} (see (S2.11), (S2.16) and (S2.33)) that $\KK = O_p(\alpha^{-1/\rho})$ and
\begin{align}
\|f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)\|^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{\rho+2-2\varsigma},\\
\langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}+2 + \rho}.
\end{align}
Combining these results with the conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum3}, it can be shown with nearly identical arguments used in \cite{seong2021functional} that $\|A_1\|, \|A_2\|$ and $\|A_3\|$ are all $O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and, moreover,
\begin{equation}
\|A_4\|^2\leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle f(g_j) \|^2 %\leq\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}} \|f(g_j) \|
\leq O(1)\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma} = O((\KK+1)^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma+1})= O(\alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho}),
\end{equation}
where the first equality follows from the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula for the Riemann zera-function (see e.g., (5.6) of \citealp{ibukiyama2014euler}).
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqconv2}
\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) = O_p(1/\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}) + O(T^{-1/2}\alpha^{(\varsigma+\delta_{\zeta}-1/2)/\rho} /\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}).
\end{equation}
Under Assumption \ref{assum3}, the above is $o_p(1)$.
It remains to show that $|\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)- \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)| \to_p 0$ and replacing $ \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)$ with $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ does not affect the results given in \eqref{eqconv1} and \eqref{eqconv2}. This follows from arguments nearly identical to those used in the proof of Theorem 2 in \cite{seong2021functional}, and thus the details are omitted.
%From this result, we find that, if $f$ and $\zeta$ are smooth enough with respect to $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ (and thus $\varsigma$ and $\delta_{\zeta}$) are large enough, $\alpha$ is allowed to $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{document}
\documentclass[11pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,amsfonts,amstext,upgreek}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{mathtools}
%\usepackage[longnamesfirst]{natbib}
\usepackage{natbib}
% \bibpunct[, ]{(}{)}{,}{a}{}{,}%
\def\bibfont{\small}%
\def\bibsep{\smallskipamount}%
\def\bibhang{24pt}%
\def\newblock{\ }%
\def\BIBand{and}%
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{cancel}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttable}
\appto\TPTnoteSettings{\linespread{1}\footnotesize} % small text if *not* flushleft
\makeatletter %small text if flushleft
\g@addto@macro\TPT@defaults{\linespread{1}\footnotesize}
\makeatother
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\sisetup{group-digits = true,
group-separator = {,}, % default: \, (thinspace)
round-mode = places,
round-precision = 3 }
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{thrmappendix}
\usepackage{alltt}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{accents}
%\usepackage{hypernat}
\usepackage{mathtools,dsfont}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\definecolor{blue(pigment)}{rgb}{0.2, 0.2, 0.6}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
filecolor=magenta,
urlcolor=cyan,
citecolor=blue(pigment),
}
\usepackage[capitalize,noabbrev]{cleveref}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage[inline,shortlabels]{enumitem}
\newtoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}\toggletrue{SUPPLEMENTAL}
\togglefalse{SUPPLEMENTAL} %COMMENT OUT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
\newcommand{\Supplemental}[2]{\iftoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}{#1}{#2}}
\newtoggle{BLINDED}\toggletrue{BLINDED}
\togglefalse{BLINDED} %COMMENT OUT FOR BLINDED VERSION
\newcommand{\Blinded}[2]{\iftoggle{BLINDED}{#1}{#2}}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.8in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.01in}
\newcommand{\nn}{\text{norm}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\text{extr}}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newtheorem{axi}{Axiom}[section]
\renewcommand{\theassumption}{A\arabic{assumption}}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[]
\newtheorem{lemma}[]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[]
\newtheorem{example}{Example}[]
\newcommand{\pconv}{\xrightarrow{p}}
\newcommand{\dconv}{\xrightarrow{d}}
\newcommand{\avgt}{\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T}
\newcommand{\avgn}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}}
\newcommand{\tr}{^{\top}}
\newcommand{\KK}{{\rm K}}
\newcommand{\HH}{{\rm F}}
\newcommand{\PP}{{\rm P}}
\newcommand{\QQ}{{\rm Q}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\DeclareMathOperator{\op}{op}
\newcommand{\ASD}[1]{\{\scalebox{0.85}{$\hspace{-0.1em}#1\hspace{-0.1em}$}\}}
\crefformat{footnote}{#2\footnotemark[#1]#3} %cleveref
\crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\Crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{equation}{}{}
\Crefname{equation}{Equation}{Equations}
%
\crefformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}
\crefrangeformat{enumi}{(#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\crefmultiformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
\Crefformat{enumi}{Part (#2#1#3)}
\Crefrangeformat{enumi}{Parts (#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\Crefmultiformat{enumi}{Parts (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
%
\crefname{assumption}{}{}
\Crefname{assumption}{Assumption}{Assumptions}
\newcommand{\creflastconjunction}{, and\nobreakspace} %Oxford comma
\newcommand{\crefrangeconjunction}{--}
\DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `dirname #1`/`basename #1 .tif`.png}
\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.png}
\graphicspath{ {./Figures/} }
\newcommand{\citeposs}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}
\newcommand{\matf}[1]{#1} %matrix formatting
\newcommand{\vecf}[1]{#1} %vector formatting
% \newcommand{\matf}[1]{\underline{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}}} %matrix formatting
% \newcommand{\vecf}[1]{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}} %vector formatting
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{Var}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Cov}{Cov}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Corr}{Corr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\const}{const.}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ran}{ran}
\DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{rank}
\DeclareMathOperator{\spn}{span}
\DeclareMathOperator{\HS}{HS}
\newcommand{\Varp}[1]{\Var\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Covp}[1]{\Cov\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Corrp}[1]{\Corr\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\WP}{\textrm{ w.p.\ }}
\newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{\Hnull}{{\mathbb H}_0}\newcommand{\Halt}{{\mathbb H}_1}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sgn}{sgn}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{E}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{Q}
\let\Pr\relax \DeclareMathOperator{\Pr}{P} %comment out if Pr desired
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\plim}{plim}
\DeclareMathOperator{\1}{\mathds{1}}
\newcommand{\Ind}[1]{\1\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\Normal}{\mathrm{N}}
\newcommand{\Normalp}[2]{\Normal\left(#1,#2\right)}
\newcommand{\BetaDist}{\textrm{Beta}}
\newcommand{\DirDist}{\textrm{Dir}}
\newcommand{\UnifDist}{\textrm{Unif}}
\newcommand{\weaklyto}{\rightsquigarrow}
\newcommand{\diff}{d} %differential operator: easy to change to upright if needed.
%(partial) derivatives:
\newcommand{\pD}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
\newcommand{\pDD}[2]{\frac{\partial^2 #1}{\partial #2^2}}
\newcommand{\D}[2]{\frac{\diff #1}{\diff #2}}
\newcommand{\DD}[2]{\frac{\diff^2 #1}{\diff #2^2}}
\newcommand{\independenT}[2]{\mathrel{\rlap{$#1#2$}\mkern2mu{#1#2}}}
\newcommand\independent{\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}}
\newcommand{\indep}{\independent}
\providecommand{\absbig}[1]{\left\lvert#1\right\rvert}
\providecommand{\normbig}[1]{\left\lVert#1\right\rVert}
\providecommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert}
\providecommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert}
\newcommand\commWK{\textcolor{black}}
\newcommand\commKS{\textcolor{black}}
\newcommand\commnote{\textcolor{green}} %% make this invisible later
\newcommand{\ZZ}{\mathrm{Z}}
\let\originalleft\left
\let\originalright\right
\renewcommand{\left}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}
\renewcommand{\right}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}
%Bibliography spacing fix
\let\oldthebibliography=\thebibliography
\let\endoldthebibliography=\endthebibliography
\renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1]{%
\begin{oldthebibliography}{#1}%
\setlength{\parskip}{0ex}%
\setlength{\itemsep}{0ex}%
}%
{%
\end{oldthebibliography}%
}
% \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\roman{enumi}}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\theenumi)}
\allowdisplaybreaks[3]
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\title{Estimating the Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity of \\ \vspace{0.5em} Residential Electricity Demand under Measurement Errors\thanks{We deeply appreciate Hyunjin Yang (KEPCO) and Sungro Lee (KOGAS) for generously providing residential electricity demand and local temperature data in the Republic of Korea. Kyungsik Nam's research was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2025.}}
% We deeply appreciate all valuable comments from ... and to participants of the ... for useful feedback.
\author{Kyungsik Nam\thanks{Assistant Professor, Division of Climate Change, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 17035, Republic of Korea. E-mail: \texttt{ksnam@hufs.ac.kr}}, \,\, Won-Ki Seo\thanks{Lecturer, School of Economics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: \texttt{won-ki.seo@sydney.edu.au}}}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\noindent We estimate the temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand during extreme temperature events using a distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model. Instead of relying on simple averages or individual quantile statistics of raw temperature data, we construct distributional summaries—such as probability density functions or quantile functions—to retain more comprehensive information. Beyond our motivation to exploit more information from the raw temperature data, this modeling approach allows us to examine the effects of various temperature extremes, which conventional models cannot capture. Given that distribution functions are typically estimated from limited discrete observations and thus may include measurement errors, moreover, our econometric approach explicitly addresses this issue. The empirical findings reveal that residential electricity demand is more responsive to cold waves than to heat waves, in a nonlinear fashion. Furthermore, we show that the temperature quantile-to-demand model reveals mostly insignificant demand response estimates, driven by the influence of two counteracting forces.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{0.4\baselineskip}
\vfill
\noindent JEL Classification: C33, C51, C53, Q41 \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Key words and phrases}: Functional regression, measurement error, electricity demand, temperature sensitivity, heat wave
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\setcounter{page}{0} \thispagestyle{empty}
\baselineskip19.5pt
\pagenumbering{arabic}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newpage
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec_Intro}
\noindent Accurately estimating electricity demand during extreme weather events is vital for ensuring energy security and enhancing grid reliability. For energy practitioners and policymakers, precise demand estimation is crucial for balancing supply and demand, preventing power outages, and ensuring that the energy infrastructure can withstand increased loads during such critical periods. As climate change drives more frequent and severe weather events, the importance of precise demand estimation has grown significantly, making it a cornerstone of sustainable energy management.
%WKNOTE: Grid reliablity? Must be something in the literature.
\indent The relationship between temperature and electricity demand is inherently nonlinear, as demand typically rises sharply during extreme hot or cold conditions. Traditional approaches to modeling this relationship rely on nonlinear variables such as Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD). However, these methods have notable limitations, including the need to arbitrarily define threshold temperatures. To address this limitation, a distribution-based approach that incorporates the full information of temperature distribution as an explanatory variable has been studied. This methodology effectively captures the nonlinear dynamics of electricity demand while allowing the threshold temperature to be estimated endogenously within the model.
\indent Unexpected spikes in electricity demand during extreme temperature events present unique challenges that require advanced econometric modeling to maintain grid stability. Residential electricity demand, in particular, exhibits heightened sensitivity to temperature extremes, with demand increasing more steeply at extreme temperatures compared to moderate conditions. Failing to account for these nonlinearities would result in significant underestimation of demand during critical periods, jeopardizing grid stability. Consequently, accurately modeling the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand is imperative. Such models not only enhance the resilience of energy infrastructure but also enable the development of more effective energy management strategies to address the growing impacts of climate change on electricity demand.
\indent The key challenge in estimating the nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature lies in the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature distributions are treated as true distributions. This assumption can introduce bias into demand response estimates since errors from the estimation process may distort the results. Furthermore, generating a representative temperature distribution using hourly regional data adds further estimation errors, which can lead to biased and inconsistent demand response estimates. These errors are particularly problematic during extreme temperature events, compromising the reliability of estimates critical for energy security and grid stability.
\indent Building on the foundational work of \cite{engle1986semiparametric}, a substantial body of literature has applied the cointegration framework for analyzing electricity demand, with noticeable contributions from \cite{engle1989merging}, \cite{silk1997short}, \cite{beenstock1999demand}, \cite{chang2014time}, \cite{chang2016disentangling}, and \cite{chang2021forecasting}, among others. Subsequently, the literature has focused on incorporating nonlinear temperature variables, such as HDD and CDD, or employing nonlinear econometric methods to evaluate the impact of temperature fluctuations on electricity demand, including \cite{sailor1997sensitivity}, \cite{henley1997non}, \cite{henley1998residential}, \cite{valor2001daily}, \cite{pardo2002temperature}, and \cite{apadula2012relationships}. In particular, smooth transition, panel threshold, and switching regression models have been employed to capture nonlinear demand responses (\citealp{moral2005modelling}; \citealp{bessec2008non}). More recently, density-based functional approaches have emerged to analyze these effects across sectors, providing deeper insights into the nonlinearity between temperature and electricity demand (\citealp{chang2016new}; \citealp{miller2022modeling}).
\indent The nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature has been further explored through various advanced methodologies. For instance, \cite{teixeira2017} integrated linear regression with artificial neural networks to capture heterogeneous consumption patterns, while \cite{caro2020} and \cite{sharma2020} utilized periodically correlated models and synergy of recurrent neural networks with fuzzy logic, respectively, to enhance load forecasting accuracy. Meanwhile, \cite{sigauke2013extreme} applied tail-quantile estimation to analyze extreme daily increases in peak electricity demand, highlighting the critical role of temperature-driven demand fluctuations. Lastly, \cite{sultana2022} refined short-term demand forecasts using machine learning, focusing on managing temperature-induced variability.
\indent Compared to the existing literature, we introduce a functional econometric approach that effectively captures the nonlinearity of residential electricity demand response, even in the presence of measurement errors—a dimension that has not been thoroughly addressed in the existing literature. By addressing the complexities introduced by the measurement errors, our approach provides a more robust estimation, setting it apart from traditional techniques that may overlook these critical factors. Furthermore, our approach differs significantly from existing studies by focusing on the nonlinear demand response of residential electricity to changes in temperature distribution, rather than just temperature levels. This allows for a more comprehensive analysis, capturing the broader distributional effects of temperature fluctuations, particularly during extreme weather events.
\indent Instead of viewing density and quantile functions as competing methods, we consider them complementary strategies, each providing unique insights to form a comprehensive analytical framework. The density-based approach offers direct interpretability within a compositional data framework, allowing for clear analysis of temperature's impact on electricity demand across the entire temperature level. On the other hand, quantile functions address heterogeneous support more effectively and excel in estimating the cumulative effects of temperature at highest or lowest quantiles. Notably, these issues have not been adequately addressed in the existing literature. In this paper, we apply the Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation for density-valued functional data and mean centering for quantile-valued functional data. These transformations enable us to handle the distinct characteristics of each functional data.
\indent The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec_method} details the econometric methodology employed to estimate the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand in the presence of measurement errors. Section \ref{Sec_Data} provides the residential electricity demand and local temperature data from the Republic of Korea. Given two extreme weather events, Section \ref{Sec_Empirics} presents empirical results illustrating the nonlinear sensitivity of temperature density and quantile functions. Finally, Section \ref{Sec_conclude} provides concluding remarks, with econometric proofs included in the Appendix.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Econometric methodology}\label{sec_method}
\subsection{Distributional predictors of temperature and measurement errors}
\label{sec_method_1}
We let $y_t$ represent electricity demand, a practical measurement of which for our empirical study is detailed in Section \ref{Sec_Data}, and $X_t^\circ$ be a function that summarizes the distributional properties of temperature. There are various choices for $X_t^\circ$, but in this paper, we focus on two: (i) the CLR transformation of the probability density function (PDF) of temperature, denoted hereafter as $p_t$, and (ii) the quantile function (QF) corresponding to $p_t$. The former appears to be more commonly considered in the literature on density-valued functional data (see e.g., \citealp{kokoszka2019forecasting,SEO2019,seong2021functional}), and we place more emphasis on it accordingly, while the latter offers distinct advantages, particularly for our empirical application.
Assuming that $p_t$ of temperature is supported on $[a,b]$, the CLR transformation $X_t^\circ$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqclr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log p_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \log p_t (s) ds, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
Under some mathematical conditions on the underlying PDF $p_t$, the transformation from $p_t$ to its CLR transformation not only embeds the probability densities on $[a,b]$ into a linear subspace of the $L^2[0,1]$ Hilbert space but also is invertible. Thus, the CLR transformation of $p_t$ has been considered a standard choice in the model involving distributional functional data in the aforementioned articles. In addition to this, we will also consider the case where $X_t^\circ$ is the quantile function corresponding to $p_t$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eqqf}
X_t^\circ(r) = \inf \{x \in [a,b]:\int_{a}^{x} p_t(s) ds \leq r\}, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
It is well known that, for the CLR transformation to be an invertible transformation of a set of probability densities, $p_t$ needs to be supported on a common compact interval $[a,b]$ for every $t$ (see e.g., \citealp{Egozcue2006,Boogaart2014}); more specifically the so-called inverse CLR transformation is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eqinverseclr}
X_t^\circ (r) \quad \mapsto \quad \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) \big/ \int_{a}^b \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) dr, \quad r \in [a,b].
\end{equation}
This requires us to estimate all the temperature densities on a common interval. On the other hand, the quantile functions do not require such a restriction, and the support of the function can vary over time.
In practice, $p_t$ cannot be directly observed, and thus $X_t^\circ$ is not observable. For empirical analysis, it must be constructed from the raw temperature data; specifically, we may replace $p_t$ or $\log p_t$ with its relevant nonparametric estimate in \eqref{eqclr} (as in \citealp{SEO2019}), or replace population quantiles with sample quantiles in \eqref{eqqf}. However, this replacement necessarily introduces estimation/smoothing errors, and it is well known that standard estimation methods for function-to-scalar regression may lead to inconsistent estimation of the model. For a more detailed discussion, see \citet[Section 7]{Benatia2017}, \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}, and \cite{seong2021functional}. Subsequently, we discuss econometric methods for studying the distributional impact of temperature on electricity demand that are robust to the presence of these estimation/smoothing errors in the distributional predictor.
\iffalse
\subsection{Model and estimator (version with tensor notation)} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated, meaning that $\mathbb{E}[X_t \otimes u_t] \neq 0$, where $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product (defined by defined by $g\otimes h (\cdot) = \langle g,\cdot \rangle h$ for $g\in \mathcal H$ and $h \in \mathbb{R}$; see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim} in the Appendix for more details).\footnote{Specifically, for any $g,h$ taking values in $\mathcal H$, $ g \otimes h (x) = \langle g,x \rangle h = (\int_{a}^{b} g(s)x(r)dr)h$ for any $x\in \mathcal H$.}
As is well known in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition $\mathbb{E}[X_t\otimes u_t]=0$, inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves with measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model by \cite{seong2021functional} to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional instrumental variable (IV) satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}:=\mathbb{E}[(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])\otimes (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
The above consists of only the minimal requirements for the IV $Z_t$. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ exhibits time series dependence, we let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of an instrumental variable considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (X_t-\bar{X}_T) \otimes (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T) \otimes (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
%\widehat{C}_{Zy} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes y_t, \quad
% \quad %\widehat{C}_{Zu} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes u_t,
%\widehat{\Gamma}_{yX} =\widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ}, \quad \widehat{\Gamma}_{X} = \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast (:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2 \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j.
\end{equation}
The eigenelements can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model.
\bigskip
%\newpage
\fi
\subsection{Model and estimator} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated (meaning that $\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x \rangle u_t] \neq 0$ for some $x\in \mathcal H$) and thus $X_t$ is endogenous.
As is well documented in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition ($\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x\rangle u_t]=0$ for every $x\in \mathcal H$), inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves with measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model by \cite{seong2021functional} to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional instrumental variable (IV), which satisfies the following: for every $x \neq 0$,
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}(x):=\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t], x \rangle (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x\rangle u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
$C_{XZ}$ (resp.\ $C_{Zu}$) defined above is called the (cross-)covariance operator of $X_t$ and $Z_t$ (resp.\ $Z_t$ and $u_t$). The conditions given in \eqref{eqreg3} consist of only the necessary requirements for the IV $Z_t$ in our DSR model. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ exhibits time series dependence, we let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of the IV considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle X_t-\bar{X}_T,x\rangle (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle Z_t-\bar{Z}_T,x \rangle (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $C_{XZ}^\ast$ (defined by $C_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x \rangle(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, the composite map $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} \hat{g}_j = \hat{\lambda}_j \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\lambda}_1\geq \hat{\lambda}_2 \geq \ldots \geq 0$. The eigenelements of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
% \begin{align} \label{eqest}
% \hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
% \end{align}
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
%= T^{-2}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{s=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \hat{g}_j, X_{s}-\bar{X}_T\rangle \langle Z_{s}-\bar{Z}_T,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
%;\footnote{An alternative equivalent expression is $\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$.}
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Data}\label{Sec_Data}
\subsection{Raw data and temperature densities} \label{Sec_Data_1}
\noindent To investigate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we analyze an extensive dataset that includes residential electricity demand (in GWh) and local temperature (in degrees Celsius) readings from the Republic of Korea. The dataset spans from January 1999 to December 2023, with 300 monthly observations. The residential electricity demand data is provided by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), the state-owned utility responsible for electricity sales across the country. Due to the inherent variability in the number of days within each month, we have normalized the raw monthly electricity demand by dividing it by the number of effective days per month. This adjustment produces a metric known as electricity demand per effective day, as discussed in \cite{chang2014time}, which underscores the importance of accounting for temporal differences in energy demand analysis.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth, width=0.8\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Y_Graph.png}
\caption{Natural log of residential electricity demand per effective day and its 12-month moving average (top), and their deviation process (down) from January 1999 to December 2023.}
\label{Fig:Y_Graphs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent \cite{chang2016new} found no empirical evidence suggesting that non-climate variables significantly influence the demand response to temperature in the residential sector. Building on this finding, and to isolate the short-run fluctuations in residential electricity demand, we calculate the deviation from the natural logarithm of a 12-month moving average of electricity demand per effective day, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Y_Graphs}. This deviation serves as a proxy for the short-run component of electricity demand, allowing us to focus on the short-run effects of temperature changes while filtering out the long-run effects of income and electricity price. By employing this detrending approach, we ensure that our analysis effectively captures the nonlinear responses of residential electricity demand to temperature fluctuations, independent of other non-climate factors (\citealp{chang2016new}).
%(heterogeneous support problem with density generation)
\indent To model the seasonality, we retrieve the hourly temperature data from the KMA National Climate Data Center.\footnote{Downloaded from https://data.kma.go.kr/cmmn/main.do on July 1, 2024.} We then construct the monthly temperature density function over the common support, $[-20,40]$, using hourly temperature observations from the five largest cities (Seoul, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan) covering the territory of the Republic of Korea.\footnote{Instead of estimating the range of the common support, we adopt the common support of $[-20,40]$ with grid difference, $0.1$, as established in the literature (\citealp{chang2014time}; \citealp{chang2016new}).} To represent the temperature density function of the Republic of Korea, we calculate the weighted average of the estimated time series for these five density functions, assigning weights based on the annual proportion of electricity sales in each of the five regions: the Seoul Metropolitan Area (Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi), Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan.\footnote{The combined annual electricity consumption of the five regions accounts for approximately 55.3\% of the national total on average during the period from 1999 to 2021. Due to data availability constraints, the proportions for the years 2022 and 2023 have been substituted with the values from 2021.}\footnote{The annual regional consumption data was obtained from the Korea Energy Statistics Information System (KESIS) and can be accessed at \url{https://www.kesis.net/sub/subChart.jsp?report_id=33150&reportType=0} (data downloaded on July 1, 2024).}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.4\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc0.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.55\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates of the temperature distribution in the Republic of Korea (left) and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics (right). The red lines indicate August 2017 and August 2018, while the blue lines represent January 2020 and January 2021.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip} illustrates the time series of a temperature density function, estimated using Gaussian kernel and Silverman's rule of thumb bandwidth, and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics. Note that the generated monthly temperature density functions exhibit significant heterogeneity, particularly between summer and winter. The time-series analysis of monthly temperature distributions in the Republic of Korea from 1999 to 2023 reveals stable seasonal cycles in the mean temperature, reflecting consistent annual patterns. However, the standard deviation indicates increasing variability, particularly post-2010, suggesting a growing spread in temperature values around the mean. The skewness exhibits seasonal fluctuations, with positive skewness during warmer months indicating a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, and negative skewness during colder months reflecting an increase in extreme low temperatures. However, this skewness does not show a clear trend of increasing asymmetry over time but rather indicates a recurring seasonal pattern. The kurtosis remains relatively stable but experiences significant spikes, particularly after 2010. These spikes suggest periods with more frequent and intense extreme temperature events. Thus, while the skewness reflects consistent seasonal variability, the spikes in kurtosis indicate a rise in temperature extremes, likely influenced by climate change.
\subsection{Construction of the distributional predictors}
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, distributional predictors in practice need to be estimated in advance from the raw data. For the CLR transformations, we use the estimated densities, denoted as $\hat{p}_t$, obtained in Section \ref{Sec_Data_1} (see Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}), and construct $X_t$ as follows:\begin{equation}\label{eqclr2} X_t(r) = \log \hat{p}_t(r) - \int_{-20}^{40} \log \hat{p}_t (s) ds.\footnote{As is common in the literature (see e.g., Section 5.2, \citealp{seoshang22}), a small value of $10^{-3}$ is added to the entire temperature density function $\hat{p}_t$ to implement the log transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} \end{equation}
On the other hand, when \( X_t^\circ \) represents the quantile function corresponding to \( p_t \), we estimate it directly from the raw temperature data by replacing population quantiles with sample quantiles. Specifically, if \( x_{[j]} \) for \( j=1,\ldots,N_t \) are the ordered (smallest to largest) raw temperature observations at time \( t \), we define
\[
X_t(r) = x_{[N_t r]} \quad \text{if \( N_t r \) is an integer,}
\]
for \( r \in [0,1] \). For \( r \in [0,1] \) where \( N_t r \) is not an integer, we employ a linear interpolation scheme to estimate values proportionally between neighboring data points.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Empirical Investigation}\label{Sec_Empirics}
\noindent In this section, we estimate the DSR model specified in \eqref{eqreg2} using the CLR predictor $X_t$, constructed as described in \eqref{eqclr2}, with $\hat{p}_t$ illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}. For the computation of our estimator with finite samples, we represent the distributional predictor using 80 orthonormal Fourier basis functions on $[0,1]$.\footnote{Moderate changes in the number of basis functions result in only minor numerical differences in the estimation results.} Noting that measurement errors arise from smoothing \( X_t \) from its discrete realizations, we assume that these errors are serially uncorrelated. Under this assumption, and given that the sequence of \( X_t^\circ \) (and also \( X_t \)) is serially correlated, the lagged variable \( X_{t-\kappa} \) for \( \kappa \geq 1 \) may serve as a candidate IV for our empirical analysis. Similar approaches were previously adopted in \cite{seong2021functional} and \cite{Chen_et_al_2020} concerning dependent functional data. Since our approach relies on a high degree of dependence, where possible, of the IV on the endogenous distributional predictor \( X_t \), as in standard IV methods (see Section \ref{sec_app_est_1} for more details), it is not advisable to use a large value of \( \kappa \), as this could make \( X_{t-\kappa} \) only weakly correlated with \( X_t \). Therefore, we have chosen to set \( \kappa \) to 1. We believe that this selection allows us to account for potential errors in the density/quantile estimation process or data quality while enhancing the robustness and reliability of our analysis. Lastly, in our estimation procedure, $K$ (see \eqref{eqest}) is set to 3.\footnote{Following the results given in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix and Remark \ref{rem1}, we set $\KK=1+\max_{j\geq 1}\{\tilde{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for $\alpha = 0.1 \times T^{-0.3}$, where $\tilde{\lambda}_j^2=\lambda_j^2/\sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2$ and this is to obtain a choice of $\KK$ which is independent of the scale of $X_t$ and $Z_t$; see Section S5 of \cite{seong2021functional}.} %Our estimator $\hat{f}$ is visualized in Figure \commWK{(SOMETHING)}.
\indent We hereafter focus on statistical inference regarding the impact of temperature events on electricity demand, given by $f(\zeta)$, where $\zeta$ denotes the distributional shocks given to the distributional predictor. This quantity is estimated using our proposed estimator, $\hat{f}(\zeta)$, and is accompanied by an asymptotically valid local confidence interval constructed based on the results in \eqref{eqlocal}. Taking advantage of the distributional flexibility of our DSR model, we examine two hypothetical scenarios that generate $\zeta$, as detailed in the following section.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Functional Shocks for Cold Wave and Heat Wave}\label{Sec_Est_Shocks}
\noindent The Republic of Korea experienced two significant extreme weather events for the sample period.\footnote{See e.g., \url{https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Hottest-Day-Korean-History} and \url{https://watchers.news/2021/01/11/historic-cold-wave-and-heavy-snow-hit-south-korea/}.} In August 2018, the Republic of Korea experienced one of its most intense heat waves on record, with temperatures soaring to an average of 29.2°C, the highest since record-keeping began in 1907. This extreme heat led to the residential electricity demand of 8,851.04 GWh during that month, underscoring the strain placed on the energy grid by cooling needs. Similarly, January 2021 was marked by a significant cold wave, with temperatures plunging to an average of -6.1°C, well below the seasonal norm. During this period, residential electricity demand also spiked to 7,163.28 GWh as households increased heating usage to cope with the severe cold.
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrates the year-over-year changes in monthly temperature PDFs associated with extreme weather events, specifically the heat wave of August 2018 and the cold wave of January 2021. In the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, the blue solid line represents the temperature PDF in January 2021, compared to the blue dashed line for January 2020, with the black line showing the (vertical) difference between the two PDFs, capturing the effect of the cold wave. In the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, similarly, the red solid line represents the temperature PDF in August 2018, while the red dashed line shows the temperature distribution in August 2017, with the black line indicating the difference between these two PDFs.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.98\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock0.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates comparing January 2021 (solid) and January 2020 (dotted) on the left, and August 2018 (solid) and August 2017 (dotted) on the right, with the black lines representing their differences.}
\label{Fig:Func_shock2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The temperature distributions during the 2018 heat wave and the 2021 cold wave exhibit distinct shifts, which are indicative of extreme weather conditions. The August 2018 distribution is significantly right-skewed, suggesting a higher frequency of exceptionally high temperatures, with a pronounced right tail representing extreme heat events. In contrast, the January 2021 distribution is heavily left-skewed, highlighting the prevalence of unusually low temperatures, with a long left tail representing severe cold conditions. These graphs reveal the significant changes in temperature distributions during these historical extreme events, illustrating how both the heat wave and cold wave deviated sharply from typical conditions in the preceding months.
\indent To identify the nonlinearity of temperature effects, we utilize these historical extreme temperature events. This approach aims to provide practitioners with insights into the potential increase in future electricity demand when similar extreme temperature events occur. We henceforth refer to the function \( \zeta_{\ee}(s) \), corresponding to the black line in the left (resp.\ right) panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, as the observed intense heat wave (resp.\ cold wave). This function is computed by subtracting \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) from \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \), where \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) denotes the reference (normal) temperature PDF in August 2017 (resp.\ January 2020), and \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) denotes the extreme temperature PDF in August 2018 for the heat wave (resp. \ January 2021 for the cold wave). Consequently, \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) can be expressed as \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) + \zeta_{\ee}(s) \).
\indent In what follows, we generate a sequence of hypothetical functional shocks that represent less extreme temperature scenarios. These generated functional shocks are exploited to identify the nonlinear increase in temperature effects as temperature conditions shift from moderate to severe. Specifically, we define a functional shock $\zeta_m(s)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqmoderated}
|\zeta_m(s)| \leq |\zeta_{\ee}(s)|, \qquad \int_{-20}^{40} \zeta_m(s) \, ds = 0
\end{equation}
as a moderated heat (resp.\ cold) wave, if \( \zeta(s) \) represents the observed intense heat (resp.\ cold) wave. Adding a moderated heat or cold wave to the reference PDF \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) results in a new PDF, denoted as \( \ZZ_m(s) \). Furthermore, since the application of \( \zeta_m(s) \) induces a globally more moderate shock compared to \( \zeta_{\ee}(s) \), \( \ZZ_m(s) \) is expected to represent less extreme temperature conditions than the extreme temperature PDF \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) observed in August 2018 for the heat wave or January 2021 for the cold wave. There are many possible ways to generate a sequence of functional shocks satisfying \eqref{eqmoderated}. For example, if there is any $\zeta_{m}$ satisfying the requirements, then any convex combination of $\zeta_{m}$ and $\zeta_{\ee}$ also satisfies them. For this reason, any convex combinations of $\zeta_{\ee}(s)$ with the ``zero shock" $\zeta_0$ (i.e., $\zeta_0(s) = 0$ for $s\in [-20,40]$), given by
\begin{equation}
\zeta_a(s) = a \times \zeta_{\ee}(s), \quad a=\frac{1}{M},\frac{2}{M},\ldots,1,
\end{equation}
for some large positive integer $M$, satisfies all the requirements in \eqref{eqmoderated}, which will be considered subsequently. Accordingly, we let $Z_a$ be defined as
\begin{equation} \label{eqhypothetical}
\ZZ_a(s) = \ZZ(s) + \zeta_{a}(s). % \left(\frac{j}{M}\right)
\end{equation}
Note that $\zeta_a(s)$ can be naturally interpreted as a possible, but less extreme, heat or cold wave. Moreover, $\zeta_a(s)$ for $a$ close to $1$ can be understood as a temperature event that transforms the reference PDF into another PDF similar to the extreme temperature PDF, while $a$ close to $0$ can be understood as a temperature event causing only a moderate change. Observe that $\ZZ_a(s)$, constructed from $\zeta_a(s)$, starts from the normal temperature PDF ($\ZZ_{\nn}(s)$) and converges to the extreme temperature PDF ($\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$) by a constant functional increment $(1/M) \times \zeta_{\ee}(s)$ at each step (see the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} showing a few selected $\ZZ_a$). Under this interpretation of $\zeta_a(s)$ as a shock making the reference PDF progressively approach the extreme temperature PDF at a constant rate, our focus is to analyze the effects of this sequence of functional shocks. Moreover, it also should be noted that, under this construction, the changes in the mean temperature are determined by $a \int_{-20}^{40} s \zeta_{\ee}(s) ds$, which is a linear function in on the mean temperature.
Further note that \( \zeta_{\ee}(s) \) illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} spans the range $[-20, 19]$ for cold waves, with a sign change at -2.7°C, and $[14, 40]$ for heat waves, with a sign change at 27.8°C. We estimate the temperature effect by examining the likelihood of temperatures within the range $[-20, -2.7]$ for cold waves and $[27.8, 40]$ for heat waves, where the likelihood follows an inverted U-shape. The maximum likelihood occurs at -7.4°C for cold waves and 33.4°C for heat waves. Subsequently, we identify nonlinearities by introducing functional shocks of varying magnitudes, $\zeta_m(s)$.
The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} illustrates the change in a few descriptive statistics, caused by $\zeta_m(s)$, during the transition of $\ZZ_m(s)$ from the reference PDF $\ZZ_{\nn}(s)$ to the extreme one $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$ in each scenario. As may well be expected from our construction of $\ZZ_m(s)$, the means of $\ZZ_m(s)$ linearly increase or decrease toward more extreme values ($26.02 \rightarrow 28.54$ in the heat wave scenario and $2.31 \rightarrow -1.53$ in the cold wave scenario) as $\ZZ_m(s)$ gets closer to $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$. On the other hand, other descriptive statistics shift in a nonlinear manner as $\ZZ_m(s)$ moves from $\ZZ_{\nn}$ to $\ZZ_{\ee}$. In the cold wave scenario, the variance increases substantially from January 2020 to January 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating a wider dispersion of temperatures in 2021. However, decreases in skewness ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$) and kurtosis ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$) suggest that the distribution becomes more symmetrical and less peaked, with fewer extreme cold events. In contrast, in the heat wave scenario, we observe a smaller increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), accompanied by rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$) and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), indicating a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.54\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Shock_stat_change3.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.31\textwidth, width=0.45\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Shock_stat_change.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\caption{Temperature densities for heat waves and cold waves (left), showing the transition from reference to event periods, and the evolution of distributional statistics (right).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent To identify the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of electricity demand in our model using the CLR-transformed PDFs, we need to generate relevant functional shocks, corresponding to $\zeta_m(s)$, in the CLR domain. This can be easily implemented by applying the CLR transformation to both the reference PDF $\ZZ(s)$ and $\ZZ_m(s)$, and then computing the subtraction of the former from the latter in each of the heat and cold scenarios. The computed functional shocks in the CLR domain are plotted in Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\caption{CLR-transformed temperature densities for the specified periods (left), and the progression of functional shocks (right), transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Density-to-Demand Model}\label{DtoD_Rlt}
\noindent Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} presents the estimation results for the density-to-demand model. In the left panel of the figure, we present the estimates of the temperature density sensitivity function using a Gaussian kernel technique, truncated outside the range of $[-15,35]$, with 95\% local confidence intervals. As the black lines of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrate the increase in density across the range of 12.2°C (17.3°C) associated with heat (cold) wave shocks, we apply a bandwidth of 15°C. Consistent with \cite{chang2016new}, the estimated sensitivity of the temperature density function exhibits a U-shaped pattern; however, the estimates with $\kappa=1$ reveal a more pronounced nonlinearity. % \commKS{(explain more how to estimate the nonlinear TRF with Gaussian kernel here)}.
\indent Focusing on the temperature effects under extreme conditions, the right panel of the figure presents the estimated response of electricity demand on the $y$-axis with respect to the convex parameter $\ZZ_m(s)$, depicted on the $x$-axis. As expected, the mean temperature of $\ZZ_m(s)$ increases linearly as $\ZZ_m(s)$ approaches $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$, with a constant functional increment. The solid lines show the estimates, $\hat{f}(\zeta_m)$, and these are interpreted as the estimated demand responses to progressively, but consistently, intensifying heat or cold wave shocks, as described in \eqref{Sec_Est_Shocks}. The dotted lines indicate the 95\% confidence intervals for $f(\zeta_m)$ based on the asymptotic normality result given in \eqref{eqlocal}. For comparison, estimation results without addressing potential endogeneity are scaled to half the magnitude on the $y$-axis for $\kappa=1$ and reported for the case $\kappa = 0$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.41\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/DtoD_TRF.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.58\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Empirical_rlt1.png}
\caption{Estimated nonlinear temperature response function with the 95\% local confidence intervals (left), and density-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top right) and heat wave (bottom right) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$.}
\label{Fig:Empirical_rlts}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The middle and right panels illustrate the demand response to cold and heat wave shocks across different magnitudes of functional shocks. As shown in the figure, the empirical results for $\kappa=0$ exhibit a similar upward trend, but with a substantially lower magnitude compared to $\kappa=1$. Since the estimation results for $\kappa=0$ do not account for endogeneity, we focus on interpreting the estimation results with $\kappa=1$ as our main empirical findings. The empirical results from the estimation with $\kappa = 1$, which is designed to account for potential measurement errors, indicate a more pronounced increase in electricity demand response as the moderated cold wave approaches a severe cold wave, compared to the corresponding progression from a moderated heat wave to a severe heat wave. This implies that cold wave shocks drive electricity demand more intensely, particularly under colder conditions. It is worth emphasizing that the change in electricity demand increases as the heat wave gets more intense, whereas the change in electricity demand decreases as the cold wave gets severe. This aligns with empirical findings in the existing literature, reflecting the surge in cooling load due to increased air conditioning usage during heat waves (\citealp{chang2016new}).
\indent More specifically, the demand response values for the cold wave event at the convex parameters of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are 0.1677, 0.2328, and 0.2806, respectively. Since electricity demand is expressed in natural logarithms, these results indicate that as normal temperatures approach extreme levels by 33\%, monthly electricity demand increases by 6.51\% on a year-over-year basis. A further progression toward extreme temperatures by 66\% leads to an additional 4.77\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. Overall, the transition from normal temperatures in January 2020 to extreme temperatures in January 2021 corresponds to a 28.06\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. It is important to note that the DSR model with $\kappa=0$, which does not account for measurement error, fails to identify such nonlinearity.
\indent Notably, heat wave shocks generate an impact that, while relatively lower in magnitude compared to cold wave shocks, exhibits a more rapid increase. The demand response values for the heat wave event at the convex parameters of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are 0.0222, 0.0498, and 0.0989, respectively. Using a similar way, these results indicate that as normal temperatures approach extreme temperature levels by 33\%, monthly electricity demand increases by 2.76\% on a year-over-year basis. A further progression of normal temperatures toward extreme levels by an additional 33\% leads to a further 4.91\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. Collectively, the cumulative transition from normal temperatures in August 2017 to extreme temperatures in August 2018 corresponds to a 9.89\% year-over-year rise in monthly electricity demand.
\indent The observation that cold wave shocks significantly increase electricity demand more than heat wave shocks implies that electricity demand is more sensitive to the more intense and extreme temperature conditions associated with cold waves. This further implies that the demand response is not just a function of temperature extremes but also the nature of these extremes. This finding departs from existing literature, which primarily focuses on the demand response to temperature level changes alone, and highlights the importance of understanding how shifts in temperature distributions impact electricity demand. Such insights emphasize the need for energy planning that accounts for the varying effects of temperature distribution changes, particularly in the context of increasingly severe cold wave events.
\indent Note that the existing functional approach is susceptible to boundary issues with misled interpretation, particularly in estimating the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand using a functional Fourier flexible form (\citealp{gallant1981bias}; \citealp{chang2016new}). A notable drawback of this method is its tendency to produce inaccurate estimates at the boundaries, especially in regions where data are sparse, such as around the critical temperature thresholds of -20°C and 40°C. These boundary estimates are economically significant, as they can lead to substantial implications in policy and energy demand management. In contrast, our approach does not focus on the demand response at specific temperature levels but rather generates hypothetical yet economically plausible functional shocks to analyze the impact of extreme temperatures. This approach is less prone to boundary issues, providing more reliable estimates by effectively circumventing the problems associated with critical temperature points. %\commKS{(write weakness of Chang et al. (2016) about nonlinear TRF with local density change)}
\indent Note that our approach involves addressing the measurement error problem to mitigate potential endogeneity issues. If endogeneity exists, it can bias the nonlinear response estimates. The IV approach corrects this bias by using instruments that are correlated with the endogenous regressors but uncorrelated with the error term. However, this correction may introduce larger standard errors and increased variance, which can diminish the model's goodness of fit—meaning the model may not align as closely with the observed data compared to the standard functional approach. This trade-off becomes apparent in our results with orthonormal Fourier basis functions, as reflected by the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) values are recorded as 0.0822 and 0.1227 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Quantile-to-Demand Model}
\noindent Some might wonder if the quantile function models \commWK{capture} extreme temperature events more effectively than the density function. Specifically, the difference lies in how each approach handles the heterogeneous impact of temperature on electricity demand. The temperature density-to-demand model accounts for the varying influence of each temperature level on demand, whereas the temperature quantile-to-demand model considers the heterogeneous effects of temperature quantiles on demand. As a result, while the density function may more accurately capture the average fluctuations in electricity demand, the quantile function, despite its relatively lower model fit, may be better suited to explaining demand responses under extreme temperature conditions. For instance, during a heat wave, where consumers face unprecedented temperatures, the relevance of past temperature impacts (as modeled by the density function) may diminish, making the quantile function more effective in modeling demand changes at extreme temperatures. In addition, the quantile function would better manage the heterogeneous support of the temperature density function.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_desc1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Sensitivity.png}
\caption{Descriptive statistics of quantile function for each temperature quantile (left) and estimated temperature quantile sensitivity with the dotted lines indicating the 95\% local confidence intervals (right).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent In this context, we further examine the effects of temperature quantiles on electricity demand for extreme weather events. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} displays the \commWK{temporal mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis at various quantile levels (which are computed from the time series $\{X_t(u)\}_{t=1}^T$ for each $u \in [0,1]$}), providing insights into how the temperature changes across different quantiles. The mean temperature increases steadily across the quantiles, reflecting the expected rise in temperature values from lower to higher quantiles. The standard deviation decreases, indicating that temperature values become less variable at higher quantiles. The skewness becomes more negative as the quantile increases, signifying that higher temperatures are more concentrated towards their upper range, leading to a more skewed distribution. Conversely, kurtosis decreases initially but sharply increases at the highest quantiles, suggesting a less peaked distribution initially but with more pronounced tails, indicating more frequent extreme temperature events in these higher quantiles.
\indent The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} illustrates the temperature quantile sensitivity with respect to the residential electricity demand. To approximate $\hat{f}(\cdot)$ in equation \eqref{eqest} in the local context and interpret each quantile effect on electricity demand, we construct a sequence of indicator functions for each quantile, $x$. As a result, $\hat{f}(x)$ would represent the effect of a change in a given quantile while other quantiles remain fixed, similar to the interpretation in linear regression. In practice, however, it is implausible that a single quantile shifts independently of others, which can introduce interpretational ambiguities. To address this, we introduce a concept of total quantile change, denoted as \( Q \), to capture the cumulative impact of quantile adjustments. Starting with an even shock from the \( 0.5 \) quantile to the \( 1.0 \) quantile, more specifically, \( Q \) is distributed uniformly over this range, represented as a step function with a value of \( 1 \) from \( x = 0.5 \) onward, with \( Q = 0.5 \times 1 = 0.5 \). Subsequently, we increase the quantile range incrementally while maintaining the same \( Q \), thus gradually concentrating the quantile change at higher quantiles (e.g., function value of \(1.11\) from the \( 0.55 \) quantile to the \( 1.0 \) quantile). For a negative shock of \( -Q \), similarly, we consider evenly reducing quantiles to the lower end, concentrating the change in lower quantiles. By analyzing the function $\hat{f}(x)$ across these step function sequences, we can observe how electricity demand responds to quantile shocks concentrated at various parts of the quantile function, providing insights into which quantile ranges most significantly influence electricity demand.
\indent Interestingly, the estimated temperature quantile sensitivity reveals mostly insignificant effects, except at the high quantiles for $\kappa=1$, which contrasts with the temperature density sensitivity depicted in the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}. Note that a 95\% range of the temperature quantile function at the high-end quantile (i.e., the 1.0 quantile) spans from 8.80°C to 35.35°C, with the standard deviation of the quantile function decreasing as the quantile increases, as illustrated in the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}. This indicates that an increase in the temperature quantile function generates two opposing effects: a decrease in heating demand and an increase in cooling demand. However, as demonstrated in the previous section, the reduction in heating demand is more pronounced, leading to an overall decline in electricity demand. This decline is statistically significant at the highest quantile level, attributed to the reduced variation of the quantile function at these levels. In contrast, an increase in the temperature density function at 40°C (-20°C) yields only an increase in cooling (heating) demand.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.66\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.33\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock_Progress.png}
\caption{Estimated quantile functions and functional shocks for cold wave (left) and heat wave (middle), and the progression of functional quantile shocks (right), transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Focusing on the temperature effects under extreme condition as in the Section \ref{DtoD_Rlt}, the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} illustrates the quantile shocks for the cold wave, where the impact is most pronounced in the lower quantiles, especially those associated with the coldest temperatures. This reflects that the January 2021 cold wave caused a significant downward shift in the quantile function compared to January 2020, with the most substantial changes at the lowest quantiles. On the middle panel, the quantile shocks for the heat wave reveal a more uniform increase across the quantiles, with a greater effect at the higher quantiles. This suggests that the August 2018 heat wave led to a consistent rise in temperatures, primarily intensifying the highest quantile events. The right panel of the figure presents the progression of the heat wave and cold wave shocks, as depicted in Figures \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} - \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}, transformed into their respective quantile functions.
\indent Table \ref{tab:Quant_est} presents the estimation results from the quantile-to-demand model with 95\% local confidence intervals. Note that the demand response estimates for both cold wave and heat wave shocks, as presented in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock}, are statistically insignificant for the majority of the generated functional shocks. Therefore, we report the empirical results only for severe functional shocks. Under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$, the demand response to a cold wave shock, modeled using orthonormal Fourier basis functions, is estimated at -0.0417 and -0.0645, corresponding to a 4.17\% reduction in demand or an insignificant impact. Similarly, the demand response to a heat wave shock is estimated at -0.0258 and 0.0681, indicating a 2.58\% reduction in demand or a statistically insignificant effect. These findings may imply that the quantile-to-demand model, which may be more robust to measurement error, appears to have inherent limitations in capturing the nonlinear temperature effects due to the aforementioned two counteracting forces. Lastly, the RMSE values from the quantile-to-demand model are 0.0933 and 0.1375 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively. These results indicate a decline in the goodness of fit compared to the density-to-demand model.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Estimation results for quantile-to-demand model}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|c}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for CW} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for HW} & \\
\hline
& Est & 95\% C.I. & Est & 95\% C.I. & RMSE \\
\hline
$\kappa=0$ & -0.0417 & (-0.0783, -0.0051) & -0.0258 & (-0.0424, -0.0092) & 0.0933\\
$\kappa=1$ & -0.0645 & (-0.1803,0.0513) & 0.0681 & (-0.0081,0.1442) & 0.1375 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
\label{tab:Quant_est}%
\end{table}%
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Concluding Remarks}\label{Sec_conclude}
\noindent In this paper, we estimate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand while accounting for measurement errors. Given that residential electricity demand is highly sensitive to temperature fluctuations, accurately capturing these nonlinearities is critical, especially during extreme temperature events where underestimation could jeopardize grid stability. Additionally, measurement errors would stem from the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature distributions represent true distributions, compounded by data quality issues and limitations within the estimation process.
\indent We tackle these challenges by applying a distribution-to-scalar regression to both temperature density-to-demand and quantile-to-demand models. This approach enables us to effectively identify nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature distribution and electricity demand, even when measurement errors are present. Through the analysis of historical heat wave and cold wave shocks of varying intensities within a distributional context, we find that residential electricity demand is significantly more sensitive to the extreme conditions associated with intense cold waves. Moreover, as the severity of cold waves increases, the rate of electricity demand growth diminishes, whereas for heat waves, the rate of electricity demand growth accelerates with increasing intensity. Additionally, the temperature quantile-to-demand model fails to yield economically reliable estimates.
\indent Given our findings, energy practitioners should prioritize incorporating detailed temperature distribution analysis, particularly when planning for extreme weather events. Our empirical findings indicate that residential electricity demand exhibits greater sensitivity to cold waves compared to heat waves, albeit with a slower rate of increase in demand, highlighting the need for advanced demand estimating models that account for these nonlinear sensitivities. Moreover, it is crucial to address potential measurement errors by adopting robust econometric techniques, in order to ensure that demand response strategies are based on accurate and reliable estimates. Our econometric approach would enhance grid stability and support effective energy management during extreme temperature events.
\bigskip
\section*{Disclosure Statement}
\noindent The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
%%%%%%%%% BIBLIOGRAPHY %%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv} %chicago,elsarticle-harv...ecta, econometrica...informs2014
\bibliography{FRKETQ_P3/FRKET_biblio}
\bigskip
\appendix\label{Sec_Append}
\section{Technical Appendix}\label{sec_app_est}
This technical appendix provides detailed discussion on asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator with necessary mathematical preliminaries.
\subsection{Mathematical preliminaries} \label{sec_app_prelim}
This section briefly reviews essential mathematical concepts for the proposed estimator and introduce notation.
Let $\mathcal H_1$ a separable Hilbert space with inner product $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_1$ and norm $\|\cdot\|_1$. A $\mathcal H_1$-valued random variable $Z$ is defined as a measurable map from the underlying probability space to $\mathcal H_1$. Such a random element $Z$ is said to be square-integrable if $\mathbb{E}[\|Z\|_1^2]<\infty$. Let $\mathcal H_2$ be another such Hilbert space. We let $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product defined by $\mathcal H_1$ and $\mathcal H_2$, i.e., for any $\zeta_1 \in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$,
\begin{equation}
\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2 (\cdot) = \langle \zeta_1,\cdot \rangle \zeta_2;
\end{equation}
note that $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2$ is a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$.
For any mean-zero square-integrable random elements $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, $\mathbb{E}[Z_1 \otimes Z_2]$, defined as a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$, is called the (cross-)covariance of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. We call $A:\mathcal H_1 \mapsto \mathcal H_2$ a bounded linear map if $A$ is a linear map and its operator norm, defined as $\|A\|_{\op}=\sup_{|\zeta|\leq 1} \|A\zeta\|$, is finite. For any bounded linear $A$, we let $A^\ast$ be the adjoint map defined by the property $\langle A\zeta_1,\zeta_2 \rangle_2=\langle \zeta_1,A^\ast\zeta_2 \rangle_1$ for all $\zeta_1\in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$. We say that $A$ is a compact operator if $\mathcal H_1=\mathcal H_2$ and there exist orthonormal bases $\{\zeta_{1,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $\{\zeta_{2,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ such that $A = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j \zeta_{1,j} \otimes \zeta_{2,j}$ with $a_j$ tending to zero as $j$ increases; in this expression, if $A$ is self-adjoint ($A=A^\ast$) and nonnegative ($\langle A\zeta,\zeta \rangle_1\geq 0$), it may be assumed that $a_j\geq 0$ and $\zeta_{1,j}=\zeta_{2,j}$, and furthermore they are understood as the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors. A compact operator $A$ is Hilbert-Schmidt if $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{\zeta_j\}_{j\geq1}$, and in this case, the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\|A\|_{\HS}$ is defined as $\|A\|_{\HS}= \sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2}$. It is well known that $\|A\|_{\op} \leq \|A\|_{\HS}$.
\subsection{Equivalent formulation of the proposed estimator} \label{sec_app_est_1}
Our estimator, discussed in Section \ref{Sec_Model}, is a suitable adaptation of the functional IV estimator proposed by \cite{seong2021functional} for our DSR model. First observe that for an IV $Z_t$ satisfying \eqref{eqreg3}, the following can directly be deduced from \eqref{eqreg2}: $C_{Zy} = fC_{XZ}^\ast$, where $C_{Zy} = \mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (y_t-\mathbb{E}[y_t])]$. This in turn leads to the following identity:
\begin{align} \label{eqpopulation}
C_{Zy}C_{XZ} = f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ},
\end{align}
where $C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes u_t]=0$.
As in \cite{seong2021functional} studying on the FFR model, we construct an estimator mimicking the population relationship \eqref{eqpopulation}. We first replace $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ given in \eqref{eqpopulation} with their sample counterparts $\widehat C_{Zy}\widehat C_{XZ}$ (where $\widehat C_{Zy}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T)\otimes (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$ with $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$) and $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ which is introduced in Section \ref{Sec_Model}. Noting that $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ is not invertible (see e.g., \citealp{Benatia2017}), we employ a regularized inverse of $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ to compute an estimator from the sample equation. Specifically, as in \cite{seong2021functional}, we consider the rank-regularized inverse $(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eqregul}
(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\hat{\lambda}_j^{-2}} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\KK$ is determined as
\begin{equation} \label{eqchoicek}
\KK = \max_{j\geq 1} \{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha$ tending to zero. Note that $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ becomes the $\KK$-dimensional projection $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j$ and similar regularized inverses are widely used in the literature on the functional linear model (see e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional,seo2024optimal}). The estimator $\hat{f}$ is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$
\begin{align} \label{eqest1}
\hat{f} (x)= \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (x).
\end{align}
With some algebra using \eqref{eqregul} and the definitions of the operators above, it can be shown that \eqref{eqest1} is equivalent to the expression given in \eqref{eqest}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem1}
The choice $\KK$ in \eqref{eqchoicek} is adopted from \cite{seong2021functional} concerning the FFR model. Based on this choice, we study the asymptotic properties of our estimator. Of course, with only a minor modification, it is possible to extend the desired asymptotic results, which will be discussed, under an alternative choice of $\KK$, such as $\KK = m + \max_{j\geq 1}\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for some finite $m$, if necessary. This choice may be preferred when researchers want to retain at least $m$ eigenelements for estimation. The case with $m=1$ also has some theoretical justification, given that we need at least one eigenelement for the proposed estimator to be well defined for every $T$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Consistency and local asymptotic normality}\label{sec_app_est_2}
This section examines the consistency and local asymptotic normality of the proposed estimator, both of which are fundamental to our empirical analysis in Section \ref{Sec_Empirics}. For simplicity, we consider the case where \( y_t \), \( X_t \), and \( Z_t \) have zero means, reducing the regression model \eqref{eqreg1} to \( y_t = f(X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t \). Under this assumption, the population (e.g., \( C_{XZ} \)) and sample covariance operators (e.g., \( \widehat{C}_{XZ} \)) introduced in Section \ref{sec_method} are naturally interpreted as being defined without centering or demeaning the associated variables. As discussed by \cite{seong2021functional}, extending the subsequent results to cases where the means are unknown and must be estimated requires only minor modifications, such as replacing variables with their centered or demeaned counterparts. Consequently, we omit these details.
%the consistency and local asymptotic normality to be established remain unchanged with or without this simplification.
\subsubsection{Assumptions and main results}
It turns out that $ C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast $ are compact operators (see \citealp{Bosq2000}, p.\ 117). We thus hereafter let
\begin{equation}
C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 g_j \otimes g_j, \quad C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 h_j \otimes h_j,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_j$, $g_j$, and $h_j$ are relevant eigenelements (see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}). Let $C_{ZZ}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes Z_t]$, $C_{uu}=\mathbb{E}[u_t\otimes u_t]$ and $C_{Zu}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]$. We define $\widehat{C}_{ZZ}$, $\widehat{C}_{uu}$ and $\widehat{C}_{Zu}$ be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{ZZ}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes Z_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{uu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T u_t\otimes u_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{Zu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes u_t,
\end{equation}
which may be understood as the sample counterparts of $C_{ZZ}$, $C_{uu}$ and $C_{Zu}$. We employ the following assumptions: below, $\mathfrak{F}_t$ denotes the natural filtration given by $\sigma(\{Z_s\}_{s\leq t+1}, \{u_s\}_{s\leq t})$ and let $\tau_j = 2\sqrt{2} \max\{ (\lambda_{j-1}^2-\lambda_j^2)^{-1}, (\lambda_{j}^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2)^{-1} \}$ as in \cite{seong2021functional}.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum1}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item Equation \eqref{eqreg2} holds; \item $\{X_t,Z_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is stationary and geometrically strongly mixing, $\mathbb{E}[\|X_t\|^2] < \infty$, and $\mathbb{E}[\|Z_t\|^2] < \infty$; \item $\mathbb{E}[u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=0$, $\mathbb{E}[u_t \otimes u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=C_{uu}$, and $\sup_{1\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}[\|u_t\|^{2+\delta}|\mathfrak F_{t-1}] < \infty$ for some $\delta>0$; \item $\sum_{j=1}^\infty |f(b_j)|^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{b_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ of $\mathcal H$; \item $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ}-{C}_{XZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{ZZ}-{C}_{ZZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{Zu}-{C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and $\|\widehat{C}_{uu} - C_{uu}\|_{\HS}= o_p(1)$; \item $\ker C_{XZ}=\{0\}$; \item \label{eq001a1}$\lambda_1^2 > \lambda_2^2 > \cdots > 0$; \item $T^{-1}\alpha^{-1} \to 0$ and $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \to_p 0$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum1} are adapted from Assumptions M and E of \cite{seong2021functional} studying the FFR model, and similar assumptions have been employed in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{Hall2007}). Condition \ref{eq001a1} is a technical requirement that $\alpha$ decay at an appropriate rate depending on the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $T$. This subtle requirement on $\alpha$ may be relaxed if some additional (but still standard in the literature on the functional linear model) assumptions are employed, which will be discussed later in this section. %it is common to assume that $\lambda_j^2 - \lambda_{j+1}^2$ is eventually convex and bounded above by $O(j^{\gamma})$ for some $\gamma > 3$ (see Assumption 2 below and also Assumption E2 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). In this case, $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\KK4)$ the assumption
We then present the following consistency result, which details Proposition \ref{prop1} given in Section \ref{Sec_Model}:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop1a}
Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}, $\|\hat{f} - f\|_{\op} \to_p 0$.
\end{proposition}
We next obtain the local asymptotic normality result \eqref{eqlocal} for any specified $\zeta \in \mathcal H$. To this end, we employ the following assumptions: below, we let $\upsilon_{t}(j,\ell) = \langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle -\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle]$ for $j,\ell \geq 1$ and $\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle \tilde{\zeta}, {C}_{ZZ} \tilde{\zeta} \rangle$, where $\tilde{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle {g}_j,\zeta \rangle {C}_{XZ}({g}_j)$.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum2} For some $c_\circ>0$, $\rho>2$, $\varsigma>1/2$, $\delta_{\zeta}>1/2$ and $m>1$, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\lambda_j^2 \leq c_\circ j^{-\rho}$; \item $\lambda_j^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2 \geq c_\circ j^{-\rho-1}$; \item $|f(g_j)| \leq c_\circ j^{-\varsigma}$; \item $\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t(j,\ell)\upsilon_{t-s}(j,\ell)] \leq c_\circ s^{-m}\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t^2(j,\ell)]$ for $s\geq 1$, and furthermore, $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle X_t,g_j \rangle Z_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$ and $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle Z_t,h_j \rangle X_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$; \item $\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle \leq c_\circ j^{-\delta_{\zeta}}$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The above assumptions are obvious adaptation of the conditions given by \cite{Hall2007} and \cite{seong2021functional}, which seem to be standard in the literature. Particularly, \cite{seong2021functional} established useful asymptotic results for the FFR model under Assumption \ref{assum2}, which are also used for our estimator. In fact, if Assumption \ref{assum2} is additionally satisfied, the consistency result given in Proposition \ref{prop1} can be established with $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$ without requiring Assumption \ref{assum1}\ref{eq001a1}; this follows directly from Theorem 3 of \cite{seong2021functional}, and extending this result from the FFR model to the DSR model is straightforward. In order to establish the local asymptotic normality result, we need more conditions, which are stated below:
\begin{assumption}\label{assum3}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\alpha^{-1} = o(T^{1/3})$; \item \label{assum3b} $\varsigma + \delta_{\zeta} > \rho/2+2$, $2\delta_{\zeta} \geq \rho+1$ and $T \alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho} = O(1)$; \item\label{assum3c} ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption} Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3b} particularly requires $f$ and $\zeta$ to be sufficiently smooth with respect to the eigenvectors $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ so that the entire map or element can be well approximated by those eigenvectors; this is a standard requirement in asymptotic analysis in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{seong2021functional} and reference therein). Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3c} requires a certain quantity depending on $\zeta$ to diverge to infinity. This condition is expected to be satisfied for many possible choices of $\zeta$ (see Section 3.2 of \citealp{Carrasco2007}; Remark 4 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). We obtain the desired asymptotic normality result under this requirement. However, it turns out that even if such a smoothness condition is not satisfied, a weaker version of \eqref{eqlocal}, with $f(\zeta)$ being replaced by $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, still holds as long as $\alpha$ decays at a sufficiently slow rate. This allows for statistical inference on $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$. As discussed by \citet[Section 3.2]{seong2021functional}, $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ may be understood as the best linear approximation of $\zeta$ based on the covariation of $X_t$ and $Z_t$, thus this weaker result still provides interpretable insights for practitioners.
The desired asymptotic normality result is given as follows:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop2} Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (y_t-\hat{f}(X_t))$ and $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{proposition}
With some algebra, it can be shown that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, as given in Proposition \ref{prop2} can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta2}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t\rangle\right)^2,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to \eqref{eqtheta} without demeaning the variables.
\subsubsection{Mathematical proofs}
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop1a}}
Using \eqref{eqreg2} and the expression given in \eqref{eqest1}, the proposed estimator $\hat{f}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{f} = \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} + \widehat{C}_{Zu} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag, \label{eq:b0}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat \Pi_{\KK}= \sum_{j=1} ^{\KK} \widehat g_j \otimes \widehat g_j$ as earlier introduced.
%Under our assumptions, we apply the central limit theorem for strongly mixing sequences (see, e.g., \citeauthor{heyde1974central}, \citeyear{heyde1974central}) and for martingale difference sequences to find that
% $ T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\langle x_t,w_1 \rangle \langle z_t,w_2 \rangle - \langle \mathcal C_{xz} w_1, w_2 \rangle \right) $ and $T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle $ converge in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1,w_2 \in \mathcal H$.
% \begin{align}\label{pfresult2}
% \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle
% \end{align}
%converges in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1$ and $w_2$.
% Then, by applying Theorem 3 of \citet[Chapter 1]{skorohod2001}, it can be shown that
% \begin{align}
% \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T (x_t \otimes z_t - \mathcal C_{xz}) = O_p(1)\quad\text{and}\quad \quad \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T z_t \otimes u_t = O_p(1); \label{eqcltref}
% \end{align}
% see also Lemma A.1 of \cite{seo2020functional}.
As shown in the proof of Theorem 1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, we have $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq \alpha^{-1/2}$ and $\|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}. Consequently, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|\widehat{f} - f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS} \|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
\end{equation}
We hereafter assume that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ consists of an orthonormal basis; this can simply be achieved by assigning an appropriate vector to each zero eigenvalue with no loss of generality (see e.g., the proof of Lemma A.1 of \citealp{seo2024optimal}). From the properties of the operator norm and that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ is an orthonormal basis, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} -f\|_{\op} \leq \sum_{j=1}^\infty \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f\hat({g}_j)\|.
\end{equation}
Thus the proof becomes complete if $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\hat{g}_j -f\hat{g}_j\| \to_p 0$ is shown. From
% \begin{equation} \label{eqpf0006add2wadd0}
% \|\widehat{\mathcal A}- \mathcal A \widehat{\Pi}_{\K}\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
% \end{equation}
%the following can be shown by
nearly identical arguments used to derive (8.63) of \cite{Bosq2000}, %and (S2.2) of \cite{seong2021functional},
we find that %and the property of the operator norm such that $\Vert \cdot \Vert_{\op} \leq \Vert \cdot \Vert_{\HS}$:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f({g}_j)\|^2 + O_p(1)\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j.\label{eqpf0006add2wadd}
\end{equation}
Since $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f(g_j)\|^2 < \infty$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}, $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \| f(g_j)|^2$ converges in probability to zero as $T$ gets larger (note that $\KK$ diverges as $T \to \infty$). In addition,
$
\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}\|_{\op} + \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast- C_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\| C_{XZ}\|_{\op} = O_p(T^{-1/2})$ as shown by (S2.3) of \cite{seong2021functional}. Combining all these results, we find that \eqref{eqpf0006add2wadd} is $o_p(1)$ as desired. \qed
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop2}}
With some algebra, we find that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}$ in \eqref{eqtheta} can equivalently expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle.
\end{equation}
Let ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$. From Theorem 4 (with its proof and Remark 10) of \cite{seong2021functional}, we find that Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3} lead us to the following:
\begin{equation} \label{eqconv1}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}(\zeta)-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1).
\end{equation}
Note that $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}(\zeta)\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta))$ can be written as $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (A_1+A_2+A_3+A_4)$, where $A_1 = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_2 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_3 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(g_j)$, and $A_4 = f(\Pi_{\KK}-I) \zeta$, where $\Pi_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} g_j \otimes g_j$ and $g_j^s = \sgn \langle g_j, \hat{g}_j \rangle g_j$. Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}, it is shown by \cite{seong2021functional} (see (S2.11), (S2.16) and (S2.33)) that $\KK = O_p(\alpha^{-1/\rho})$ and
\begin{align}
\|f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)\|^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{\rho+2-2\varsigma},\\
\langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}+2 + \rho}.
\end{align}
Combining these results with the conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum3}, it can be shown with nearly identical arguments used in \cite{seong2021functional} that $\|A_1\|, \|A_2\|$ and $\|A_3\|$ are all $O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and, moreover,
\begin{equation}
\|A_4\|^2\leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle f(g_j) \|^2 %\leq\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}} \|f(g_j) \|
\leq O(1)\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma} = O((\KK+1)^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma+1})= O(\alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho}),
\end{equation}
where the first equality follows from the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula for the Riemann zera-function (see e.g., (5.6) of \citealp{ibukiyama2014euler}).
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqconv2}
\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) = O_p(1/\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}) + O(T^{-1/2}\alpha^{(\varsigma+\delta_{\zeta}-1/2)/\rho} /\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}).
\end{equation}
Under Assumption \ref{assum3}, the above is $o_p(1)$.
It remains to show that $|\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)- \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)| \to_p 0$ and replacing $ \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)$ with $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ does not affect the results given in \eqref{eqconv1} and \eqref{eqconv2}. This follows from arguments nearly identical to those used in the proof of Theorem 2 in \cite{seong2021functional}, and thus the details are omitted.
%From this result, we find that, if $f$ and $\zeta$ are smooth enough with respect to $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ (and thus $\varsigma$ and $\delta_{\zeta}$) are large enough, $\alpha$ is allowed to $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{document}
\documentclass[11pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,amsfonts,amstext,upgreek}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{mathtools}
%\usepackage[longnamesfirst]{natbib}
\usepackage{natbib}
% \bibpunct[, ]{(}{)}{,}{a}{}{,}%
\def\bibfont{\small}%
\def\bibsep{\smallskipamount}%
\def\bibhang{24pt}%
\def\newblock{\ }%
\def\BIBand{and}%
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{cancel}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttable}
\appto\TPTnoteSettings{\linespread{1}\footnotesize} % small text if *not* flushleft
\makeatletter %small text if flushleft
\g@addto@macro\TPT@defaults{\linespread{1}\footnotesize}
\makeatother
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\sisetup{group-digits = true,
group-separator = {,}, % default: \, (thinspace)
round-mode = places,
round-precision = 3 }
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{thrmappendix}
\usepackage{alltt}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{accents}
%\usepackage{hypernat}
\usepackage{mathtools,dsfont}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\definecolor{blue(pigment)}{rgb}{0.2, 0.2, 0.6}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
filecolor=magenta,
urlcolor=cyan,
citecolor=blue(pigment),
}
\usepackage[capitalize,noabbrev]{cleveref}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage[inline,shortlabels]{enumitem}
\newtoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}\toggletrue{SUPPLEMENTAL}
\togglefalse{SUPPLEMENTAL} %COMMENT OUT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
\newcommand{\Supplemental}[2]{\iftoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}{#1}{#2}}
\newtoggle{BLINDED}\toggletrue{BLINDED}
\togglefalse{BLINDED} %COMMENT OUT FOR BLINDED VERSION
\newcommand{\Blinded}[2]{\iftoggle{BLINDED}{#1}{#2}}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.8in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.01in}
\newcommand{\nn}{\text{norm}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\text{extr}}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newtheorem{axi}{Axiom}[section]
\renewcommand{\theassumption}{A\arabic{assumption}}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[]
\newtheorem{lemma}[]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[]
\newtheorem{example}{Example}[]
\newcommand{\pconv}{\xrightarrow{p}}
\newcommand{\dconv}{\xrightarrow{d}}
\newcommand{\avgt}{\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T}
\newcommand{\avgn}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}}
\newcommand{\tr}{^{\top}}
\newcommand{\KK}{{\rm K}}
\newcommand{\HH}{{\rm F}}
\newcommand{\PP}{{\rm P}}
\newcommand{\QQ}{{\rm Q}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\DeclareMathOperator{\op}{op}
\newcommand{\ASD}[1]{\{\scalebox{0.85}{$\hspace{-0.1em}#1\hspace{-0.1em}$}\}}
\crefformat{footnote}{#2\footnotemark[#1]#3} %cleveref
\crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\Crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{equation}{}{}
\Crefname{equation}{Equation}{Equations}
%
\crefformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}
\crefrangeformat{enumi}{(#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\crefmultiformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
\Crefformat{enumi}{Part (#2#1#3)}
\Crefrangeformat{enumi}{Parts (#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\Crefmultiformat{enumi}{Parts (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
%
\crefname{assumption}{}{}
\Crefname{assumption}{Assumption}{Assumptions}
\newcommand{\creflastconjunction}{, and\nobreakspace} %Oxford comma
\newcommand{\crefrangeconjunction}{--}
\DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `dirname #1`/`basename #1 .tif`.png}
\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.png}
\graphicspath{ {./Figures/} }
\newcommand{\citeposs}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}
\newcommand{\matf}[1]{#1} %matrix formatting
\newcommand{\vecf}[1]{#1} %vector formatting
% \newcommand{\matf}[1]{\underline{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}}} %matrix formatting
% \newcommand{\vecf}[1]{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}} %vector formatting
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{Var}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Cov}{Cov}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Corr}{Corr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\const}{const.}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ran}{ran}
\DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{rank}
\DeclareMathOperator{\spn}{span}
\DeclareMathOperator{\HS}{HS}
\newcommand{\Varp}[1]{\Var\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Covp}[1]{\Cov\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Corrp}[1]{\Corr\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\WP}{\textrm{ w.p.\ }}
\newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{\Hnull}{{\mathbb H}_0}\newcommand{\Halt}{{\mathbb H}_1}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sgn}{sgn}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{E}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{Q}
\let\Pr\relax \DeclareMathOperator{\Pr}{P} %comment out if Pr desired
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\plim}{plim}
\DeclareMathOperator{\1}{\mathds{1}}
\newcommand{\Ind}[1]{\1\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\Normal}{\mathrm{N}}
\newcommand{\Normalp}[2]{\Normal\left(#1,#2\right)}
\newcommand{\BetaDist}{\textrm{Beta}}
\newcommand{\DirDist}{\textrm{Dir}}
\newcommand{\UnifDist}{\textrm{Unif}}
\newcommand{\weaklyto}{\rightsquigarrow}
\newcommand{\diff}{d} %differential operator: easy to change to upright if needed.
%(partial) derivatives:
\newcommand{\pD}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
\newcommand{\pDD}[2]{\frac{\partial^2 #1}{\partial #2^2}}
\newcommand{\D}[2]{\frac{\diff #1}{\diff #2}}
\newcommand{\DD}[2]{\frac{\diff^2 #1}{\diff #2^2}}
\newcommand{\independenT}[2]{\mathrel{\rlap{$#1#2$}\mkern2mu{#1#2}}}
\newcommand\independent{\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}}
\newcommand{\indep}{\independent}
\providecommand{\absbig}[1]{\left\lvert#1\right\rvert}
\providecommand{\normbig}[1]{\left\lVert#1\right\rVert}
\providecommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert}
\providecommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert}
\newcommand\commWK{\textcolor{blue}}
\newcommand\commKS{\textcolor{black}}
\newcommand\commnote{\textcolor{green}} %% make this invisible later
\newcommand{\ZZ}{\mathrm{Z}}
\let\originalleft\left
\let\originalright\right
\renewcommand{\left}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}
\renewcommand{\right}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}
%Bibliography spacing fix
\let\oldthebibliography=\thebibliography
\let\endoldthebibliography=\endthebibliography
\renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1]{%
\begin{oldthebibliography}{#1}%
\setlength{\parskip}{0ex}%
\setlength{\itemsep}{0ex}%
}%
{%
\end{oldthebibliography}%
}
% \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\roman{enumi}}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\theenumi)}
\allowdisplaybreaks[3]
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\title{Estimating the Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity of \\ \vspace{0.5em} Residential Electricity Demand under Measurement Errors\thanks{We deeply appreciate Hyunjin Yang (KEPCO) and Sungro Lee (KOGAS) for generously providing residential electricity demand and local temperature data in the Republic of Korea. Kyungsik Nam's research was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2025.}}
% We deeply appreciate all valuable comments from ... and to participants of the ... for useful feedback.
\author{Kyungsik Nam\thanks{Assistant Professor, Division of Climate Change, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 17035, Republic of Korea. E-mail: \texttt{ksnam@hufs.ac.kr}}, \,\, Won-Ki Seo\thanks{Lecturer, School of Economics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: \texttt{won-ki.seo@sydney.edu.au}}}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\noindent We estimate the temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand during extreme temperature events using a distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model. Instead of relying on simple averages or individual quantile statistics of raw temperature data, we construct distributional summaries—such as probability density functions or quantile functions—to retain more comprehensive information. Beyond our motivation to exploit more information from the raw temperature data, this modeling approach allows us to examine the effects of various temperature extremes, which conventional models cannot capture. Given that distribution functions are typically estimated from limited discrete observations and thus may include measurement errors, moreover, our econometric approach explicitly addresses this issue. The empirical findings reveal that residential electricity demand is more responsive to cold waves than to heat waves, in a nonlinear fashion. Furthermore, we show that the temperature quantile-to-demand model reveals mostly insignificant demand response estimates, driven by the influence of two counteracting forces.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{0.4\baselineskip}
\vfill
\noindent JEL Classification: C33, C51, C53, Q41 \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Key words and phrases}: Functional regression, measurement error, electricity demand, temperature sensitivity, heat wave
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\setcounter{page}{0} \thispagestyle{empty}
\baselineskip19.5pt
\pagenumbering{arabic}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newpage
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec_Intro}
\noindent Accurately estimating electricity demand during extreme weather events is vital for ensuring energy security and enhancing grid reliability. For energy practitioners and policymakers, precise demand estimation is crucial for balancing supply and demand, preventing power outages, and ensuring that the energy infrastructure can withstand increased loads during such critical periods. As climate change drives more frequent and severe weather events, the importance of precise demand estimation has grown significantly, making it a cornerstone of sustainable energy management.
%WKNOTE: Grid reliablity? Must be something in the literature.
\indent The relationship between temperature and electricity demand is inherently nonlinear, as demand typically rises sharply during extreme hot or cold conditions. Traditional approaches to modeling this relationship rely on nonlinear variables such as Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD). However, these methods have notable limitations, including the need to arbitrarily define threshold temperatures. To address this limitation, a distribution-based approach that incorporates the full information of temperature distribution as an explanatory variable has been studied. This methodology effectively captures the nonlinear dynamics of electricity demand while allowing the threshold temperature to be estimated endogenously within the model.
\indent Unexpected spikes in electricity demand during extreme temperature events present unique challenges that require advanced econometric modeling to maintain grid stability. Residential electricity demand, in particular, exhibits heightened sensitivity to temperature extremes, with demand increasing more steeply at extreme temperatures compared to moderate conditions. Failing to account for these nonlinearities would result in significant underestimation of demand during critical periods, jeopardizing grid stability. Consequently, accurately modeling the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand is imperative. Such models not only enhance the resilience of energy infrastructure but also enable the development of more effective energy management strategies to address the growing impacts of climate change on electricity demand.
\indent The key challenge in estimating the nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature lies in the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature distributions are treated as true distributions. This assumption can introduce bias into demand response estimates since errors from the estimation process may distort the results. Furthermore, generating a representative temperature distribution using hourly regional data adds further estimation errors, which can lead to biased and inconsistent demand response estimates. These errors are particularly problematic during extreme temperature events, compromising the reliability of estimates critical for energy security and grid stability.
\indent Building on the foundational work of \cite{engle1986semiparametric}, a substantial body of literature has applied the cointegration framework for analyzing electricity demand, with noticeable contributions from \cite{engle1989merging}, \cite{silk1997short}, \cite{beenstock1999demand}, \cite{chang2014time}, \cite{chang2016disentangling}, and \cite{chang2021forecasting}, among others. Subsequently, the literature has focused on incorporating nonlinear temperature variables, such as HDD and CDD, or employing nonlinear econometric methods to evaluate the impact of temperature fluctuations on electricity demand, including \cite{sailor1997sensitivity}, \cite{henley1997non}, \cite{henley1998residential}, \cite{valor2001daily}, \cite{pardo2002temperature}, and \cite{apadula2012relationships}. In particular, smooth transition, panel threshold, and switching regression models have been employed to capture nonlinear demand responses (\citealp{moral2005modelling}; \citealp{bessec2008non}). More recently, density-based functional approaches have emerged to analyze these effects across sectors, providing deeper insights into the nonlinearity between temperature and electricity demand (\citealp{chang2016new}; \citealp{miller2022modeling}).
\indent The nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature has been further explored through various advanced methodologies. For instance, \cite{teixeira2017} integrated linear regression with artificial neural networks to capture heterogeneous consumption patterns, while \cite{caro2020} and \cite{sharma2020} utilized periodically correlated models and synergy of recurrent neural networks with fuzzy logic, respectively, to enhance load forecasting accuracy. Meanwhile, \cite{sigauke2013extreme} applied tail-quantile estimation to analyze extreme daily increases in peak electricity demand, highlighting the critical role of temperature-driven demand fluctuations. Lastly, \cite{sultana2022} refined short-term demand forecasts using machine learning, focusing on managing temperature-induced variability.
\indent Compared to the existing literature, we introduce a functional econometric approach that effectively captures the nonlinearity of residential electricity demand response, even in the presence of measurement errors—a dimension that has not been thoroughly addressed in the existing literature. By addressing the complexities introduced by the measurement errors, our approach provides a more robust estimation, setting it apart from traditional techniques that may overlook these critical factors. Furthermore, our approach differs significantly from existing studies by focusing on the nonlinear demand response of residential electricity to changes in temperature distribution, rather than just temperature levels. This allows for a more comprehensive analysis, capturing the broader distributional effects of temperature fluctuations, particularly during extreme weather events.
\indent Instead of viewing density and quantile functions as competing methods, we consider them complementary strategies, each providing unique insights to form a comprehensive analytical framework. The density-based approach offers direct interpretability within a compositional data framework, allowing for clear analysis of temperature's impact on electricity demand across the entire temperature level. On the other hand, quantile functions address heterogeneous support more effectively and excel in estimating the cumulative effects of temperature at highest or lowest quantiles. Notably, these issues have not been adequately addressed in the existing literature. In this paper, we apply the Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation for density-valued functional data and mean centering for quantile-valued functional data. These transformations enable us to handle the distinct characteristics of each functional data.
\indent The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec_method} details the econometric methodology employed to estimate the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand in the presence of measurement errors. Section \ref{Sec_Data} provides the residential electricity demand and local temperature data from the Republic of Korea. Given two extreme weather events, Section \ref{Sec_Empirics} presents empirical results illustrating the nonlinear sensitivity of temperature density and quantile functions. Finally, Section \ref{Sec_conclude} provides concluding remarks, with econometric proofs included in the Appendix.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Econometric methodology}\label{sec_method}
\subsection{Distributional predictors of temperature and measurement errors}
\label{sec_method_1}
We let $y_t$ represent electricity demand, a practical measurement of which for our empirical study is detailed in Section \ref{Sec_Data}, and $X_t^\circ$ be a function that summarizes the distributional properties of temperature. There are various choices for $X_t^\circ$, but in this paper, we focus on two: (i) the CLR transformation of the probability density function (PDF) of temperature, denoted hereafter as $p_t$, and (ii) the quantile function (QF) corresponding to $p_t$. The former appears to be more commonly considered in the literature on density-valued functional data (see e.g., \citealp{kokoszka2019forecasting,SEO2019,seong2021functional}), and we place more emphasis on it accordingly, while the latter offers distinct advantages, particularly for our empirical application.
Assuming that $p_t$ of temperature is supported on $[a,b]$, the CLR transformation $X_t^\circ$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqclr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log p_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \log p_t (s) ds, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
Under some mathematical conditions on the underlying PDF $p_t$, the transformation from $p_t$ to its CLR transformation not only embeds the probability densities on $[a,b]$ into a linear subspace of the $L^2[0,1]$ Hilbert space but also is invertible. Thus, the CLR transformation of $p_t$ has been considered a standard choice in the model involving distributional functional data in the aforementioned articles. In addition to this, we will also consider the case where $X_t^\circ$ is the quantile function corresponding to $p_t$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eqqf}
X_t^\circ(r) = \inf \{x \in [a,b]:\int_{a}^{x} p_t(s) ds \leq r\}, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
It is well known that, for the CLR transformation to be an invertible transformation of a set of probability densities, $p_t$ needs to be supported on a common compact interval $[a,b]$ for every $t$ (see e.g., \citealp{Egozcue2006,Boogaart2014}); more specifically the so-called inverse CLR transformation is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eqinverseclr}
X_t^\circ (r) \quad \mapsto \quad \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) \big/ \int_{a}^b \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) dr, \quad r \in [a,b].
\end{equation}
This requires us to estimate all the temperature densities on a common interval. On the other hand, the quantile functions do not require such a restriction, and the support of the function can vary over time.
In practice, $p_t$ cannot be directly observed, and thus $X_t^\circ$ is not observable. For empirical analysis, it must be constructed from the raw temperature data; specifically, we may replace $p_t$ or $\log p_t$ with its relevant nonparametric estimate in \eqref{eqclr} (as in \citealp{SEO2019}), or replace population quantiles with sample quantiles in \eqref{eqqf}. However, this replacement necessarily introduces estimation/smoothing errors, and it is well known that standard estimation methods for function-to-scalar regression may lead to inconsistent estimation of the model. For a more detailed discussion, see \citet[Section 7]{Benatia2017}, \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}, and \cite{seong2021functional}. Subsequently, we discuss econometric methods for studying the distributional impact of temperature on electricity demand that are robust to the presence of these estimation/smoothing errors in the distributional predictor.
\iffalse
\subsection{Model and estimator (version with tensor notation)} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated, meaning that $\mathbb{E}[X_t \otimes u_t] \neq 0$, where $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product (defined by defined by $g\otimes h (\cdot) = \langle g,\cdot \rangle h$ for $g\in \mathcal H$ and $h \in \mathbb{R}$; see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim} in the Appendix for more details).\footnote{Specifically, for any $g,h$ taking values in $\mathcal H$, $ g \otimes h (x) = \langle g,x \rangle h = (\int_{a}^{b} g(s)x(r)dr)h$ for any $x\in \mathcal H$.}
As is well known in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition $\mathbb{E}[X_t\otimes u_t]=0$, inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves with measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model by \cite{seong2021functional} to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional instrumental variable (IV) satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}:=\mathbb{E}[(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])\otimes (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
The above consists of only the minimal requirements for the IV $Z_t$. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ exhibits time series dependence, we let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of an instrumental variable considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (X_t-\bar{X}_T) \otimes (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T) \otimes (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
%\widehat{C}_{Zy} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes y_t, \quad
% \quad %\widehat{C}_{Zu} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes u_t,
%\widehat{\Gamma}_{yX} =\widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ}, \quad \widehat{\Gamma}_{X} = \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast (:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2 \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j.
\end{equation}
The eigenelements can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model.
\bigskip
%\newpage
\fi
\subsection{Model and estimator} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the distribution-to-scalar regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated (meaning that $\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x \rangle u_t] \neq 0$ for some $x\in \mathcal H$) and thus $X_t$ is endogenous.
As is well documented in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition ($\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x\rangle u_t]=0$ for every $x\in \mathcal H$), inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves with measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model by \cite{seong2021functional} to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional instrumental variable (IV), which satisfies the following: for every $x \neq 0$,
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}(x):=\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t], x \rangle (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x\rangle u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
$C_{XZ}$ (resp.\ $C_{Zu}$) defined above is called the (cross-)covariance operator of $X_t$ and $Z_t$ (resp.\ $Z_t$ and $u_t$). The conditions given in \eqref{eqreg3} consist of only the necessary requirements for the IV $Z_t$ in our DSR model. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ exhibits time series dependence, we let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of the IV considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle X_t-\bar{X}_T,x\rangle (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle Z_t-\bar{Z}_T,x \rangle (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $C_{XZ}^\ast$ (defined by $C_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x \rangle(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, the composite map $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} \hat{g}_j = \hat{\lambda}_j \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\lambda}_1\geq \hat{\lambda}_2 \geq \ldots \geq 0$. The eigenelements of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
% \begin{align} \label{eqest}
% \hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
% \end{align}
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
%= T^{-2}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{s=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \hat{g}_j, X_{s}-\bar{X}_T\rangle \langle Z_{s}-\bar{Z}_T,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
%;\footnote{An alternative equivalent expression is $\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$.}
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Data}\label{Sec_Data}
\subsection{Raw data and temperature densities} \label{Sec_Data_1}
\noindent To investigate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we analyze an extensive dataset that includes residential electricity demand (in GWh) and local temperature (in degrees Celsius) readings from the Republic of Korea. The dataset spans from January 1999 to December 2023, with 300 monthly observations. The residential electricity demand data is provided by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), the state-owned utility responsible for electricity sales across the country. Due to the inherent variability in the number of days within each month, we have normalized the raw monthly electricity demand by dividing it by the number of effective days per month. This adjustment produces a metric known as electricity demand per effective day, as discussed in \cite{chang2014time}, which underscores the importance of accounting for temporal differences in energy demand analysis.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth, width=0.8\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Y_Graph.png}
\caption{Natural log of residential electricity demand per effective day and its 12-month moving average (top), and their deviation process (down) from January 1999 to December 2023.}
\label{Fig:Y_Graphs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent \cite{chang2016new} found no empirical evidence suggesting that non-climate variables significantly influence the demand response to temperature in the residential sector. Building on this finding, and to isolate the short-run fluctuations in residential electricity demand, we calculate the deviation from the natural logarithm of a 12-month moving average of electricity demand per effective day, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Y_Graphs}. This deviation serves as a proxy for the short-run component of electricity demand, allowing us to focus on the short-run effects of temperature changes while filtering out the long-run effects of income and electricity price. By employing this detrending approach, we ensure that our analysis effectively captures the nonlinear responses of residential electricity demand to temperature fluctuations, independent of other non-climate factors (\citealp{chang2016new}).
%(heterogeneous support problem with density generation)
\indent To model the seasonality, we retrieve the hourly temperature data from the KMA National Climate Data Center.\footnote{Downloaded from https://data.kma.go.kr/cmmn/main.do on July 1, 2024.} We then construct the monthly temperature density function over the common support, $[-20,40]$, using hourly temperature observations from the five largest cities (Seoul, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan) covering the territory of the Republic of Korea.\footnote{Instead of estimating the range of the common support, we adopt the common support of $[-20,40]$ with grid difference, $0.1$, as established in the literature (\citealp{chang2014time}; \citealp{chang2016new}).} To represent the temperature density function of the Republic of Korea, we calculate the weighted average of the estimated time series for these five density functions, assigning weights based on the annual proportion of electricity sales in each of the five regions: the Seoul Metropolitan Area (Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi), Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan.\footnote{The combined annual electricity consumption of the five regions accounts for approximately 55.3\% of the national total on average during the period from 1999 to 2021. Due to data availability constraints, the proportions for the years 2022 and 2023 have been substituted with the values from 2021.}\footnote{The annual regional consumption data was obtained from the Korea Energy Statistics Information System (KESIS) and can be accessed at \url{https://www.kesis.net/sub/subChart.jsp?report_id=33150&reportType=0} (data downloaded on July 1, 2024).}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.4\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc0.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.55\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates of the temperature distribution in the Republic of Korea (left) and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics (right). The red lines indicate August 2017 and August 2018, while the blue lines represent January 2020 and January 2021.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip} illustrates the time series of a temperature density function, estimated using Gaussian kernel and Silverman's rule of thumb bandwidth, and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics. Note that the generated monthly temperature density functions exhibit significant heterogeneity, particularly between summer and winter. The time-series analysis of monthly temperature distributions in the Republic of Korea from 1999 to 2023 reveals stable seasonal cycles in the mean temperature, reflecting consistent annual patterns. However, the standard deviation indicates increasing variability, particularly post-2010, suggesting a growing spread in temperature values around the mean. The skewness exhibits seasonal fluctuations, with positive skewness during warmer months indicating a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, and negative skewness during colder months reflecting an increase in extreme low temperatures. However, this skewness does not show a clear trend of increasing asymmetry over time but rather indicates a recurring seasonal pattern. The kurtosis remains relatively stable but experiences significant spikes, particularly after 2010. These spikes suggest periods with more frequent and intense extreme temperature events. Thus, while the skewness reflects consistent seasonal variability, the spikes in kurtosis indicate a rise in temperature extremes, likely influenced by climate change.
\subsection{Construction of the distributional predictors}
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, distributional predictors in practice need to be estimated in advance from the raw data. For the CLR transformations, we use the estimated densities, denoted as $\hat{p}_t$, obtained in Section \ref{Sec_Data_1} (see Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}), and construct $X_t$ as follows:\begin{equation}\label{eqclr2} X_t(r) = \log \hat{p}_t(r) - \int_{-20}^{40} \log \hat{p}_t (s) ds.\footnote{As is common in the literature (see e.g., Section 5.2, \citealp{seoshang22}), a small value of $10^{-3}$ is added to the entire temperature density function $\hat{p}_t$ to implement the log transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} \end{equation}
On the other hand, when \( X_t^\circ \) represents the quantile function corresponding to \( p_t \), we estimate it directly from the raw temperature data by replacing population quantiles with sample quantiles. Specifically, if \( x_{[j]} \) for \( j=1,\ldots,N_t \) are the ordered (smallest to largest) raw temperature observations at time \( t \), we define
\[
X_t(r) = x_{[N_t r]} \quad \text{if \( N_t r \) is an integer,}
\]
for \( r \in [0,1] \). For \( r \in [0,1] \) where \( N_t r \) is not an integer, we employ a linear interpolation scheme to estimate values proportionally between neighboring data points.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Empirical Investigation}\label{Sec_Empirics}
\noindent In this section, we estimate the DSR model specified in \eqref{eqreg2} using the CLR predictor $X_t$, constructed as described in \eqref{eqclr2}, with $\hat{p}_t$ illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}. For the computation of our estimator with finite samples, we represent the distributional predictor using 80 orthonormal Fourier basis functions on $[0,1]$.\footnote{Moderate changes in the number of basis functions result in only minor numerical differences in the estimation results.} Noting that measurement errors arise from smoothing \( X_t \) from its discrete realizations, we assume that these errors are serially uncorrelated. Under this assumption, and given that the sequence of \( X_t^\circ \) (and also \( X_t \)) is serially correlated, the lagged variable \( X_{t-\kappa} \) for \( \kappa \geq 1 \) may serve as a candidate IV for our empirical analysis. Similar approaches were previously adopted in \cite{seong2021functional} and \cite{Chen_et_al_2020} concerning dependent functional data. Since our approach relies on a high degree of dependence, where possible, of the IV on the endogenous distributional predictor \( X_t \), as in standard IV methods (see Section \ref{sec_app_est_1} for more details), it is not advisable to use a large value of \( \kappa \), as this could make \( X_{t-\kappa} \) only weakly correlated with \( X_t \). Therefore, we have chosen to set \( \kappa \) to 1. We believe that this selection allows us to account for potential errors in the density/quantile estimation process or data quality while enhancing the robustness and reliability of our analysis. Lastly, in our estimation procedure, $K$ (see \eqref{eqest}) is set to 3.\footnote{Following the results given in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix and Remark \ref{rem1}, we set $\KK=1+\max_{j\geq 1}\{\tilde{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for $\alpha = 0.1 \times T^{-0.3}$, where $\tilde{\lambda}_j^2=\lambda_j^2/\sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2$ and this is to obtain a choice of $\KK$ which is independent of the scale of $X_t$ and $Z_t$; see Section S5 of \cite{seong2021functional}.} %Our estimator $\hat{f}$ is visualized in Figure \commWK{(SOMETHING)}.
\indent We hereafter focus on statistical inference regarding the impact of temperature events on electricity demand, given by $f(\zeta)$, where $\zeta$ denotes the distributional shocks given to the distributional predictor. This quantity is estimated using our proposed estimator, $\hat{f}(\zeta)$, and is accompanied by an asymptotically valid local confidence interval constructed based on the results in \eqref{eqlocal}. Taking advantage of the distributional flexibility of our DSR model, we examine two hypothetical scenarios that generate $\zeta$, as detailed in the following section.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Functional Shocks for Cold Wave and Heat Wave}\label{Sec_Est_Shocks}
\noindent The Republic of Korea experienced two significant extreme weather events for the sample period.\footnote{See e.g., \url{https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Hottest-Day-Korean-History} and \url{https://watchers.news/2021/01/11/historic-cold-wave-and-heavy-snow-hit-south-korea/}.} In August 2018, the Republic of Korea experienced one of its most intense heat waves on record, with temperatures soaring to an average of 29.2°C, the highest since record-keeping began in 1907. This extreme heat led to the residential electricity demand of 8,851.04 GWh during that month, underscoring the strain placed on the energy grid by cooling needs. Similarly, January 2021 was marked by a significant cold wave, with temperatures plunging to an average of -6.1°C, well below the seasonal norm. During this period, residential electricity demand also spiked to 7,163.28 GWh as households increased heating usage to cope with the severe cold.
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrates the year-over-year changes in monthly temperature PDFs associated with extreme weather events, specifically the heat wave of August 2018 and the cold wave of January 2021. In the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, the blue solid line represents the temperature PDF in January 2021, compared to the blue dashed line for January 2020, with the black line showing the (vertical) difference between the two PDFs, capturing the effect of the cold wave. In the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, similarly, the red solid line represents the temperature PDF in August 2018, while the red dashed line shows the temperature distribution in August 2017, with the black line indicating the difference between these two PDFs.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.98\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock0.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates comparing January 2021 (solid) and January 2020 (dotted) on the left, and August 2018 (solid) and August 2017 (dotted) on the right, with the black lines representing their differences.}
\label{Fig:Func_shock2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The temperature distributions during the 2018 heat wave and the 2021 cold wave exhibit distinct shifts, which are indicative of extreme weather conditions. The August 2018 distribution is significantly right-skewed, suggesting a higher frequency of exceptionally high temperatures, with a pronounced right tail representing extreme heat events. In contrast, the January 2021 distribution is heavily left-skewed, highlighting the prevalence of unusually low temperatures, with a long left tail representing severe cold conditions. These graphs reveal the significant changes in temperature distributions during these historical extreme events, illustrating how both the heat wave and cold wave deviated sharply from typical conditions in the preceding months.
\indent Our empirical analysis aims to provide practitioners with insights into the potential increase in future electricity demand when similar extreme temperature events occur. By understanding extreme temperature events as potential perturbations in the distributional predictor \( X_t \), we can estimate their impact on electricity demand. We henceforth refer to the function \( \zeta_{\ee}(s) \), corresponding to the black line in the left (resp.\ right) panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, as the observed heat wave (resp.\ cold wave). This function is computed by subtracting \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) from \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \), where \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) denotes the reference (normal) temperature PDF in August 2017 (resp.\ January 2020), and \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) denotes the extreme temperature PDF in August 2018 for the heat wave (resp.\ January 2021 for the cold wave). Consequently, \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) = \ZZ_{\nn}(s) + \zeta_{\ee}(s) \). The effect of these heat and cold waves on electricity demand is given by \( f(\zeta_{\ee}) \) in our model, which is consistently estimated by \( \hat{f}(\zeta_{\ee}) \), obviously. Due to the flexibility of our model in the choice of potential perturbations, we may also consider fractions of these observed heat and cold waves and their effects on electricity demand; specifically, we let
\begin{equation} \label{eqfraction}
\zeta_a(s) = a \times \zeta_{\ee}(s), \quad a = \frac{1}{M}, \frac{2}{M}, \ldots, 1,
\end{equation}
for some large positive integer \( M \). Note that these fractions of observed heat or cold waves satisfy (i) \( |\zeta_a(s)| \leq |\zeta_{\ee}(s)| \) and (ii) \( \int_{-20}^{40} \zeta_a(s) \, ds = 0 \). Thus, adding these fractions of heat or cold waves to the reference PDF \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) results in a new PDF, hereafter denoted as \( \ZZ_a(s) (= \ZZ_{\nn}(s) + \zeta_a(s)) \). Since the application of \( \zeta_a(s) \) induces a globally more moderate shock compared to \( \zeta_{\ee}(s) \), \( \ZZ_a(s) \) is expected to represent less extreme temperature conditions than the extreme temperature PDF \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) observed in August 2018 for the heat wave or January 2021 for the cold wave. Thus, \( \zeta_a(s) \) can be naturally interpreted as a possible, but less extreme, heat or cold wave.
%More specifically, $\zeta_a(s)$ for $a$ close to $1$ can be understood as a temperature event that transforms the reference PDF into another PDF similar to the extreme temperature PDF, while $a$ close to $0$ can be understood as a temperature event causing only a moderate change.
Observe also that, as $a$ grows, $\ZZ_a(s)$ constructed from $\zeta_a(s)$ gets away from the normal temperature PDF ($\ZZ_{\nn}(s)$) and closer to the extreme temperature PDF ($\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$) by a constant functional increment $(1/M) \times \zeta_{\ee}(s)$ at each step; the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} illustrate $\ZZ_a$ for a few selected values of $a$).
%(WKNOTE:DELETED) Further note that \( \zeta_{\ee}(s) \) illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} spans the range $[-20, 19]$ for cold waves, with a sign change at -2.7°C, and $[14, 40]$ for heat waves, with a sign change at 27.8°C. We estimate the temperature effect by examining the likelihood of temperatures within the range $[-20, -2.7]$ for cold waves and $[27.8, 40]$ for heat waves, where the likelihood follows an inverted U-shape. The maximum likelihood occurs at -7.4°C for cold waves and 33.4°C for heat waves. Subsequently, we identify nonlinearities by introducing functional shocks of varying magnitudes, $\zeta_m(s)$.
%(WKNOTE:DELETED) The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} shows the change in the first four standardized moments, caused by the considered fractions of heat and cold waves, during the transition of $\ZZ_a(s)$ from the reference PDF $\ZZ_{\nn}(s)$ to the extreme one $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$ in each scenario. As may well be expected from our construction of $\ZZ_a(s)$, the means of $\ZZ_a(s)$ linearly increase or decrease toward more extreme values ($26.02 \rightarrow 28.54$ in the heat wave scenario and $2.31 \rightarrow -1.53$ in the cold wave scenario) as $\ZZ_a(s)$ gets closer to $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$. On the other hand, other descriptive statistics shift in a nonlinear manner as $\ZZ_a(s)$ moves from $\ZZ_{\nn}$ to $\ZZ_{\ee}$. In the cold wave scenario, the variance increases substantially from January 2020 to January 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating a wider dispersion of temperatures in 2021. However, decreases in skewness ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$) and kurtosis ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$) suggest that the distribution becomes more symmetrical and less peaked, with fewer extreme cold events. In contrast, in the heat wave scenario, we observe a smaller increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), accompanied by rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$) and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), indicating a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.54\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Shock_stat_change3.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.31\textwidth, width=0.45\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Shock_stat_change.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\caption{Temperature densities for heat waves and cold waves (left), showing the transition from reference to event periods, and the evolution of distributional statistics (right).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent To study the effect of fractions of the observed heat and cold waves on electricity demand in our model using the CLR transformations, we need to generate relevant functional shocks, corresponding to \( \zeta_a(s) \), in the CLR domain. This can obviously be implemented by applying the CLR transformation to both the reference PDF \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) and \( \ZZ_m(s) \), and then computing the subtraction of the former from the latter in each of the heat and cold scenarios. The computed functional shocks in the CLR domain are plotted in Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\caption{CLR-transformed temperature densities for the specified periods (left), and the progression of functional shocks (right), transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Density-to-Demand Model}\label{DtoD_Rlt}
\noindent Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} presents the estimation results for the density-to-demand model. In the left panel of the figure, we present our estimate $\hat{f}(s)$ on the range $s \in [-15,35]$ and its 95\% confidence interval.\footnote{For each \( s \), we use the adjusted Gaussian kernel \( g_s = \frac{c_s}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp\left(-0.5\left(\frac{x-s}{h}\right)^2\right) \), with bandwidth \( h \) covering $15^\circ C$ around $s$ to match the density increase in the heat (17.3°C) and cold (12.2°C) wave shocks shown in Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}. The constant \( c_s \) ensures that \( \int g_s(r) \, dr = 1 \) for each \( s \). \( \hat{f}(g_s) \) is then interpreted as the weighted average of \( f \) around \( s \). Near the endpoints of \( [-20, 40] \), the standard Gaussian kernel integral (without the adjustment by \( c_s \)) approaches 0.5, so \( \hat{f}(g_s) \) at the ends is not a proper weighted average. To address this, we introduce \( c_s \) and estimate \( f(s) \) slightly away from the endpoints.
}
%\footnote{For each \( s \), we consider the adjusted Gaussian kernel \( g_s = \frac{c_s}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp\left(-0.5\left(\frac{x-s}{h}\right)^2\right) \), where $h$ is the bandwidth parameter and \( c_s \) is a constant specific to \( s \), introduced to ensure that \( \int g_s(r) \, dr = 1 \) for every \( s \); as the black lines of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrate the increase in density across the range of 12.2°C (17.3°C) associated with heat (cold) wave shocks, we apply a bandwidth $h$ of 15°C. \( \hat{f}(g_s) \) is then interpreted as the weighted average of \( f \) around \( s \). Note that if \( s \) approaches the left or right endpoint of \( [-20, 40] \), the integral of the standard Gaussian kernel (without the adjustment by \( c_s \)) approaches 0.5. Therefore, \(\hat{f}(g_s)\) closer to either of the end point is not interpreted as weight average of \(f(s)\) near \(s\). We thus introduce the constant \( c_s \) and estimate \( f(s) \) slightly away from the endpoints in this procedure.}
%As the black lines of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrate the increase in density across the range of 12.2°C (17.3°C) associated with heat (cold) wave shocks, we apply a bandwidth of 15°C.
Consistent with \cite{chang2016new}, the estimated sensitivity of the temperature density function exhibits a U-shaped pattern; however, the estimates with $\kappa=1$ reveal a more pronounced nonlinearity. % \commKS{(explain more how to estimate the nonlinear TRF with Gaussian kernel here)}.
\indent Focusing on the temperature effects under extreme conditions, the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} presents the estimated response of electricity demand on the $y$-axis with respect to $a$, denoting the fraction parameter defined in \eqref{eqfraction}, of $\ZZ_a(s)$, depicted on the $x$-axis. As earlier discussed, $\ZZ_a(s)$ approaches $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$ with a constant functional increment as $a$ increases. The solid lines show the estimates, $\hat{f}(\zeta_a)$, and these are interpreted as the estimated demand responses to progressively but constantly intensifying heat or cold wave shocks, as described in \eqref{Sec_Est_Shocks}. The dotted lines indicate the 95\% confidence intervals for $f(\zeta_a)$ based on the asymptotic normality result given in \eqref{eqlocal}. For comparison, estimation results without addressing potential endogeneity are also reported, with the $y$-axis scaled to half of that in the case of $\kappa=1$ for better visualization.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.41\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/DtoD_TRF.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.58\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Empirical_rlt1.png}
\caption{Estimated nonlinear temperature response function with the 95\% local confidence intervals (left), and density-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top right) and heat wave (bottom right) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$.}
\label{Fig:Empirical_rlts}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The middle and right panels illustrate the demand response to cold and heat wave shocks across their different magnitudes. As shown in the figure, the empirical results for $\kappa=0$ exhibit a similar upward trend, but with a substantially lower magnitude compared to the case with $\kappa=1$. Since the estimation results for $\kappa=0$ do not account for endogeneity, we focus on interpreting the estimation results with $\kappa=1$ as our main empirical findings. The empirical results from the estimation with $\kappa = 1$, which is designed to account for potential measurement errors, indicate an increase in electricity demand response as the considered fraction of shocks gets closer to the observed cold or heat wave. % Moreover, this increase is more pronounced in the cold wave scenario, compared to the heat wave scenario.
\indent \commWK{The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} provides insights into how cold and heat wave events change temperature distributions. As the fraction of shocks approaches the observed cold wave at a constant rate, the mean temperature experiences a linear decline from 2.31°C to -1.53°C, with a substantial increase in variance ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating greater temperature dispersion. Concurrently, skewness decreases ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$), and kurtosis declines ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$), signifying a more symmetrical and less peaked distribution. In contrast, as the fraction of shocks approaches the observed heat wave at a constant rate, the mean temperature rises linearly from 26.02°C to 28.54°C, with a modest increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$), and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), reflecting a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution. As illustrated in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}, these distributional changes reveal that cold wave shocks have a significantly greater impact on electricity demand, with a 28.06\% increase, compared to a 9.89\% increase observed during heat wave shocks.}
\indent \commWK{The observation that cold wave shocks lead to a greater increase in electricity demand per 1°C change in mean temperature (7.31\%) compared to heat wave shocks (3.93\%) highlights that electricity demand is more sensitive to the extreme and intense temperature conditions associated with cold waves. This implies that demand response is influenced not only by temperature extremes but also by the specific nature of these extremes. This finding departs from existing literature, which primarily focuses on the demand response to temperature level changes alone, and highlights the importance of understanding how shifts in temperature distributions impact electricity demand. Such insights emphasize the need for energy planning that accounts for the varying effects of temperature distribution changes, particularly in the context of increasingly severe cold wave events.}
\indent \commWK{Notably, as cold waves intensify, electricity demand rises at a diminishing rate as incremental heating needs taper off. More specifically, the demand response values for the cold wave event at fraction parameters $a$ of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are estimated at 0.1677, 0.2328, and 0.2806, respectively. Given that electricity demand is expressed in natural logarithms, these values indicate that a functional shock causing normal temperatures to approach extreme levels by 33\% corresponds to a 16.77\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. An additional 33\% progression toward extreme temperatures results in a further 6.51\% increase, followed by an additional 4.77\% increase with a complete transition to extreme conditions. Collectively, the full transition from normal temperatures in January 2020 to extreme temperatures in January 2021 corresponds to a total 28.06\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand.}
\indent Conversely, electricity demand is estimated to increase at an accelerating rate as heat waves intensify, driven by heightened cooling requirements. More specifically, the demand response values for the heat wave event at fraction parameters $a$ of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are 0.0222, 0.0498, and 0.0989, respectively. Using the same approach, these results indicate that a functional shock causing normal temperatures to approach extreme levels by 33\% corresponds to a 2.22\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. Further progression toward extreme temperatures by an additional 33\% results in a 2.76\% year-over-year increase, followed by an additional 4.91\% increase with the complete transition to extreme conditions. Collectively, the full transition from normal temperatures in August 2017 to extreme temperatures in August 2018 corresponds to a total 9.89\% year-over-year rise in monthly electricity demand. This contrasting behavior can be attributed to the extensive reliance on air conditioning during heat waves and the substitution effect between natural gas and electricity for heating purposes during cold waves.
\indent As is well established in the literature, the response function for electricity demand follows a U-shaped curve over the temperature domain. The estimated $\hat{f}(s)$ in the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} aligns closely with prior estimates, such as those reported by \cite{chang2016new}, who examine changes in electricity demand under the assumption that some temperatures vary while others remain fixed over time. In contrast, our approach accounts for how temperature changes at one level are accompanied by adjustments in other temperatures to maintain the density property (unit integral).
\indent Moreover, our findings under heat and cold wave scenarios provide more practical insights compared to those derived from existing functional approaches. A key limitation of previous methods is their tendency to produce inaccurate estimates at the boundaries, particularly in regions with sparse data, such as critical temperature thresholds of -20°C and 40°C. This boundary issue can result in misleading interpretations of demand responses at extreme temperatures, potentially causing significant misjudgments in energy policy and management.
\indent By focusing on historical but representative heat and cold wave scenarios, rather than demand changes at specific temperature thresholds with limited data, our approach provides broader distributional insights into electricity demand dynamics under extreme temperature events. Specifically, we incorporate higher-order distributional changes associated with extreme temperatures, demonstrating how extreme conditions result in significantly greater increases in electricity demand compared to normal conditions—an effect largely overlooked in previous studies. Furthermore, our estimation results are robust to endogeneity issues arising from measurement errors in temperature PDFs, a challenge that has also been largely overlooked in previous studies.
%If endogeneity exists, it can bias the estimator of the response function $f$. The IV approach corrects this bias by using instruments that are correlated with the endogenous regressors but uncorrelated with the error term. However, this correction may introduce larger standard errors and increased variance, which can diminish the model's goodness of fit—meaning the model may not align as closely with the observed data compared to the standard functional approach. This trade-off becomes apparent in our results with orthonormal Fourier basis functions, as reflected by the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) values are recorded as 0.0822 and 0.1227 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Quantile-to-Demand Model}
The quantile-to-demand model, which utilizes temperature quantile functions as predictors, shares a similarity with the density-to-demand model in that both use the distributional properties of temperature as a predictor. However, these models differ significantly in their interpretation of the demand response function $f$. $f(s)$ in the density-to-demand model evaluates the impact of more frequently occurring temperatures around the temperature level $s \in [-20,40]$ while allowing for possible changes in temperature quantiles associated with this variation. In contrast, \( f(s) \) in the quantile-to-demand model id differently interpreted as the effect of changes in the \( s \)-quantile, where \( s \in [0,1]\), with the corresponding temperature level varying due to seasonal fluctuations. Note that, for example, the \( s \)-quantile in a summer month is significantly higher than in a winter month. In other words, the \( s \)-quantile fluctuates seasonally, and \( f(s) \) captures the impact of changes in this \( s \)-quantile across the months of the year. Due to this difference, the quantile-to-demand model may reveal new empirical findings that are not clearly captured by the density-to-demand model or provide evidence that reinforces findings from the density-to-demand model. % 서교수~! GoodGood! please go ahead!
%\commWK{We now consider the quantile-to-demand model, which involves the predictor of temperature quantile functions. This model shares similarities with the density-to-demand model in that both use the distributional properties of temperature as a predictor. However, a significant difference lies in the interpretation of the demand response function \( f \). Specifically, the response function \( f(s) \) in the temperature density-to-demand model accounts for the effect of the relatively more frequent occurrence of temperatures around the level \( s \), while allowing for possible changes in temperature quantiles associated with this variation. In contrast, the response function in the temperature quantile-to-demand model measures the effect of changes in the \( 100s\% \) quantile, with the corresponding temperature level varying. For example, the \( 100s\% \) quantile in a summer month will be significantly higher than in a winter month. Because of this distinction, the quantile-to-demand model may reveal new empirical findings that are not clearly captured by the density-to-demand model or provide evidence that reinforces findings from the density-to-demand model.}
%second??? \commWK{The quantile-to-demand model, which utilizes temperature quantile functions as predictors, shares a similarity with the density-to-demand model in relying on temperature’s distributional properties to explain electricity demand. However, these models differ significantly in their interpretation of the demand response function. The density-to-demand model evaluates the impact of more frequently occurring temperatures around a specific level $s$, with $s \in [-20,40]$. In contrast, the quantile-to-demand model focuses on changes in the $\alpha$-quantile, where $\alpha \in [0,1]$, with the corresponding temperature level varying according to seasonal variations in temperature \footnote{For example, the \( \alpha\% \) quantile in a summer month will be significantly higher than in a winter month.} Thus, the effect of any change in $\alpha$-quantile aggregates seasonal variations of the demand responses according to of electricity demand caused by in aggregates seasonal variation of the electricity demand caused by the effect and thus reflecting seasonal variations in temperature levels. This distinction may position the quantile-to-demand model as effective for analyzing demand responses under extreme temperature events, such as heat waves, where the relevance of past temperature patterns captured by the density function may diminish. Despite a potentially lower model fit, the quantile-to-demand model would provide interesting insights into heterogeneous demand shifts under extreme conditions.}
%(Older version) Some might wonder if the quantile function models \commWK{capture} extreme temperature events more effectively than the density function. Specifically, the difference lies in how each approach handles the heterogeneous impact of temperature on electricity demand. The temperature density-to-demand model accounts for the varying influence of each temperature level on demand, whereas the temperature quantile-to-demand model considers the heterogeneous effects of temperature quantiles on demand. As a result, while the density function may more accurately capture the average fluctuations in electricity demand, the quantile function, despite its relatively lower model fit, may be better suited to explaining demand responses under extreme temperature conditions. For instance, during a heat wave, where consumers face unprecedented temperatures, the relevance of past temperature impacts (as modeled by the density function) may diminish, making the quantile function more effective in modeling demand changes at extreme temperatures. In addition, the quantile function would better manage the heterogeneous support of the temperature density function.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_desc1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Sensitivity.png}
\caption{Descriptive statistics of quantile function for each temperature quantile (left) and estimated temperature quantile sensitivity with the dotted lines indicating the 95\% local confidence intervals (right).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent In this context, we further examine the effects of temperature quantiles on electricity demand for extreme weather events. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} displays the temporal mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis at various quantile levels (which are computed from the time series $\{X_t(u)\}_{t=1}^T$ for each $u \in [0,1]$), providing insights into how the temperature changes across different quantiles. The mean temperature increases steadily across the quantiles, reflecting the expected rise in temperature values from lower to higher quantiles. The standard deviation decreases, indicating that temperature values become less variable at higher quantiles. The skewness becomes more negative as the quantile increases, signifying that higher temperatures are more concentrated towards their upper range, leading to a more skewed distribution. Conversely, kurtosis decreases initially but sharply increases at the highest quantiles, suggesting a less peaked distribution initially but with more pronounced tails, indicating more frequent extreme temperature events in these higher quantiles.
\indent We estimate the quantile-to-demand model as in Section \ref{DtoD_Rlt}. However, as earlier discussed, $f(s)$ is interpreted as the effect of changes in the $s$-quantile. This can be estimated as $\hat{f}(s)$ in Section \ref{DtoD_Rlt} (see the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}) using a kernel function around $s$. This quantity is interpreted as the effect of a change in a given quantile while other quantiles remain fixed, similar to the linear regression model in a fintie dimensional setup. In practice, however, it is not that plausible that a single quantile shifts occurs independently of others, which not only can introduce interpretational ambiguities but also its connection to extreme temperature events, which we are interested in, is also weak. Thus, instead of approximating $f(s)$ for $s\in [0,1]$, we consider the effects of quantile shocks $\zeta_a$ which are more interpretable. Specifically, we first consider a concept of total quantile change of a shock $\zeta_a$, denoted as \( Q > 0 \), to capture the cumulative impact of quantile adjustments caused by $\zeta_a$.
We first discuss on the heat wave scenario, and this case, $a \in [0.5,0.95]$. We start with a shock, increasing all the $s$-quantiles with$s\geq 0.5$ evenly while keeping the cumulative quantile change fixed to $Q$. More specifically, we let $\zeta_{0.5}(s) = Q \times 1\{0.5\leq s \leq 1\} / (1-0.5)$. This may be understood as a shock being obtained by distributing the total quantile change $Q$ on the specified interval of the domain of the quantile fucntion. Subsequently, we increase the value $a$ and thus the total quantile increase $Q$ is more concentrated on a narrow interval $[a,1]$, i.e., $\zeta_{a}(s) = Q \times 1\{a\leq s \leq 1\} / (1-a)$. That is, $a$ gets larger, the quantile increase $Q$ is more concentrated on higher quantiles. In the cold wave scenario, $a \in [0.05,0.5]$ and now we consider the total quantile decrease $-Q$. Similarly but slightly differently, in this scenario, we distribute the quantile decrease $-Q$ to the interval $[0,a]$; that is, $\zeta_a(s) = - Q \times 1\{0 \leq s \leq a\} / a$. As $a$ gets smaller, the total quantile decrease $-Q$ is more concentrated at lower quantiles.
By analyzing the function $\hat{f}(\zeta_a)$ for various $\zeta_a$ in each scenario, we can observe how electricity demand responds to quantile shocks concentrated at various parts of the quantile function, providing insights into which quantile ranges most significantly influence electricity demand.
%Starting with an even shock from the \( 0.5 \) quantile to the \( 1.0 \) quantile more specifically, \( Q \) is distributed uniformly over this range, represented as a step function with a value of \( 1 \) from \( x = 0.5 \) onward, with \( Q = 0.5 \times 1 = 0.5 \). Subsequently, we increase the quantile range incrementally while maintaining the same \( Q \), thus gradually concentrating the quantile change at higher quantiles (e.g., function value of \(1.11\) from the \( 0.55 \) quantile to the \( 1.0 \) quantile). For a negative shock of \( -Q \), similarly, we consider evenly reducing quantiles to the lower end, concentrating the change in lower quantiles.
%\indent The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} illustrates the temperature quantile sensitivity with respect to the residential electricity demand. To approximate $\hat{f}(\cdot)$ in equation \eqref{eqest} in the local context and interpret each quantile effect on electricity demand, we construct a sequence of indicator functions for each quantile, $x$. As a result, $\hat{f}(x)$ would represent the effect of a change in a given quantile while other quantiles remain fixed, similar to the interpretation in linear regression.
\indent Interestingly, the estimated temperature quantile sensitivity in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} reveals mostly insignificant effects, except at the high quantiles for $\kappa=1$, which contrasts with the temperature density sensitivity depicted in the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}. The estimation results reported in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} do not conflict with our findings in the density-to-demand. Note that a 95\% range of the temperature quantile function at the high-end quantile (i.e., the 1.0 quantile) spans from 8.80°C to 35.35°C, with the standard deviation of the quantile function decreasing as the quantile increases, as illustrated in the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}. This indicates that an increase in the temperature quantile function generates two opposing effects: a decrease in heating demand and an increase in cooling demand. However, as demonstrated in the previous section, the reduction in heating demand is more pronounced, leading to an overall decline in electricity demand. This decline is statistically significant at the highest quantile level, attributed to the reduced variation of the quantile function at these levels. In contrast, an increase in the temperature density function at 40°C (-20°C) yields only an increase in cooling (heating) demand.
\commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.66\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.33\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock_Progress.png}
\caption{Estimated quantile functions and functional shocks for cold wave (left) and heat wave (middle), and the progression of functional quantile shocks (right), transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Focusing on the temperature effects under extreme condition as in the Section \ref{DtoD_Rlt}, the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} illustrates the quantile shocks for the cold wave, where the impact is most pronounced in the lower quantiles, especially those associated with the coldest temperatures. This reflects that the January 2021 cold wave caused a significant downward shift in the quantile function compared to January 2020, with the most substantial changes at the lowest quantiles. On the middle panel, the quantile shocks for the heat wave reveal a more uniform increase across the quantiles, with a greater effect at the higher quantiles. This suggests that the August 2018 heat wave led to a consistent rise in temperatures, primarily intensifying the highest quantile events. The right panel of the figure presents the progression of the heat wave and cold wave shocks, as depicted in Figures \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} - \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}, transformed into their respective quantile functions.
\indent Table \ref{tab:Quant_est} presents the estimation results from the quantile-to-demand model with 95\% local confidence intervals. Note that the demand response estimates for both cold wave and heat wave shocks, as presented in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock}, are statistically insignificant for the majority of the generated functional shocks. Therefore, we report the empirical results only for severe functional shocks. Under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$, the demand response to a cold wave shock, modeled using orthonormal Fourier basis functions, is estimated at -0.0417 and -0.0645, corresponding to a 4.17\% reduction in demand or an insignificant impact. Similarly, the demand response to a heat wave shock is estimated at -0.0258 and 0.0681, indicating a 2.58\% reduction in demand or a statistically insignificant effect. These findings may imply that the quantile-to-demand model, which may be more robust to measurement error, appears to have inherent limitations in capturing the nonlinear temperature effects due to the aforementioned two counteracting forces. Lastly, the RMSE values from the quantile-to-demand model are 0.0933 and 0.1375 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively. These results indicate a decline in the goodness of fit compared to the density-to-demand model.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Estimation results for quantile-to-demand model}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|c}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for CW} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for HW} & \\
\hline
& Est & 95\% C.I. & Est & 95\% C.I. & RMSE \\
\hline
$\kappa=0$ & -0.0417 & (-0.0783, -0.0051) & -0.0258 & (-0.0424, -0.0092) & 0.0933\\
$\kappa=1$ & -0.0645 & (-0.1803,0.0513) & 0.0681 & (-0.0081,0.1442) & 0.1375 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
\label{tab:Quant_est}%
\end{table}%
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Concluding Remarks}\label{Sec_conclude}
\noindent In this paper, we estimate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand while accounting for measurement errors. Given that residential electricity demand is highly sensitive to temperature fluctuations, accurately capturing these nonlinearities is critical, especially during extreme temperature events where underestimation could jeopardize grid stability. Additionally, measurement errors would stem from the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature distributions represent true distributions, compounded by data quality issues and limitations within the estimation process.
\indent We tackle these challenges by applying a distribution-to-scalar regression to both temperature density-to-demand and quantile-to-demand models. This approach enables us to effectively identify nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature distribution and electricity demand, even when measurement errors are present. Through the analysis of historical heat wave and cold wave shocks of varying intensities within a distributional context, we find that residential electricity demand is significantly more sensitive to the extreme conditions associated with intense cold waves. Moreover, as the severity of cold waves increases, the rate of electricity demand growth diminishes, whereas for heat waves, the rate of electricity demand growth accelerates with increasing intensity. Additionally, the temperature quantile-to-demand model fails to yield economically reliable estimates.
\indent Given our findings, energy practitioners should prioritize incorporating detailed temperature distribution analysis, particularly when planning for extreme weather events. Our empirical findings indicate that residential electricity demand exhibits greater sensitivity to cold waves compared to heat waves, albeit with a slower rate of increase in demand, highlighting the need for advanced demand estimating models that account for these nonlinear sensitivities. Moreover, it is crucial to address potential measurement errors by adopting robust econometric techniques, in order to ensure that demand response strategies are based on accurate and reliable estimates. Our econometric approach would enhance grid stability and support effective energy management during extreme temperature events.
\bigskip
\section*{Disclosure Statement}
\noindent The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
%%%%%%%%% BIBLIOGRAPHY %%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv} %chicago,elsarticle-harv...ecta, econometrica...informs2014
\bibliography{FRKETQ_P3/FRKET_biblio}
\bigskip
\appendix\label{Sec_Append}
\section{Technical Appendix}\label{sec_app_est}
This technical appendix provides detailed discussion on asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator with necessary mathematical preliminaries.
\subsection{Mathematical preliminaries} \label{sec_app_prelim}
This section briefly reviews essential mathematical concepts for the proposed estimator and introduce notation.
Let $\mathcal H_1$ a separable Hilbert space with inner product $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_1$ and norm $\|\cdot\|_1$. A $\mathcal H_1$-valued random variable $Z$ is defined as a measurable map from the underlying probability space to $\mathcal H_1$. Such a random element $Z$ is said to be square-integrable if $\mathbb{E}[\|Z\|_1^2]<\infty$. Let $\mathcal H_2$ be another such Hilbert space. We let $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product defined by $\mathcal H_1$ and $\mathcal H_2$, i.e., for any $\zeta_1 \in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$,
\begin{equation}
\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2 (\cdot) = \langle \zeta_1,\cdot \rangle \zeta_2;
\end{equation}
note that $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2$ is a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$.
For any mean-zero square-integrable random elements $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, $\mathbb{E}[Z_1 \otimes Z_2]$, defined as a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$, is called the (cross-)covariance of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. We call $A:\mathcal H_1 \mapsto \mathcal H_2$ a bounded linear map if $A$ is a linear map and its operator norm, defined as $\|A\|_{\op}=\sup_{|\zeta|\leq 1} \|A\zeta\|$, is finite. For any bounded linear $A$, we let $A^\ast$ be the adjoint map defined by the property $\langle A\zeta_1,\zeta_2 \rangle_2=\langle \zeta_1,A^\ast\zeta_2 \rangle_1$ for all $\zeta_1\in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$. We say that $A$ is a compact operator if $\mathcal H_1=\mathcal H_2$ and there exist orthonormal bases $\{\zeta_{1,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $\{\zeta_{2,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ such that $A = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j \zeta_{1,j} \otimes \zeta_{2,j}$ with $a_j$ tending to zero as $j$ increases; in this expression, if $A$ is self-adjoint ($A=A^\ast$) and nonnegative ($\langle A\zeta,\zeta \rangle_1\geq 0$), it may be assumed that $a_j\geq 0$ and $\zeta_{1,j}=\zeta_{2,j}$, and furthermore they are understood as the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors. A compact operator $A$ is Hilbert-Schmidt if $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{\zeta_j\}_{j\geq1}$, and in this case, the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\|A\|_{\HS}$ is defined as $\|A\|_{\HS}= \sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2}$. It is well known that $\|A\|_{\op} \leq \|A\|_{\HS}$.
\subsection{Equivalent formulation of the proposed estimator} \label{sec_app_est_1}
Our estimator, discussed in Section \ref{Sec_Model}, is a suitable adaptation of the functional IV estimator proposed by \cite{seong2021functional} for our DSR model. First observe that for an IV $Z_t$ satisfying \eqref{eqreg3}, the following can directly be deduced from \eqref{eqreg2}: $C_{Zy} = fC_{XZ}^\ast$, where $C_{Zy} = \mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (y_t-\mathbb{E}[y_t])]$. This in turn leads to the following identity:
\begin{align} \label{eqpopulation}
C_{Zy}C_{XZ} = f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ},
\end{align}
where $C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes u_t]=0$.
As in \cite{seong2021functional} studying on the FFR model, we construct an estimator mimicking the population relationship \eqref{eqpopulation}. We first replace $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ given in \eqref{eqpopulation} with their sample counterparts $\widehat C_{Zy}\widehat C_{XZ}$ (where $\widehat C_{Zy}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T)\otimes (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$ with $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$) and $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ which is introduced in Section \ref{Sec_Model}. Noting that $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ is not invertible (see e.g., \citealp{Benatia2017}), we employ a regularized inverse of $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ to compute an estimator from the sample equation. Specifically, as in \cite{seong2021functional}, we consider the rank-regularized inverse $(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eqregul}
(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\hat{\lambda}_j^{-2}} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\KK$ is determined as
\begin{equation} \label{eqchoicek}
\KK = \max_{j\geq 1} \{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha$ tending to zero. Note that $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ becomes the $\KK$-dimensional projection $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j$ and similar regularized inverses are widely used in the literature on the functional linear model (see e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional,seo2024optimal}). The estimator $\hat{f}$ is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$
\begin{align} \label{eqest1}
\hat{f} (x)= \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (x).
\end{align}
With some algebra using \eqref{eqregul} and the definitions of the operators above, it can be shown that \eqref{eqest1} is equivalent to the expression given in \eqref{eqest}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem1}
The choice $\KK$ in \eqref{eqchoicek} is adopted from \cite{seong2021functional} concerning the FFR model. Based on this choice, we study the asymptotic properties of our estimator. Of course, with only a minor modification, it is possible to extend the desired asymptotic results, which will be discussed, under an alternative choice of $\KK$, such as $\KK = m + \max_{j\geq 1}\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for some finite $m$, if necessary. This choice may be preferred when researchers want to retain at least $m$ eigenelements for estimation. The case with $m=1$ also has some theoretical justification, given that we need at least one eigenelement for the proposed estimator to be well defined for every $T$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Consistency and local asymptotic normality}\label{sec_app_est_2}
This section examines the consistency and local asymptotic normality of the proposed estimator, both of which are fundamental to our empirical analysis in Section \ref{Sec_Empirics}. For simplicity, we consider the case where \( y_t \), \( X_t \), and \( Z_t \) have zero means, reducing the regression model \eqref{eqreg1} to \( y_t = f(X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t \). Under this assumption, the population (e.g., \( C_{XZ} \)) and sample covariance operators (e.g., \( \widehat{C}_{XZ} \)) introduced in Section \ref{sec_method} are naturally interpreted as being defined without centering or demeaning the associated variables. As discussed by \cite{seong2021functional}, extending the subsequent results to cases where the means are unknown and must be estimated requires only minor modifications, such as replacing variables with their centered or demeaned counterparts. Consequently, we omit these details.
%the consistency and local asymptotic normality to be established remain unchanged with or without this simplification.
\subsubsection{Assumptions and main results}
It turns out that $ C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast $ are compact operators (see \citealp{Bosq2000}, p.\ 117). We thus hereafter let
\begin{equation}
C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 g_j \otimes g_j, \quad C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 h_j \otimes h_j,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_j$, $g_j$, and $h_j$ are relevant eigenelements (see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}). Let $C_{ZZ}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes Z_t]$, $C_{uu}=\mathbb{E}[u_t\otimes u_t]$ and $C_{Zu}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]$. We define $\widehat{C}_{ZZ}$, $\widehat{C}_{uu}$ and $\widehat{C}_{Zu}$ be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{ZZ}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes Z_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{uu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T u_t\otimes u_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{Zu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes u_t,
\end{equation}
which may be understood as the sample counterparts of $C_{ZZ}$, $C_{uu}$ and $C_{Zu}$. We employ the following assumptions: below, $\mathfrak{F}_t$ denotes the natural filtration given by $\sigma(\{Z_s\}_{s\leq t+1}, \{u_s\}_{s\leq t})$ and let $\tau_j = 2\sqrt{2} \max\{ (\lambda_{j-1}^2-\lambda_j^2)^{-1}, (\lambda_{j}^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2)^{-1} \}$ as in \cite{seong2021functional}.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum1}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item Equation \eqref{eqreg2} holds; \item $\{X_t,Z_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is stationary and geometrically strongly mixing, $\mathbb{E}[\|X_t\|^2] < \infty$, and $\mathbb{E}[\|Z_t\|^2] < \infty$; \item $\mathbb{E}[u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=0$, $\mathbb{E}[u_t \otimes u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=C_{uu}$, and $\sup_{1\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}[\|u_t\|^{2+\delta}|\mathfrak F_{t-1}] < \infty$ for some $\delta>0$; \item $\sum_{j=1}^\infty |f(b_j)|^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{b_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ of $\mathcal H$; \item $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ}-{C}_{XZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{ZZ}-{C}_{ZZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{Zu}-{C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and $\|\widehat{C}_{uu} - C_{uu}\|_{\HS}= o_p(1)$; \item $\ker C_{XZ}=\{0\}$; \item \label{eq001a1}$\lambda_1^2 > \lambda_2^2 > \cdots > 0$; \item $T^{-1}\alpha^{-1} \to 0$ and $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \to_p 0$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum1} are adapted from Assumptions M and E of \cite{seong2021functional} studying the FFR model, and similar assumptions have been employed in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{Hall2007}). Condition \ref{eq001a1} is a technical requirement that $\alpha$ decay at an appropriate rate depending on the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $T$. This subtle requirement on $\alpha$ may be relaxed if some additional (but still standard in the literature on the functional linear model) assumptions are employed, which will be discussed later in this section. %it is common to assume that $\lambda_j^2 - \lambda_{j+1}^2$ is eventually convex and bounded above by $O(j^{\gamma})$ for some $\gamma > 3$ (see Assumption 2 below and also Assumption E2 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). In this case, $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\KK4)$ the assumption
We then present the following consistency result, which details Proposition \ref{prop1} given in Section \ref{Sec_Model}:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop1a}
Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}, $\|\hat{f} - f\|_{\op} \to_p 0$.
\end{proposition}
We next obtain the local asymptotic normality result \eqref{eqlocal} for any specified $\zeta \in \mathcal H$. To this end, we employ the following assumptions: below, we let $\upsilon_{t}(j,\ell) = \langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle -\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle]$ for $j,\ell \geq 1$ and $\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle \tilde{\zeta}, {C}_{ZZ} \tilde{\zeta} \rangle$, where $\tilde{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle {g}_j,\zeta \rangle {C}_{XZ}({g}_j)$.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum2} For some $c_\circ>0$, $\rho>2$, $\varsigma>1/2$, $\delta_{\zeta}>1/2$ and $m>1$, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\lambda_j^2 \leq c_\circ j^{-\rho}$; \item $\lambda_j^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2 \geq c_\circ j^{-\rho-1}$; \item $|f(g_j)| \leq c_\circ j^{-\varsigma}$; \item $\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t(j,\ell)\upsilon_{t-s}(j,\ell)] \leq c_\circ s^{-m}\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t^2(j,\ell)]$ for $s\geq 1$, and furthermore, $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle X_t,g_j \rangle Z_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$ and $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle Z_t,h_j \rangle X_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$; \item $\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle \leq c_\circ j^{-\delta_{\zeta}}$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The above assumptions are obvious adaptation of the conditions given by \cite{Hall2007} and \cite{seong2021functional}, which seem to be standard in the literature. Particularly, \cite{seong2021functional} established useful asymptotic results for the FFR model under Assumption \ref{assum2}, which are also used for our estimator. In fact, if Assumption \ref{assum2} is additionally satisfied, the consistency result given in Proposition \ref{prop1} can be established with $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$ without requiring Assumption \ref{assum1}\ref{eq001a1}; this follows directly from Theorem 3 of \cite{seong2021functional}, and extending this result from the FFR model to the DSR model is straightforward. In order to establish the local asymptotic normality result, we need more conditions, which are stated below:
\begin{assumption}\label{assum3}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\alpha^{-1} = o(T^{1/3})$; \item \label{assum3b} $\varsigma + \delta_{\zeta} > \rho/2+2$, $2\delta_{\zeta} \geq \rho+1$ and $T \alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho} = O(1)$; \item\label{assum3c} ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption} Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3b} particularly requires $f$ and $\zeta$ to be sufficiently smooth with respect to the eigenvectors $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ so that the entire map or element can be well approximated by those eigenvectors; this is a standard requirement in asymptotic analysis in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{seong2021functional} and reference therein). Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3c} requires a certain quantity depending on $\zeta$ to diverge to infinity. This condition is expected to be satisfied for many possible choices of $\zeta$ (see Section 3.2 of \citealp{Carrasco2007}; Remark 4 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). We obtain the desired asymptotic normality result under this requirement. However, it turns out that even if such a smoothness condition is not satisfied, a weaker version of \eqref{eqlocal}, with $f(\zeta)$ being replaced by $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, still holds as long as $\alpha$ decays at a sufficiently slow rate. This allows for statistical inference on $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$. As discussed by \citet[Section 3.2]{seong2021functional}, $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ may be understood as the best linear approximation of $\zeta$ based on the covariation of $X_t$ and $Z_t$, thus this weaker result still provides interpretable insights for practitioners.
The desired asymptotic normality result is given as follows:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop2} Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (y_t-\hat{f}(X_t))$ and $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{proposition}
With some algebra, it can be shown that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, as given in Proposition \ref{prop2} can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta2}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t\rangle\right)^2,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to \eqref{eqtheta} without demeaning the variables.
\subsubsection{Mathematical proofs}
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop1a}}
Using \eqref{eqreg2} and the expression given in \eqref{eqest1}, the proposed estimator $\hat{f}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{f} = \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} + \widehat{C}_{Zu} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag, \label{eq:b0}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat \Pi_{\KK}= \sum_{j=1} ^{\KK} \widehat g_j \otimes \widehat g_j$ as earlier introduced.
%Under our assumptions, we apply the central limit theorem for strongly mixing sequences (see, e.g., \citeauthor{heyde1974central}, \citeyear{heyde1974central}) and for martingale difference sequences to find that
% $ T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\langle x_t,w_1 \rangle \langle z_t,w_2 \rangle - \langle \mathcal C_{xz} w_1, w_2 \rangle \right) $ and $T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle $ converge in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1,w_2 \in \mathcal H$.
% \begin{align}\label{pfresult2}
% \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle
% \end{align}
%converges in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1$ and $w_2$.
% Then, by applying Theorem 3 of \citet[Chapter 1]{skorohod2001}, it can be shown that
% \begin{align}
% \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T (x_t \otimes z_t - \mathcal C_{xz}) = O_p(1)\quad\text{and}\quad \quad \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T z_t \otimes u_t = O_p(1); \label{eqcltref}
% \end{align}
% see also Lemma A.1 of \cite{seo2020functional}.
As shown in the proof of Theorem 1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, we have $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq \alpha^{-1/2}$ and $\|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}. Consequently, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|\widehat{f} - f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS} \|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
\end{equation}
We hereafter assume that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ consists of an orthonormal basis; this can simply be achieved by assigning an appropriate vector to each zero eigenvalue with no loss of generality (see e.g., the proof of Lemma A.1 of \citealp{seo2024optimal}). From the properties of the operator norm and that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ is an orthonormal basis, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} -f\|_{\op} \leq \sum_{j=1}^\infty \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f\hat({g}_j)\|.
\end{equation}
Thus the proof becomes complete if $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\hat{g}_j -f\hat{g}_j\| \to_p 0$ is shown. From
% \begin{equation} \label{eqpf0006add2wadd0}
% \|\widehat{\mathcal A}- \mathcal A \widehat{\Pi}_{\K}\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
% \end{equation}
%the following can be shown by
nearly identical arguments used to derive (8.63) of \cite{Bosq2000}, %and (S2.2) of \cite{seong2021functional},
we find that %and the property of the operator norm such that $\Vert \cdot \Vert_{\op} \leq \Vert \cdot \Vert_{\HS}$:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f({g}_j)\|^2 + O_p(1)\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j.\label{eqpf0006add2wadd}
\end{equation}
Since $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f(g_j)\|^2 < \infty$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}, $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \| f(g_j)|^2$ converges in probability to zero as $T$ gets larger (note that $\KK$ diverges as $T \to \infty$). In addition,
$
\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}\|_{\op} + \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast- C_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\| C_{XZ}\|_{\op} = O_p(T^{-1/2})$ as shown by (S2.3) of \cite{seong2021functional}. Combining all these results, we find that \eqref{eqpf0006add2wadd} is $o_p(1)$ as desired. \qed
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop2}}
With some algebra, we find that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}$ in \eqref{eqtheta} can equivalently expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle.
\end{equation}
Let ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$. From Theorem 4 (with its proof and Remark 10) of \cite{seong2021functional}, we find that Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3} lead us to the following:
\begin{equation} \label{eqconv1}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}(\zeta)-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1).
\end{equation}
Note that $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}(\zeta)\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta))$ can be written as $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (A_1+A_2+A_3+A_4)$, where $A_1 = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_2 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_3 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(g_j)$, and $A_4 = f(\Pi_{\KK}-I) \zeta$, where $\Pi_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} g_j \otimes g_j$ and $g_j^s = \sgn \langle g_j, \hat{g}_j \rangle g_j$. Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}, it is shown by \cite{seong2021functional} (see (S2.11), (S2.16) and (S2.33)) that $\KK = O_p(\alpha^{-1/\rho})$ and
\begin{align}
\|f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)\|^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{\rho+2-2\varsigma},\\
\langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}+2 + \rho}.
\end{align}
Combining these results with the conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum3}, it can be shown with nearly identical arguments used in \cite{seong2021functional} that $\|A_1\|, \|A_2\|$ and $\|A_3\|$ are all $O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and, moreover,
\begin{equation}
\|A_4\|^2\leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle f(g_j) \|^2 %\leq\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}} \|f(g_j) \|
\leq O(1)\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma} = O((\KK+1)^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma+1})= O(\alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho}),
\end{equation}
where the first equality follows from the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula for the Riemann zera-function (see e.g., (5.6) of \citealp{ibukiyama2014euler}).
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqconv2}
\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) = O_p(1/\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}) + O(T^{-1/2}\alpha^{(\varsigma+\delta_{\zeta}-1/2)/\rho} /\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}).
\end{equation}
Under Assumption \ref{assum3}, the above is $o_p(1)$.
It remains to show that $|\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)- \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)| \to_p 0$ and replacing $ \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)$ with $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ does not affect the results given in \eqref{eqconv1} and \eqref{eqconv2}. This follows from arguments nearly identical to those used in the proof of Theorem 2 in \cite{seong2021functional}, and thus the details are omitted.
%From this result, we find that, if $f$ and $\zeta$ are smooth enough with respect to $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ (and thus $\varsigma$ and $\delta_{\zeta}$) are large enough, $\alpha$ is allowed to $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{document}
\documentclass[11pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,amsfonts,amstext,upgreek}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{mathtools}
%\usepackage[longnamesfirst]{natbib}
\usepackage{natbib}
% \bibpunct[, ]{(}{)}{,}{a}{}{,}%
\def\bibfont{\small}%
\def\bibsep{\smallskipamount}%
\def\bibhang{24pt}%
\def\newblock{\ }%
\def\BIBand{and}%
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{cancel}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttable}
\appto\TPTnoteSettings{\linespread{1}\footnotesize} % small text if *not* flushleft
\makeatletter %small text if flushleft
\g@addto@macro\TPT@defaults{\linespread{1}\footnotesize}
\makeatother
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\sisetup{group-digits = true,
group-separator = {,}, % default: \, (thinspace)
round-mode = places,
round-precision = 3 }
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{thrmappendix}
\usepackage{alltt}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{accents}
%\usepackage{hypernat}
\usepackage{mathtools,dsfont}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\definecolor{blue(pigment)}{rgb}{0.2, 0.2, 0.6}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
filecolor=magenta,
urlcolor=cyan,
citecolor=blue(pigment),
}
\usepackage[capitalize,noabbrev]{cleveref}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage[inline,shortlabels]{enumitem}
\newtoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}\toggletrue{SUPPLEMENTAL}
\togglefalse{SUPPLEMENTAL} %COMMENT OUT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
\newcommand{\Supplemental}[2]{\iftoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}{#1}{#2}}
\newtoggle{BLINDED}\toggletrue{BLINDED}
\togglefalse{BLINDED} %COMMENT OUT FOR BLINDED VERSION
\newcommand{\Blinded}[2]{\iftoggle{BLINDED}{#1}{#2}}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.8in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.01in}
\newcommand{\nn}{\text{norm}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\text{extr}}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newtheorem{axi}{Axiom}[section]
\renewcommand{\theassumption}{A\arabic{assumption}}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[]
\newtheorem{lemma}[]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[]
\newtheorem{example}{Example}[]
\newcommand{\pconv}{\xrightarrow{p}}
\newcommand{\dconv}{\xrightarrow{d}}
\newcommand{\avgt}{\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T}
\newcommand{\avgn}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}}
\newcommand{\tr}{^{\top}}
\newcommand{\KK}{{\rm K}}
\newcommand{\HH}{{\rm F}}
\newcommand{\PP}{{\rm P}}
\newcommand{\QQ}{{\rm Q}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\DeclareMathOperator{\op}{op}
\newcommand{\ASD}[1]{\{\scalebox{0.85}{$\hspace{-0.1em}#1\hspace{-0.1em}$}\}}
\crefformat{footnote}{#2\footnotemark[#1]#3} %cleveref
\crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\Crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{equation}{}{}
\Crefname{equation}{Equation}{Equations}
%
\crefformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}
\crefrangeformat{enumi}{(#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\crefmultiformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
\Crefformat{enumi}{Part (#2#1#3)}
\Crefrangeformat{enumi}{Parts (#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\Crefmultiformat{enumi}{Parts (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
%
\crefname{assumption}{}{}
\Crefname{assumption}{Assumption}{Assumptions}
\newcommand{\creflastconjunction}{, and\nobreakspace} %Oxford comma
\newcommand{\crefrangeconjunction}{--}
\DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `dirname #1`/`basename #1 .tif`.png}
\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.png}
\graphicspath{ {./Figures/} }
\newcommand{\citeposs}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}
\newcommand{\matf}[1]{#1} %matrix formatting
\newcommand{\vecf}[1]{#1} %vector formatting
% \newcommand{\matf}[1]{\underline{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}}} %matrix formatting
% \newcommand{\vecf}[1]{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}} %vector formatting
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{Var}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Cov}{Cov}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Corr}{Corr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\const}{const.}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ran}{ran}
\DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{rank}
\DeclareMathOperator{\spn}{span}
\DeclareMathOperator{\HS}{HS}
\newcommand{\Varp}[1]{\Var\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Covp}[1]{\Cov\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Corrp}[1]{\Corr\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\WP}{\textrm{ w.p.\ }}
\newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{\Hnull}{{\mathbb H}_0}\newcommand{\Halt}{{\mathbb H}_1}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sgn}{sgn}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{E}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{Q}
\let\Pr\relax \DeclareMathOperator{\Pr}{P} %comment out if Pr desired
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\plim}{plim}
\DeclareMathOperator{\1}{\mathds{1}}
\newcommand{\Ind}[1]{\1\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\Normal}{\mathrm{N}}
\newcommand{\Normalp}[2]{\Normal\left(#1,#2\right)}
\newcommand{\BetaDist}{\textrm{Beta}}
\newcommand{\DirDist}{\textrm{Dir}}
\newcommand{\UnifDist}{\textrm{Unif}}
\newcommand{\weaklyto}{\rightsquigarrow}
\newcommand{\diff}{d} %differential operator: easy to change to upright if needed.
%(partial) derivatives:
\newcommand{\pD}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
\newcommand{\pDD}[2]{\frac{\partial^2 #1}{\partial #2^2}}
\newcommand{\D}[2]{\frac{\diff #1}{\diff #2}}
\newcommand{\DD}[2]{\frac{\diff^2 #1}{\diff #2^2}}
\newcommand{\independenT}[2]{\mathrel{\rlap{$#1#2$}\mkern2mu{#1#2}}}
\newcommand\independent{\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}}
\newcommand{\indep}{\independent}
\providecommand{\absbig}[1]{\left\lvert#1\right\rvert}
\providecommand{\normbig}[1]{\left\lVert#1\right\rVert}
\providecommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert}
\providecommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert}
\newcommand\commWK{\textcolor{blue}}
\newcommand\commKS{\textcolor{black}}
\newcommand\commnote{\textcolor{green}} %% make this invisible later
\newcommand{\ZZ}{\mathrm{Z}}
\newcommand{\zz}{z}
\let\originalleft\left
\let\originalright\right
\renewcommand{\left}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}
\renewcommand{\right}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}
\newcommand{\temden}{\phi}
\newcommand{\temcdf}{\\Phi}
%Bibliography spacing fix
\let\oldthebibliography=\thebibliography
\let\endoldthebibliography=\endthebibliography
\renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1]{%
\begin{oldthebibliography}{#1}%
\setlength{\parskip}{0ex}%
\setlength{\itemsep}{0ex}%
}%
{%
\end{oldthebibliography}%
}
% \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\roman{enumi}}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\theenumi)}
\allowdisplaybreaks[3]
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\onehalfspacing
\title{Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity of Residential Electricity Demand: Evidence from a Distributional Regression Approach\thanks{We deeply appreciate Hyunjin Yang (KEPCO) and Sungro Lee (KOGAS) for generously providing residential electricity demand and local temperature data in the Republic of Korea. Kyungsik Nam's research was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2025.}}
% We deeply appreciate all valuable comments from ... and to participants of the ... for useful feedback.
\author{Kyungsik Nam\thanks{Assistant Professor, Division of Climate Change, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 17035, Republic of Korea. E-mail: \texttt{ksnam@hufs.ac.kr}}, \,\, Won-Ki Seo\thanks{Senior Lecturer, School of Economics, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: \texttt{won-ki.seo@sydney.edu.au}}}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\noindent We estimate the temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand during extreme temperature events using the distribution-to-scalar regression model. Rather than relying on simple averages or individual quantile statistics of raw temperature data, we construct distributional summaries—such as probability density, hazard rate, and quantile functions—to retain a more comprehensive representation of temperature variation. This approach not only utilizes richer information from the underlying temperature distribution but also enables the examination of extreme temperature effects that conventional models fail to capture. Additionally, recognizing that distribution functions are typically estimated from limited discrete observations and may be subject to measurement errors, our econometric framework explicitly addresses this issue. Empirical findings from the hazard-to-demand model indicate that residential electricity demand exhibits a stronger nonlinear response to cold waves than to heat waves, while heat wave shocks demonstrate a more pronounced incremental effect. Moreover, the temperature quantile-to-demand model produces largely insignificant demand response estimates, attributed to the offsetting influence of two counteracting forces.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{0.4\baselineskip}
\vfill
\noindent JEL Classification: C51, C53, Q41 \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Key words and phrases}: Functional regression, electricity demand, temperature sensitivity, distributional data
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\setcounter{page}{0} \thispagestyle{empty}
\baselineskip19.5pt
\pagenumbering{arabic}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newpage
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec_Intro}
\noindent Accurately estimating electricity demand during extreme weather events is vital for ensuring energy security and enhancing grid reliability. For energy practitioners and policymakers, precise demand estimation is crucial for balancing supply and demand, preventing power outages, and ensuring that the energy infrastructure can withstand increased loads during such critical periods. As climate change drives more frequent and severe weather events, the importance of precise demand estimation has grown significantly, making it a cornerstone of sustainable energy management.
%WKNOTE: Grid reliablity? Must be something in the literature.
\indent The relationship between temperature and electricity demand is inherently nonlinear, as demand typically rises sharply during hot or cold conditions. Traditional approaches to modeling this relationship rely on nonlinear temperature variables such as Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD). However, these methods have notable limitations, including the need to arbitrarily define threshold temperatures. To address this limitation, nonlinear econometric models or density-based approaches that incorporate the full temperature distribution as an explanatory variable have been investigated. These methodologies effectively capture the seasonal dynamics of electricity demand while allowing the threshold temperature to be estimated endogenously within the model.
\indent Nonetheless, unexpected spikes in electricity demand during extreme temperature events present critical challenges for grid stability, necessitating more advanced econometric modeling techniques. Residential electricity demand, in particular, exhibits heightened sensitivity to temperature extremes, increasing unpredictably under such conditions. Existing nonlinear and density-based econometric approaches often fail to adequately capture these nonlinear demand responses, leading to significant underestimation during critical periods. As climate change amplifies temperature extremes, reassessing and refining demand estimation methodologies is essential for ensuring grid stability and optimizing operational efficiency.
\indent Beyond the inherent challenges of modeling nonlinear temperature-demand relationships, a significant source of error arises from measurement and estimation inaccuracies. In particular, constructing a representative temperature regressor from high-frequency or regional raw data introduces estimation errors, leading to biased and inconsistent demand response estimates. Additionally, the density-based approach assumes that nonparametrically estimated temperature distributions represent true distributions. This assumption further amplifies estimation bias, as errors in the temperature distribution can distort demand response projections. These errors are particularly problematic during extreme temperature events, where precise demand forecasting is crucial for ensuring energy security and grid stability.
\indent Building on the foundational work of \cite{engle1986semiparametric}, a substantial body of literature has applied the cointegration framework for analyzing electricity demand, with noticeable contributions from \cite{engle1989merging}, \cite{silk1997short}, \cite{beenstock1999demand}, \cite{chang2014time}, \cite{chang2016disentangling}, and \cite{chang2021forecasting}, among others. Subsequently, the literature has focused on incorporating nonlinear temperature variables, such as HDD and CDD, or employing nonlinear econometric methods to evaluate the impact of temperature fluctuations on electricity demand, including \cite{sailor1997sensitivity}, \cite{henley1997non}, \cite{henley1998residential}, \cite{valor2001daily}, \cite{pardo2002temperature}, and \cite{apadula2012relationships}. In particular, smooth transition, panel threshold, and switching regression models have been employed to capture nonlinear demand responses (\citealp{moral2005modelling}; \citealp{bessec2008non}). The nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature has been further explored through various advanced methodologies. Notably, artificial neural networks have been applied to improve load forecasting accuracy (\citealp{teixeira2017}; \citealp{caro2020}; \citealp{sharma2020}), while machine learning approaches have been employed to enhance short-run demand predictions (\citealp{al2019short}; \citealp{sultana2022}).
\indent Rather than analyzing the overall effects of weather variables, recent literature has increasingly focused on the impact of extreme temperatures on peak electricity demand. Early studies employed seasonal autoregressive moving average models with conditional heteroskedasticity to model fluctuations in peak demand (\citealp{sigauke2011prediction}; \citealp{rallapalli2012forecasting}). Later research incorporated tail-quantile estimation and extreme value theory to improve the accuracy of predicting extreme peak demand (\citealp{sigauke2013extreme}; \citealp{chan2015extreme}; \citealp{sigauke2017modelling}; \citealp{sigauke2020modelling}). More recently, density-based functional approaches have emerged to analyze these extreme effects across sectors, providing deeper insights into the nonlinearity between temperature and electricity demand (\citealp{chang2016new}; \citealp{miller2022modeling}).
\indent Compared to the existing literature, we investigate distribution-to-scalar regression models that effectively account for the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand, even in the presence of measurement errors and extreme temperature events—an aspect that has not been comprehensively explored. By addressing the complexities introduced by measurement errors, our approach provides a more robust estimation, setting it apart from traditional techniques that may overlook these critical factors. Furthermore, our approach differs significantly from existing studies by focusing on the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand to changes in temperature distribution, rather than just temperature levels. This allows for a more comprehensive analysis, capturing the broader distributional effects of temperature fluctuations, particularly during extreme temperature events.
\indent Accordingly, we incorporate both density and hazard rate functions, each offering distinct advantages, to construct a comprehensive analytical framework. The density-based approach provides direct interpretability within a compositional data framework, facilitating a clear assessment of temperature's impact on electricity demand across the entire temperature distribution. In contrast, the hazard rate is particularly well-suited for analyzing extreme temperature events, as it incorporates the conditional probability of such occurrences to some extent, thereby enhancing the precision of demand estimations under extreme conditions. %Additionally, we examine the quantile-to-demand model, which is a popular approach as a way to use distributional information and also %which may be effective in capturing heterogeneous support within the temperature distribution but
% conceptually aligns with other distributional predictors.
To ensure that distributional information is properly incorporated into our econometric framework (see Section \ref{sec_method_1}), we will consider relevant transformations of the temperature densities and hazard rates.
% In this paper, we will consider the Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) and log-hazard-type transformations of temperature distributions as functional data, ensuring that
For comparison, we additionally consider the quantile-to-demand model, which is not only a popular approach for utilizing distributional information (see, e.g., \citealp{yang2020quantile}) but also aligns conceptually with density- or hazard-based models. %Notably, these methodologies have not been compared in the existing literature.
\indent The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec_method} outlines the econometric methodology used to estimate the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand while addressing measurement errors. Section \ref{Sec_Data} describes the residential electricity demand and local temperature data from the Republic of Korea. Section \ref{Sec_Empirics} presents the empirical temperature response functions based on density-, hazard-, and quantile-based approaches under hypothetical scenarios and two historical extreme temperature events. This section also includes a discussion of the estimation results derived from these three distributional predictors. Finally, Section \ref{Sec_conclude} provides concluding remarks, with proofs provided in the Appendix.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Econometric methodology}\label{sec_method}
%\subsection{Distributional predictors and measurement errors}
\subsection{Distributional predictors}
\label{sec_method_1}
We let $y_t$ represent electricity demand, a practical measurement of which for our empirical study is detailed in Section \ref{Sec_Data}, and let $X_t^\circ$ be a function that summarizes the distributional properties of temperature. A possible (and popular) candidate for $X_t^\circ$ may be the probability density function (PDF) of temperature, denoted hereafter $\temden_t$. However, as well documented in the literature, directly using the PDF as a predictor is not advisable in applications of statistical methods developed within a standard Hilbert space setting for functional data analysis. As proposed by \cite{petersen2016}, we thus consider appropriate transformations of $\temden_t$. % which are known to be
There are various potential choices for $X_t^\circ$, but in this paper, we mainly focus on the following: (i) the Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation and (ii) the Log-Hazard-Rate (LHR) transformation of $\temden_t$. Assuming that the PDF of temperature, $\temden_t$, is supported on $[a,b]$, the CLR transformation $X_t^\circ$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqclr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log \temden_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \log \temden_t (s) ds, \quad r\in [a,b].
\end{equation}
Under some mathematical conditions on the underlying PDF $\temden_t$, the transformation from $\temden_t$ to its CLR not only embeds the probability densities on $[a,b]$ into a linear subspace of the $L^2[a,b]$-Hilbert space (the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions on $[a,b]$) but also is invertible; see e.g., \cite{Egozcue2006} and \cite{Boogaart2014}. It is known that the inverse CLR transformation is given by $X_t^\circ (r) \mapsto \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) \big/ \int_{a}^b \exp(X_t^\circ (r)) dr$ for $r \in [a,b]$, which recovers $\temden_t$. The CLR transformation of $\temden_t$ has been considered a standard choice in models involving distributional functional data, as discussed in several recent articles to be mentioned shortly.
As an alternative, the LHR transformation of $\temden_t$ is given as follows: for some small positive $\delta>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqlhr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log \left(\frac{\temden_t(r)}{1-\Phi_t(r)}\right) , \quad r\in [a,b-\delta],
\end{equation}
where $\Phi_t(s)$ is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) given by $\Phi_t(s)=\int_{0}^s \phi_t(r)dr$. Note that $h_t(r)=\phi_t(r)/(1-\Phi_t(r))$ is the so-called hazard rate of $\phi_t$ and for this to be well defined, we need to restrict the support into $[a,b-\delta]$ for some small positive $\delta$. It is known that the LHR is also invertible transformation of $\phi_t$ into a linear space (see \citealp{petersen2016}).
It appears to be more common to consider the CLR transformation or its similar alternatives in the literature on density-valued functional data (see, e.g., \citealp{kokoszka2019forecasting, SEO2019, seong2021functional}), and this is partly a reason that we also consider it in the present paper. On the other hand, cases using the LHR transformation seem scarce in the literature, to the best of the authors' knowledge, except for \cite{petersen2016}, who proposed the LHR as a way to avoid potential issues when directly using the PDF. %, as is common in more conventional literature.
As a slight and obvious modification of the LHR, we define the following, obtained by replacing the hazard rate ($\phi_t(r)/(1-\Phi_t(r))$) with the reversed hazard rate (see \citealp{block1998reversed}), defined by $\phi_t(r)/\Phi_t(r)$, as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqrlhr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log \left(\frac{\phi_t(r)}{\Phi_t(r)}\right), \quad r\in [a+\delta,b].
\end{equation}
We hereafter call the above as the Log-Reversed-Hazard-Rate (LRHR) transformation.
%Suppose that the temperature PDF was changed from $\phi_{\text{pre}}$ into $\phi_{\text{post}}$ by a certain perturbation given to the PDF, and their CLRs are given by $X^\circ_{\text{pre}}$ and $X^\circ_{\text{post}}$, respectively. Then in the CLR model, we can easily find the additive perturbation $\zeta$ corresponding to the perturbation given to the PDF (this is simply given by $\zeta = X^\circ_{\text{post}} - X^\circ_{\text{pre}}$; see Section \ref{Sec_Empirics}), in the CLR domain, and thus can analyze the effect of the perturbation as $f(\zeta)$. Similarly in the LHR (resp.\ LRHR) model, we can analyze the effect of any perturbation applied to the hazard rate (resp.\ reversed hazard rate). Thus, there is no significant difference in implementation of statistical inference in these three models.
In the sequel, we will consider a functional linear model connecting the electricity demand $y_t$ with the distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$. It is worth noting that while the CLR, LHR, and LRHR transformations characterize the temperature distribution, they differ in how they summarize distributional information. In the CLR model, the distributional predictor is fully characterized by the PDF $\phi_t(s)$, which can be approximated as the average change of the distribution function of temperature on a small interval $[s,s+\Delta)$ for small $\Delta>0$, i.e, $\phi_t(s)\approx \Delta^{-1}\mathbb{P}(s \leq S_t < s+\Delta)$, where $S_t$ denote the random variable of temperature level at time $t$. On the other hand, the hazard (resp.\ reversed) rate may be understood as ${\Delta}^{-1}{\mathbb{P}(s \leq S_t < s+\Delta | S_t \geq s)} = {\Delta}^{-1}{\mathbb{P}(s \leq S_t < s+\Delta)}/{\mathbb{P}(s \geq S_t)}$ (resp.\ $\Delta^{-1}{\mathbb{P}(s-\Delta < S_t \leq s | S_t\leq s)}={\Delta}^{-1}{\mathbb{P}(s \leq S_t < s+\Delta)}/{\mathbb{P}(S_t\leq s)}$). For any $s$, ${\mathbb{P}(S_t \geq s)}$ (resp.\ ${\mathbb{P}(S_t\leq s)}$) indicates the exposure probability of the temperature higher (lower) than $s$ at month $t$, and thus the hazard (resp.\ reversed hazard) rate, which we consider, may be understood as the PDF weighted by this exposure probability. If we consider any small density shock, which is particularly concentrated on the upper (lower) tail of the temperature PDF and hence may have a significant impact on the electricity demand,\footnote{We are mainly interested in the effect of extreme temperature events on electricity demand, and such events are expected to happen with low probability; thus those will only make small changes in the PDF in the lower or upper tails.} then the LHR (resp.\ LRHR) is much more responsive to this change than the PDF. It is thus expected that the model involving the LHR (resp.\ LRHR) may be more suitable for capturing and explaining the effect of extreme temperature events at high (resp. low) quantiles on electricity demand.
It also appears to be quite popular to consider the quantile function corresponding to $\phi_t$ in the literature on density-valued functional data (see e.g., \citealp{yang2020quantile}). We also briefly discuss this choice of distributional predictor in Section \ref{sec_more}.
%\footnote{To examine temperature sensitivity during extreme temperature events, it may be essential to consider the cumulative temperature effect. This phenomenon refers to a situation where prolonged exposure to high or low temperatures leads to increased demand for cooling or heating, respectively, even when the actual temperature level remains constant. Thus, a seemingly paradoxical rise in electricity demand may be attributed to extended periods of extreme temperatures, which exacerbate the need to maintain indoor temperature conditions. For instance, during a heatwave, electricity demand increases not only due to the immediate high temperatures but also because prolonged exposure to elevated temperatures intensifies cooling demand. In this context, the PDF, which reflects the relative frequency of temperatures without considering the aforementioned exposure probability, may have a lower tendency to comove with electricity demand, particularly during extreme temperature events. \label{foottem1}}
%\indent \commKS{To examine the temperature sensitivity during extreme temperature events, it is essential to consider the cumulative temperature effect. This phenomenon refers to the situation where prolonged exposure to high or low temperatures leads to increased demand for cooling or heating, respectively, even when the actual temperature level remains constant. This seemingly paradoxical rise in electricity demand can be attributed to extended periods of extreme temperatures, which exacerbate the need to maintain indoor climate conditions. For instance, during a heatwave, electricity demand increases not only due to the immediate high temperatures, but also because the prolonged exposure to elevated temperatures intensifies the cooling demand. In this context, the PDF alone, which reflects the relative frequency of temperatures across the entire temperature range, is insufficient to capture the sharp spikes in cooling demand associated with extreme temperature events. In contrast, an LHR-based distribution would more effectively capture this cumulative temperature effect. At fixed time $t$, this can be understood through the relationship:
%\[\Phi_t(r) + \Delta \phi_t(r) = \Phi_t(r + \Delta)\]
%where \( r \) represents a certain extreme high-temperature level. As such, \( X_t^\circ(r) \) would increase due to the positive PDF increment, \( \Delta \phi_t(r) \), across $r$. Given the exponentially increasing pattern of LHR during heatwaves, a higher value of \( X_t^\circ(r) \) indicates that in the corresponding month $t$, the probability of the temperature staying around $r$ is higher than for any temperature below $r$, thereby generating the cumulative temperature effect. This framework can be similarly applied to cold wave events. Just as for heatwaves, the LRHR-based distribution would more accurately capture the cumulative effect of cold temperatures, emphasizing how sustained periods of low temperatures increase heating demand.} %Thus, the LHR-based distribution more accurately reflects the increased electricity demand under extreme temperature conditions.}
\subsection{Measurement errors}
In practice, $\phi_t$ and $\Phi_t$ cannot directly be observed, and thus the distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$, considered in Section \ref{sec_method_1} is not observable. For empirical analysis, it must be constructed from the raw temperature data. For example, in the CLR case, we may replace $\phi_t$ or $\log \phi_t$ with its relevant nonparametric estimate in \eqref{eqclr} (as in \citealp{SEO2019}). However, this replacement necessarily introduces estimation/smoothing errors, and in this case, it is well known that standard estimation methods for functional linear models may lead to inconsistent estimation of the model; see \citet[Section 7]{Benatia2017}, \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}, and \cite{seong2021functional} for a more detailed discussion. Section \ref{sec_cons_dist} details how the distributional predictors used in our empirical analysis are constructed.
Subsequently, we discuss econometric methods for studying the distributional impact of temperature on electricity demand that are robust to these estimation/smoothing errors, which naturally exist, in the distributional predictor.
\subsection{Model and estimator} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some notation. We let $\mathcal H$ denote $L^2[a,b]$ (i.e., the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$) with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$, relevant to the subsequent discussion, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$ and $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$.\footnote{The linear map $f$ can equivalently be expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. In this paper, we focus on $f$ but the subsequent results can be rephrased for $k_f$ with only a minor modification.}
Equation \eqref{eqreg1} corresponds to the Function-to-Scalar Regression (FSR) model, which is widely discussed in the literature. Following the terminology used in conventional linear models, $f$ is typically referred to as the (functional) coefficient or slope parameter. However, in our context, since $f$ captures how the distributional properties of $X_t^\circ$ influence $y_t$, we refer to it as the distributional coefficient hereafter, and we refer to \eqref{eqreg1} as the Distribution-to-Scalar Regression (DSR) model.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{\phi_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $\phi_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature. Even if more detailed discussion can be found in recent articles (e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional}), it will be helpful to illustrate this issue with a concrete example for the subsequent discussion.
Suppose that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ represents the additive deviation of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t] = 0$. From \eqref{eqreg1}, we obtain the following relationship: \begin{equation} \label{eqreg2} y_t = \mu + f(X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t, \end{equation} where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$. Given that $X_t^\circ$ is unobserved, while $X_t$ is observable, practitioners will work with \eqref{eqreg2} rather than \eqref{eqreg1}. In \eqref{eqreg2}, however, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated (meaning that $\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x \rangle u_t] \neq 0$ for some $x\in \mathcal H$) and thus $X_t$ is endogenous.
As is well documented in the aforementioned articles, this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition ($\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,x\rangle u_t]=0$ for every $x\in \mathcal H$), inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid (see also \citealp{Benatia2017}).
To estimate the distributional coefficient $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference in our DSR model, which inevitably involves measurement errors, we adapt the functional IV estimator developed by \cite{seong2021functional} for Function-to-Function Regression (FFR) models to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional Instrumental Variable (IV), which satisfies the following:
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}(x)&:=\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t], x \rangle (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0 \quad \text{for some $x\in\mathcal H$},\\
C_{Zu}(x)&:=\mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x\rangle u_t]=0 \quad \text{for every nonzero $x\in\mathcal H$}. \label{eqreg3a} %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
$C_{XZ}$ (resp.\ $C_{Zu}$) defined above is called the (cross-)covariance operator of $X_t$ and $Z_t$ (resp.\ $Z_t$ and $u_t$). The conditions given in \eqref{eqreg3} and \eqref{eqreg3a} consist of only the minimal requirements for the IV $Z_t$ in our DSR model. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of the Appendix.
Assuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and that $X_t$ tends to exhibit time series dependence in the considered empirical model, we may let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor in our empirical analysis, as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}; this is also a special case of the IV considered in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle X_t-\bar{X}_T,x\rangle (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \langle Z_t-\bar{Z}_T,x \rangle (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $C_{XZ}^\ast$ (defined by $C_{XZ}^\ast(x) = \mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t],x \rangle(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, the composite map $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its nonnegative eigenvalues (hereafter denoted $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$) and the corresponding eigenvectors (denoted $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$). That is,
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} \hat{g}_j = \hat{\lambda}_j^2 \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation*}
where $\hat{\lambda}_1^2\geq \hat{\lambda}_2^2 \geq \ldots \geq 0$. The eigenelements of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \citet[pp.\ 117-118]{Bosq2000} and \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of the Appendix. If $\KK$ is determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator turns out to be viewed as a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of the Appendix for more detailed discussion). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts, $\widehat C_{Zy}$ and $\widehat C_{XZ}$, respectively, and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
%;\footnote{An alternative equivalent expression is $\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$.}
%Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
Through our study of the asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is presented without the mathematical details intentionally; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest to practitioners to inference on $f(\zeta)$, which may be understood as the effect of an additive distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$ on $y_t$. %\footnote{Assuming that $X_t^\circ$ changes to $X_t^\circ + \zeta$ by the additive perturbation $\zeta$, the effect on $y_t$ simply given by $f(X_{t}^\circ+\zeta) - f(X_t^\circ) = f(\zeta)$ due to the linearity of $f$.};
{Specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to various extreme temperature events and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following result, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, is established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u = T^{-1} \sum_{t=1}^T \hat{u}_t^2$ with $\hat{u}_t = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$ and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
The result \eqref{eqlocal} may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% If $X^\circ$ represents the distributional predictor, constructed from $\phi$,
% Noting that $f(X^\circ)$ may be understood as the integral transformation $f(X^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \psi_f(r) X^{\circ}(r) dr$ for some uniquely identified integral kernel $\psi_f$, which only depends on $f$. If $\zeta \in \mathcal H$ is any additive perturbation given to the distributional predictors, then its effect is given by
It is well known that $f(\zeta)$ for any $\zeta$ may be understood as the integral transformation %$f(X^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \psi_f(r) X^{\circ}(r) dr$ for some uniquely identified integral kernel $\psi_f$, which only depends on $f$. If $\zeta \in \mathcal H$ is any additive perturbation given to the distributional predictors, then its effect is given by
\begin{equation*}
f(\zeta) = \int_{a}^b \psi_f(r) \zeta (r) dr
\end{equation*}
for some uniquely identified function $\psi_f \in \mathcal H$. $\psi_f(s)$ is sometimes interpreted as the temperature effect when the distributional predictor $X^\circ$ hypothetically concentrated at a point $s$ (\citealp{chang2014time}). It might be of interest to practitioners to implement statistical inference on $\psi_f(s)$, but in our setup, it is not possible to implement direct statistical inference with a perturbation which is fully concentrated at a point.\footnote{In the standard $L^2[a,b]$-Hilbert space setting, such a function is essentially equivalent to the zero function.} However, it is, instead, possible to consider a weighted average of $\psi_f(s)$ near $s$. For example, if we let $\zeta_s(r) = w_h(|r-s|)/{\int_{a}^{b} w_h(|r-s|)dr}$, then statistical inference on the following quantity is feasible based on the asymptotic normality result \eqref{eqlocal}:
\begin{equation} \label{eqkernel}
f(\zeta_s) = \frac{\int_{a}^{b} w_h(|r-s|) \psi_f(r) dr}{\int_{a}^{b} w_h(|r-s|)dr} \eqqcolon \tilde{\psi}_f(s),
\end{equation}
where $w_h(|r-s|)$ is the standard kernel function defined near $s$ with bandwidth $h$. The above $\tilde{\psi}_f(s)$ is dependent on the choice of kernel function, but it may be understood as the local weighted average of $\psi_f$ near $s$ for any reasonable choice of the kernel function. We hereafter call $\tilde{\psi}_f(s)$ as the kernel-weighted temperature response function.
% It is well known that the response function $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ in \eqref{eqreg1} can be rewritten as
% \begin{equation}
% f(\cdot) = \langle \psi_f, \cdot \rangle,
% \end{equation}
% for some unique element $\psi_f \in \mathcal H$. $\psi_f$ may be called the total response function (TRF) in our case. $\psi_f(r)$ may approximately be understood as the temperature response when the distributional predictor $X^\circ$ hypothetically concentrated at a point $s$. According to (Park's paper here), $\psi_f$ may be called the total response function (TRF) in our case. However, it is not directly possible to implement statistical inference using our method for this hypothetical situation where there is a point mass at $s$.
%\subsection{TMP SECTION : WK WILL REWRITE}\label{Sec_addition}
% (WK: the PDF of temperature is about the rate of change of the marginal cdf while the hazard is the rate of change of the conditional cdf. If we consider $s$ which is away from the center of the distribution, the rate of change tends to be minor. However, the hazard function boost up the small rate of change far away from the center by considering the conditional probability. ... THus the LHR is expected to be more sensitively capture changes in the upper tails of the distributions...(?) While the LRHR is expected to be more sensitively capture changes in the lower tails of the distributions (?))
% Though the CLR, LHR and LRHR are different representations of the temperature distribution we can find a corresponding change making the LHR changed from $h_{\text{pre}}$ $\Delta \phi$ be a change in the probability density function. Then in the CLR model, we may consider the change in the CLR domain given by In the CLR model, we can consider any
% $P(S \in [s, s+\Delta]) = \phi(s) \Delta$\\
% $P(S \in [s, s+\Delta]|S> s) = h(s) \Delta$\\
% $P(S \in [s-\Delta, s]|S< s) = h(s) \Delta$
%Let $\phi$ (resp.\ $\Phi$) denote the temperature PDF (resp.\ CDF).
%Statistical inference can be made for this choice of $\theta_f(s)$.
%\begin{equation}
% f(X^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \theta_f(r) X^{\circ}(r) dr,
% \end{equation}
% where $\theta_f$ is the integral kernel corresponding to $f$. Then $\theta_f(r)$ may approximately be understood as the temperature response when the CLR $X^\circ$ hypothetically concentrated at $s$.
% \commWK{(POSSIBLE DIFFERENCES IN CLR, LHR and LRHR models)}
%If $\zeta_s$ represents an additive perturbation given to the CLR of $\phi$, then the effect of this perturbation is given by
% \begin{equation}
% f(X^\circ + \zeta_s) - f(X^\circ) = f(\zeta_s) = \int_{a}^b \theta_f(r) \zeta_s (r) dr.
% \end{equation}
% If we let $\zeta_s = \eta^{-1} 1\{s \leq r <s+\eta\}$ for some small enough $\eta > 0$, then from the mean value theorem (WK note: smoothness condition requred),
% \begin{equation}
% f(\zeta_s) = \frac{1}{\eta}\int_{s}^{s+\eta} \theta_f(r) dr \approx \theta_h(s).
% \end{equation}
% \begin{equation}
% f(X^\circ + \zeta_s) - f(X^\circ) = f(\zeta_s) = \frac{1}{w(s+\eta)-w(\eta)}\int_{s}^{s+\eta} \theta_f(r) dw(r)
% \end{equation}
% \begin{equation}
% \theta_f(s) \approx f(\zeta_s).
% \end{equation}
% Thus $\theta_f(s)$ may be understood as the effect of a pertubation
% Then $\theta_f(r)$ may approximately be understood as the temperature response when the CLR $X^\circ$ stays
% Then $\theta_f(s)$ for $s\in [-20,40]$ may approximately be understood as the temperature response of electricity demand when the relatative density stays at level $s$.
% To be more specific, let $\phi$ (resp.\ $\Phi$) denote the temperature PDF (resp.\ CDF). If $X^\circ$ represents the CLR of $\phi$, then $f$ can be written as
% \begin{equation}
% f(X^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \theta_f(r) X^{\circ}(r) dr,
% \end{equation}
% thus $\zeta_s = 1\{0<s$ is perturbation given to $X^\circ$ near $s \in [-20,40]$, then the effect of this perturbation is given by $f(\zeta_s)$.
% If $f$ is smooth enough, then $f(s+\delta) \approx f(s) + \int_{s}^{s+\delta} f(r) dr$ and then Then the effect of this perturbation is given by $f(\zeta_s)$,
% then the function $f(s)$ in our DSR model, using the CLR predictor, quantifies the impact on electricity demand resulting from $1\%$ change in the relative density value at $s$.\footnote{For sufficiently small $\eta$, any change $\Delta X^{\circ}$ in the CLR can be approximated as
%\begin{equation}
% \Delta X^{\circ} := X^\circ (s+\eta) - X^\circ(s) \approx \frac{\phi(s+\eta)-\phi(s)}{\phi(s)} - \int_{a}^b \frac{\phi(s+\eta)-\phi(s)}{\phi(s)} dr,
%\end{equation}
%where the first term captures the change in relative density value at $s$, and the second term serves as a correction ensuring that the density after the change satisfies the unit integral constraint.}
%Denoting $S$ as a random variable representing temperature, $\Delta \phi(s)/\phi(s)$ can be approximated as follows for small $\eta > 0$:
%\begin{equation} \label{eqprob1}
%\mathbb{P}(S \in [s, s+\eta])/{\eta} \quad \text{or} \quad \mathbb{P}(S \in [s-\eta, s])/{\eta}.
%\end{equation}
% the quantity $f(s)$ in our DSR model using the CLR predictor measures the temperature effect on electricity demand when there is a small change $\Delta$ in the CLR $\Delta X^\circ$ of the temperature.\footnote{Strictly speaking, this is slightly different from the ordinary case where a marginal relative change $\Delta \phi_t(s)/\phi_t(s)$ at $\phi_t(s)$ is considered with all the other things fixed.
% In the CLR framework to deal with proper density-valued functional data, any marginal increase in the PDF near $s$ cannot occur independently since its occurrence means that the resulting density after the increase must violate the unit integral requirement of a proper density. We we consider in the CLR model is actually $\Delta \phi_t(r)/\phi_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \Delta \phi_t(r)/\phi_t(r) dr$, where the second term represents the correction made to satisfy the unit integral requirement. must involve decrease in the density values on the other region accordingly. More specifically, in the model with the CLR predictor, any change in $X_t^\circ$ is given by $\Delta X_{t}^\circ(r) \approx \Delta \phi_t(r)/\phi_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \Delta \phi_t(r)/\phi_t(r) dr$, where the second term reflects the correction made to satisfy the unit integral requirement.} It is straightforward to see that, for small enough $\Delta X^\circ$
% \begin{equation}
% \Delta X^\circ(s) \approx \frac{\Delta \phi(s)}{\phi(s)} - \int_{a}^b \frac{\Delta \phi(s)}{\phi(s)} dr,
% \end{equation}
% and this represent a relative change in the density value at $s$
% Let $\Delta X$, $\phi$ and $\Phi$, respectively, represent the transformation
% In the case with the CLR predictor, the quantity $f(s)$ in our DSR model approxiamtely measures the temperature effect on electricity demand when there is a small change $\Delta$ in the CLR of the temperature distribution, say $phi(s)$, at $s \in [-20,40]$, which is approximately
% \begin{equation}
% \Delta X^\circ(r) \approx \Delta \phi(s) / \phi(phi)
% \end{equation}$\Delta X_{t}^\circ(s)$ in $\Delta X_{t}^\circ(s)$ and it is obvious to see that
% \begin{equation} \label{eq001add}
% \Delta X_{t}^\circ(r) \approx \frac{\Delta \phi_t(r)}{\phi_t(r)} - \int_{a}^b \frac{\Delta \phi_t(r)}{\phi_t(r)} dr
% \end{equation}
% may be interpreted as the temperature effect on electricity demand when there exists $1\%$ change in the density value at $s$. That is, in this case, what we consider is a perturbation in the marginal PDF $\phi_t$, which can be approximated as follows: for small $\Delta > 0$,
% \begin{equation}
%\mathbb{P}(S \in [s, s+\Delta])/{\Delta},
% \end{equation}
% where $S$ represents the random variable of temperature.
%In the former (resp. latter) case $f(s)$ may be interpreted as the effect of a more relative occurrence of temperature $s$ or slightly higher (resp.\ lower). However, in practice, this may not be quite satisfactory for practitioners who want to study the temperature effect on extreme temperature conditions since it does not take the temperature conditions into account. For example, if we concern a high-temperature condition in practice, we are not very interested in the consequence of more relative occurrence of temperature $35$°C (or slightly higher) when the temperature is low (such as in non-Summer seasons), but more interested in more relative occurrence of it when the temperature is already high enough. Conversely, if we concern a low-temperature condition, we may be more interested in the consequence of more relative occurrence of a certain low temperature when the temperature is already low enough. In this aspect, the models using the LHR and LRHR have advantages.
%In the model involving the LHR (resp.\ LRHR), $f(s)$ measures the temperature effect of a small change in the log hazard rate (resp.\ log reverse hazard rate), with similar algebra, it is straightforward to see that $f(s)$ now measures the temperature effects of increase in the following quantities:
%\begin{equation} \label{eqprob2}
% \mathbb{P}(S \in [s, s+\eta] | S \geq s)/\eta %\text{and} \quad \mathbb{P}(S \in [s-\Delta, s] | X < s)/\Delta,
% \end{equation}
% in the LHR case and
%\begin{equation} \label{eqprob2}
% \mathbb{P}(S \in [s-\eta, s] | S \leq s)/\eta %\text{and} \quad \mathbb{P}(S \in [s-\Delta, s] | X < s)/\Delta,
% \end{equation}
% in the LRHR case. That is, in the former (resp.\ latter) case, $f(s)$ captures the temperature effect of more relative occurrence of temperature near $s$ conditional on $S\geq s$ (resp. $S\leq s$). We belive that these are more valuable information for practitioners. (\commWK{ADD 1-2 sentences about WHY (SOMETHING FROM EMPIRICAL PERSPECTIVE?})
% \commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)}.
\section{Data}\label{Sec_Data}
\subsection{Raw data and temperature densities} \label{Sec_Data_1}
\noindent To investigate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we analyze an extensive dataset that includes residential electricity demand (in GWh) and local temperature (in degrees Celsius) readings from the Republic of Korea. The dataset spans from January 1999 to December 2023, with 300 monthly observations. The residential electricity demand data is provided by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), the state-owned utility responsible for electricity sales across the country. Due to the inherent variability in the number of days within each month, we have normalized the raw monthly electricity demand by dividing it by the number of effective days per month. This adjustment produces a metric known as electricity demand per effective day, as discussed in \cite{chang2014time}, which underscores the importance of accounting for temporal differences in energy demand analysis.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth, width=0.8\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Y_Graph.png}
\caption{Natural log of residential electricity demand per effective day and its 12-month moving average (top), and their deviation process (bottom), from January 1999 to December 2023.}
\label{Fig:Y_Graphs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent \cite{chang2016new} found no empirical evidence suggesting that non-climate variables significantly influence the demand response to temperature in the residential sector. Building on this finding, and to isolate the short-run fluctuations in residential electricity demand, we calculate the deviation from the 12-month moving average of the natural logarithm of electricity demand per effective day, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Y_Graphs}. This deviation serves as a proxy for the short-run component of electricity demand, allowing us to focus on the short-run effects of temperature changes while filtering out the long-run effects of income and electricity price. By employing this detrending approach, we ensure that our analysis effectively captures the nonlinear responses of residential electricity demand to temperature fluctuations, independent of other non-climate factors (\citealp{chang2016new}).
%(heterogeneous support problem with density generation)
\indent To model the seasonality, we retrieve the hourly temperature data from the KMA National Climate Data Center.\footnote{Downloaded from https://data.kma.go.kr/cmmn/main.do on July 1, 2024.} We then construct the monthly temperature density function over the common support, $[-20,40]$, using hourly temperature observations from the five largest cities (Seoul, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan) covering the territory of the Republic of Korea.\footnote{Instead of estimating the range of the common support, we adopt the common support of $[-20,40]$ with a grid difference, $0.1$, as provided in the literature (\citealp{chang2014time}; \citealp{chang2016new}).} To represent the temperature density function of the Republic of Korea, we calculate the weighted average of the estimated time series for these five density functions, assigning weights based on the annual proportion of electricity sales in each of the five regions: the Seoul Metropolitan Area (Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi), Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan.\footnote{The combined annual electricity consumption of the five regions accounts for approximately 55.3\% of the national total on average during the period from 1999 to 2021. Due to data availability constraints, the proportions for the years 2022 and 2023 have been substituted with the values from 2021.}\footnote{The annual regional consumption data was obtained from the Korea Energy Statistics Information System (KESIS) and can be accessed at \url{https://www.kesis.net/sub/subChart.jsp?report_id=33150&reportType=0} (data downloaded on July 1, 2024).}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.4\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc0.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.55\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates of the temperature PDF in the Republic of Korea (left) and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics (right). The red lines indicate August 2017 and August 2018, while the blue lines represent January 2020 and January 2021.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip} illustrates the time series of temperature PDFs, estimated using Gaussian kernel and Silverman's rule of thumb bandwidth, and the dynamics of their descriptive statistics. Note that the generated monthly temperature PDFs exhibit significant heterogeneity, particularly between summer and winter. The time series of monthly temperature distributions in the Republic of Korea from 1999 to 2023 reveals stable seasonal cycles in the mean temperature, reflecting consistent annual patterns. However, the standard deviation indicates increasing variability, particularly post-2010, suggesting a growing spread in temperature values around the mean. The skewness exhibits seasonal fluctuations, with positive skewness during warmer months indicating a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, and negative skewness during colder months reflecting an increase in extreme low temperatures. However, this skewness does not show a clear trend of increasing asymmetry over time but rather indicates a recurring seasonal pattern. The kurtosis remains relatively stable but experiences significant spikes, particularly after 2010. These spikes suggest periods with more frequent and intense extreme temperature events. Thus, while the skewness reflects consistent seasonal variability, the spikes in kurtosis indicate a rise in temperature extremes, likely influenced by climate change.
\subsection{Construction of the distributional predictors} \label{sec_cons_dist}
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, distributional predictors in practice need to be estimated from the raw data. For the CLR transformations, we use the estimated densities, denoted hereafter as $\hat{\phi}_t$, obtained in Section \ref{Sec_Data_1} (see Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}), and construct $X_t$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqclr2} X_t(r) = \log \hat{\phi}_t(r) - \int_{-20}^{40} \log \hat{\phi}_t (s) ds.\footnote{As is common in the literature (see e.g., Section 5.2, \citealp{seoshang22}), a small value of $10^{-3}$ is added to the entire temperature density function $\hat{p}_t$ to implement the log transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.}
\end{equation}
For the model using the LRH and LRHR predictors, $X_t$ can be constructed as
\begin{equation}\label{eqlhr2}
X_t(r) = \log \left(\frac{\hat{\phi}_t(r)}{1-\widehat{\Phi}_t(r)}\right) \quad \text{and} \quad X_t(r) = \log \left(\frac{\hat{\phi}_t(r)}{\widehat{\Phi}_t(r)}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{\Phi}_t(r) = \int_{0}^{r} \hat{\phi}_t(s)ds$. However, in practical computation for the LHR predictor, instead of $1-\widehat{\Phi}_t(s)$, we take the maximum of a small positive constant ($10^{-3}$ in the subsequent analysis) and $1-\widehat{\Phi}_t(s)$ in \eqref{eqlhr2}, which is done to avoid the case where $1-\widehat{\Phi}_t(s)$ equals zero, and hence the hazard rate is undefined. The LRHR predictor is similarly constructed by taking the maximum of a small positive constant and $\widehat{\Phi}_t(s)$.\footnote{As an alternative, we also considered adding 0.001 to $1-\widehat{\Phi}_t(s)$ or $\widehat{\Phi}_t(s)$, but we found that the estimation results change little.} Note that this convenient method of constructing the LHR and LRHR results in the constructed predictors not perfectly matching their theoretical counterparts, \eqref{eqlhr} and \eqref{eqrlhr}. However, for our analysis, we only require that the constructed predictors serve as reasonable proxies, and thus, this does not invalidate the empirical results that will be discussed.
% we estimate it directly from the raw temperature data by replacing population quantiles with sample quantiles. Specifically, if \( x_{[j]} \) for \( j=1,\ldots,N_t \) are the ordered (smallest to largest) raw temperature observations at time \( t \), we define \[ X_t(r) = x_{[N_t r]} \quad \text{if \( N_t r \) is an integer,} \] for \( r \in [0,1] \). For \( r \in [0,1] \) where \( N_t r \) is not an integer, we employ a linear interpolation scheme to estimate values proportionally between neighboring data points.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Empirical Investigation}\label{Sec_Empirics}
\noindent In this section, we estimate the DSR model \eqref{eqreg2} with potential endogeneity, using the distributional predictors described in \eqref{eqclr2} and \eqref{eqlhr2}. % with $\hat{\phi}_t$ illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}.
For the computation of our estimator with finite samples, we represent the distributional predictor using 80 orthonormal Fourier basis functions on the support.\footnote{Moderate changes in the number of basis functions result in only minor numerical differences in the estimation results.} Noting that measurement errors mostly arise from smoothing \( X_t \) from its discrete realizations, we assume that these errors are serially uncorrelated. Under this assumption, and given that the sequence of \( X_t^\circ \) (and also \( X_t \)) is serially correlated, the lagged variable \( X_{t-\kappa} \) for \( \kappa \geq 1 \) may serve as a candidate IV for our empirical analysis. Similar approaches were previously adopted in \cite{Chen_et_al_2020} and \cite{seong2021functional} concerning dependent functional data. Since our approach relies on a high degree of dependence, where possible, of the IV on the endogenous distributional predictor \( X_t \), as in standard IV methods (see Section \ref{sec_app_est_1} for more details), it is not advisable to use a large value of \( \kappa \), as this could make \( X_{t-\kappa} \) only weakly correlated with \( X_t \). Therefore, we choose to set \( \kappa \) to 1. We believe that this selection allows us to account for potential errors in the density/quantile estimation process or data quality while enhancing the robustness and reliability of our analysis. Lastly, in our estimation procedure, $\KK$ (see \eqref{eqest}) is set to 3.\footnote{Following the results given in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of the Appendix and Remark \ref{rem1}, we set $\KK=1+\max_{j\geq 1}\{\tilde{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for $\alpha = 0.01 \times T^{-0.2}$, where $\tilde{\lambda}_j^2=\lambda_j^2/\sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2$ and this is to obtain a choice of $\KK$ which is independent of the scale of $X_t$ and $Z_t$; see Section S5 of \cite{seong2021functional}.} %Our estimator $\hat{f}$ is visualized in Figure \commWK{(SOMETHING)}.
\indent We hereafter focus on statistical inference regarding the impact of temperature events on electricity demand, given by $f(\zeta)$, where $\zeta$ denotes the distributional shocks applied to the distributional predictor. This quantity is estimated using our proposed estimator, $\hat{f}(\zeta)$, and is accompanied by an asymptotically valid confidence interval constructed based on the results in \eqref{eqlocal}. Taking advantage of the distributional flexibility of our DSR model, we examine hypothetical scenarios and two historical events for the specification of $\zeta$, as detailed in the following section.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Functional Shocks for Cold Wave and Heat Wave}\label{Sec_Est_Shocks}
\noindent In this paper, we present two temperature response functions. The first is the kernel-weighted temperature response function (see \eqref{eqkernel}), which serves as a benchmark and is similar to those estimated by \cite{chang2014time} and \cite{chang2016new}. It captures the point-wise temperature sensitivity across the extreme temperature domain. The second is derived from historical extreme temperature events. While the benchmark temperature response function provides intuitive insights into temperature sensitivity by isolating the effects of temperature changes from distributional shifts, the response function based on historical extreme events enhances the practical relevance of extreme temperature fluctuations.
\indent More specifically, the key distinction between these two approaches lies in their treatment of distributional changes. The analysis of historical extreme events explicitly accounts for shifts in the distribution as normal temperature distributions transition toward extreme ones. In contrast, the benchmark temperature response function hypothetically assumes that the temperature stays at a specified level without consideration of the distributional shift that appeared in the past. Although we provide representative cases of extreme temperature events, the specific distributional characteristics of past cold or heat waves may not necessarily recur. Therefore, the difference between the benchmark response function and the date-specific response function can be interpreted as the additional distributional effect unique to that date.
\indent To estimate the benchmark response function, $\tilde{\psi}_f(s)$ (see \eqref{eqkernel}), we employ Gaussian kernel, which is truncated on the support; more specifically, for each temperature level \( s \), $w_h(|r-s|)$ is defined as follows:
\[
w_h(|r-s|) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp\left\{-0.5\left(\frac{|r-s|}{h}\right)^2\right\} \times {1}\{ -20 \leq s \leq 40\},
\]
where the bandwidth \( h \) is set to span 15°C around \( s \) to align with the range of density increases observed in cold (17.3°C) and heat (12.2°C) wave shocks, as illustrated by the black lines of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}.
%The estimated the benchmark kernel-weighted temperature response function $\tilde{\psi}_f(s)$ (see \eqref{eqkernel}) is then interpreted as the weighted average of \( f \) around \( s \). However, near the endpoints of the domain \([-20,40]\), the standard Gaussian kernel integral (without adjustment by \( c_s \)) approaches 0.5, resulting in an improper weighted average for \( \hat{f}(g_s) \). To address this issue, we introduce \( c_s \) to adjust the kernel, ensuring accurate estimation of \( f(s) \) while slightly shifting the evaluation points away from the boundaries.
\indent For the response function based on historical extreme events, we consider two significant extreme weather events that occurred in the Republic of Korea during the sample period.\footnote{See e.g., \url{https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Hottest-Day-Korean-History} and \url{https://watchers.news/2021/01/11/historic-cold-wave-and-heavy-snow-hit-south-korea/}.} In August 2018, the Republic of Korea experienced one of its most intense heat waves on record, with temperatures soaring to an average of 29.2°C, the highest since record-keeping began in 1907. This extreme heat led to the residential electricity demand of 8,851.04 GWh during that month, underscoring the strain placed on the energy grid by cooling needs. Similarly, January 2021 was marked by a significant cold wave, with temperatures plunging to an average of -6.1°C, well below the seasonal norm. During this period, residential electricity demand also spiked to 7,163.28 GWh as households increased heating usage to cope with the severe cold.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.98\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock0.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates comparing January 2021 (solid) and January 2020 (dotted) on the left, and August 2018 (solid) and August 2017 (dotted) on the right, with the black lines representing their vertical differences.}
\label{Fig:Func_shock2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrates the year-over-year changes in monthly temperature PDFs associated with extreme weather events, specifically the heat wave of August 2018 and the cold wave of January 2021. In the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, the blue solid line represents the temperature PDF for January 2021, compared to the blue dashed line for January 2020, with the black line showing the (vertical) difference between the two PDFs, capturing the effect of the cold wave. Similarly, in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, the red solid line represents the temperature PDF for August 2018, while the red dashed line shows the temperature PDF for August 2017, with the black line indicating the difference between these two PDFs.
\indent The temperature distributions during the 2018 heat wave and the 2021 cold wave exhibit distinct shifts, indicative of extreme weather conditions. The August 2018 distribution is significantly right-skewed, suggesting a higher frequency of exceptionally high temperatures, with a pronounced right tail representing extreme heat events. In contrast, the January 2021 distribution is heavily left-skewed, highlighting the prevalence of unusually low temperatures, with a long left tail representing severe cold conditions. These graphs reveal significant changes in temperature distributions during these historical extreme events, illustrating how both the heat wave and cold wave deviated sharply from the typical conditions of the preceding months.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.54\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Shock_stat_change3.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.31\textwidth, width=0.45\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Shock_stat_change.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\caption{Temperature PDFs for heat waves and cold waves (left), showing the transition from the reference to event periods and the evolution of distributional statistics (right).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Our empirical analysis aims to provide practitioners with insights into the potential increase in future electricity demand when similar extreme temperature events occur. By understanding extreme temperature events as potential perturbations in the distributional predictor \( X_t \), we can estimate their impact on electricity demand. We henceforth refer to the function \( \zz_{\ee}(s) \), corresponding to the black line in the left (resp.\ right) panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, as the observed cold wave (resp.\ heat wave). This function is computed by subtracting \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) from \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \), where \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) denotes the reference (normal) temperature PDF in January 2020 (resp.\ August 2017), and \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) denotes the extreme temperature PDF in January 2021 for the cold wave (resp.\ August 2018 for the heat wave). Consequently, \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) = \ZZ_{\nn}(s) + \zz_{\ee}(s) \). %The effect of these heat and cold waves on electricity demand is given by \( f(\zeta_{\ee}) \) in our model, which is consistently estimated by \( \hat{f}(\zeta_{\ee}) \), obviously.
\indent Due to the flexibility of our model in the choice of potential perturbations, we may also consider fractions of these observed heat and cold waves and their effects on electricity demand; specifically, we let
\begin{equation} \label{eqfraction}
\zz_a(s) = a \times \zz_{\ee}(s), \quad a = \frac{1}{M}, \frac{2}{M}, \ldots, 1,
\end{equation}
for some large positive integer \( M \). Note that these fractions of observed heat or cold waves satisfy (i) \( |\zz_a(s)| \leq |\zz_{\ee}(s)| \) and (ii) \( \int_{-20}^{40} \zz_a(s) \, ds = 0 \) for all considered values $a$. Thus, adding these fractions of heat or cold waves to the reference PDF \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) results in a new PDF, hereafter denoted as \( \ZZ_a(s)\) (i.e., \(\ZZ_a(s) = \ZZ_{\nn}(s) + \zz_a(s)) \). Since the application of \( \zz_a(s) \) induces a globally more moderate shock compared to that of \( \zz_{\ee}(s) \), \( \ZZ_a(s) \) represent less extreme temperature conditions than the extreme temperature PDF \( \ZZ_{\ee}(s) \) observed in January 2021 for the cold wave or August 2018 for the heat wave. Thus, \( \zz_a(s) \) can be naturally interpreted as a possible, but less extreme, heat or cold wave. Observe also that, as $a$ grows, $\ZZ_a(s)$ constructed from $\zz_a(s)$ moves away from the normal temperature PDF ($\ZZ_{\nn}(s)$) and closer to the extreme temperature PDF ($\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$) by a constant functional increment $(1/M) \times \zz_{\ee}(s)$ at each step; the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} illustrates $\ZZ_a$ for a few selected values of $a$.
%(WKNOTE:DELETED) Further note that \( \zeta_{\ee}(s) \) illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} spans the range $[-20, 19]$ for cold waves, with a sign change at -2.7°C, and $[14, 40]$ for heat waves, with a sign change at 27.8°C. We estimate the temperature effect by examining the likelihood of temperatures within the range $[-20, -2.7]$ for cold waves and $[27.8, 40]$ for heat waves, where the likelihood follows an inverted U-shape. The maximum likelihood occurs at -7.4°C for cold waves and 33.4°C for heat waves. Subsequently, we identify nonlinearities by introducing functional shocks of varying magnitudes, $\zeta_m(s)$.
%(WKNOTE:DELETED) The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} shows the change in the first four standardized moments, caused by the considered fractions of heat and cold waves, during the transition of $\ZZ_a(s)$ from the reference PDF $\ZZ_{\nn}(s)$ to the extreme one $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$ in each scenario. As may well be expected from our construction of $\ZZ_a(s)$, the means of $\ZZ_a(s)$ linearly increase or decrease toward more extreme values ($26.02 \rightarrow 28.54$ in the heat wave scenario and $2.31 \rightarrow -1.53$ in the cold wave scenario) as $\ZZ_a(s)$ gets closer to $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$. On the other hand, other descriptive statistics shift in a nonlinear manner as $\ZZ_a(s)$ moves from $\ZZ_{\nn}$ to $\ZZ_{\ee}$. In the cold wave scenario, the variance increases substantially from January 2020 to January 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating a wider dispersion of temperatures in 2021. However, decreases in skewness ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$) and kurtosis ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$) suggest that the distribution becomes more symmetrical and less peaked, with fewer extreme cold events. In contrast, in the heat wave scenario, we observe a smaller increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), accompanied by rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$) and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), indicating a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth, width=0.42\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_Shock1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth, width=0.42\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_Shock2.png} \\
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth, width=0.42\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_Shock3.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth, width=0.42\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_Shock4.png}
\caption{Estimated LRHR and LHR functions for cold waves (top left) and heat waves (top right). The transition from the reference and event periods by functional LRHR and LHR shocks is depicted in the bottom panels.} %, transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines).}
\label{Fig:HtoD_Shocks}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Similarly, Figure \ref{Fig:HtoD_Shocks} illustrates the corresponding year-over-year changes in monthly temperature LRHR and LHR for these cold and heat wave events, respectively. Specifically, in January 2021, the LRHR gradually increased as temperatures decreased, peaking at -19.5°C, which represents the highest conditional probability of occurrence at this temperature. This indicates that, given temperatures had already dropped below -19.5°C, the likelihood of further decreases to even lower temperatures was greatest. This peak highlights -19.5°C as a critical threshold during the cold wave events. In contrast, January 2020 exhibited a peak LRHR at -7.6°C, reflecting a focus on milder cold conditions and a rapid decline in LRHR at more extreme lows. Similarly, in August 2018, the LHR peaked at 39.5°C, indicating the dominance of intense heatwave conditions. In comparison, August 2017 exhibited a peak at 36.4°C, indicating a milder concentration of high-temperature events. It is worth noting that the exponentially increasing pattern of the monthly temperature LHR in August 2018 (LRHR in January 2021) indicates that the probability of the temperature staying around 39.5°C (-19.5°C) is higher than for any temperature below (above) this value. This would demonstrate the cumulative temperature effect on electricity demand during peak times to some extent (see Section \ref{sec_more}). The two bottom panels of the figure illustrate the progression of cold wave and heat wave shocks, transformed into their respective LRHR and LHR functions.% Positive Shock values near 33°C highlight the increased likelihood of extreme heat in 2018, while negative Shock values below 30°C suggest that 2017 experienced more moderate warm conditions.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.66\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.33\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock_Progress.png}
\caption{Estimated quantile functions and functional shocks for cold waves (left) and heat waves (middle), and the transition from the reference and event periods by functional quantile shocks (right).} %, transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Given that the quantile function corresponding to the temperature distribution can serve as a distributional summary, it may be of interest to practitioners to examine changes in quantile functions during the considered extreme temperature events. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} shows the quantile functions corresponding to the normal and extreme temperature distributions and also illustrates the cold wave event, expressed as a quantile shock. As shown, the impact is most pronounced in the lower quantiles, particularly those associated with the coldest temperatures. This reflects that the January 2021 cold wave caused a significant downward shift in the quantile function compared to January 2020, with the most substantial changes at the lowest quantiles. In the middle panel, the quantile shocks associated with the August 2018 heat wave exhibit a relatively uniform increase across the quantiles, with a more pronounced effect at both extremes. This implies that the heat wave not only elevated overall temperature levels but also disproportionately intensified occurrences at both the lower and upper quantiles. The right panel of the figure illustrates the progression of the fractions of the observed cold and heat waves as quantile shocks, with the fractions similarly constructed according to \eqref{eqfraction}.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Density-to-Demand Model}\label{DtoD_Rlt}
\noindent In this section, we analyze the impact of extreme temperature events on residential electricity demand using the PDF-based DSR model, hereafter referred to as the density-to-demand model. We first apply this model to estimate point-wise temperature sensitivity through the benchmark response function. Subsequently, we analyze the effects of observed heat and cold wave fractions on electricity demand using the CLR predictor. Note that we generate the relevant functional shocks $\zeta_a$, corresponding to \( \zz_a(s) \), in the CLR domain. This can be implemented by applying the CLR transformation to both the reference PDF \( \ZZ_{\nn}(s) \) and \( \ZZ_a(s) \), and then computing the subtraction of the former from the latter in each of the heat and cold wave scenarios.\footnote{If $\mathrm{X}_{\ee}$ (resp.\ $\mathrm{X}_{a})$ is the CLR corresponding to $\ZZ_{\ee}$ (resp.\ $\ZZ_{a})$, then $\zeta_a=\mathrm{X}_{\ee} - \mathrm{X}_{a}$.} The effect of $\zeta_a$ on electricity demand is then given by $f(\zeta_a)$. The computed functional shocks are plotted in Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/CLR_Shocks.png}
\caption{CLR transformations of temperature PDFs for the specified periods (left), and the transition from the reference and event periods by of functional shocks (right).} %, transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
\label{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent In the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}, we present our benchmark response function on the range $s \in [-15,35]$ and its 95\% confidence interval. Consistent with the findings of \cite{chang2016new}, the estimated temperature response function exhibits a nonlinear U-shaped pattern across the temperature domain. However, the estimates with $\kappa=1$ reveal a more pronounced degree of nonlinearity. Note also that, unlike existing approaches, our approach explicitly accounts for the interdependence of temperature changes, ensuring that adjustments at one level are accompanied by compensatory changes in other temperatures to maintain the unit integral requirement of a PDF.\footnote{The function $f(\zeta_s)$, where $\zeta_s$ is defined near $s$, represents the effect of an additional perturbation applied to the distributional predictor $X_t$, as indicated by $f(X_t+\zeta_s) - f(X_t)$. If $X_t$ is the PDF itself, $X_t+\zeta_s$ may not be a valid PDF, as it could violate the unit integral requirement. However, this issue does not arise if $X_t$ is the CLR transformation of a PDF and $\zeta_s$ is a shock expressed in the CLR.}
%The functional perturbation $\zeta_a$ corresponding to $\zz_a$ is constructed as the difference between the distributional predictors, associated with $\ZZ_{\ee}$ and $\ZZ_{a}$ for $a \in [0,1]$,
%\footnote{For each \( s \), we consider the adjusted Gaussian kernel \( g_s = \frac{c_s}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp\left(-0.5\left(\frac{x-s}{h}\right)^2\right) \), where $h$ is the bandwidth parameter and \( c_s \) is a constant specific to \( s \), introduced to ensure that \( \int g_s(r) \, dr = 1 \) for every \( s \); as the black lines of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrate the increase in density across the range of 12.2°C (17.3°C) associated with heat (cold) wave shocks, we apply a bandwidth $h$ of 15°C. \( \hat{f}(g_s) \) is then interpreted as the weighted average of \( f \) around \( s \). Note that if \( s \) approaches the left or right endpoint of \( [-20, 40] \), the integral of the standard Gaussian kernel (without the adjustment by \( c_s \)) approaches 0.5. Therefore, \(\hat{f}(g_s)\) closer to either of the end point is not interpreted as weight average of \(f(s)\) near \(s\). We thus introduce the constant \( c_s \) and estimate \( f(s) \) slightly away from the endpoints in this procedure.}
%As the black lines of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrate the increase in density across the range of 12.2°C (17.3°C) associated with heat (cold) wave shocks, we apply a bandwidth of 15°C.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.41\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/DtoD_TRF.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.58\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Empirical_rlt1.png}
\caption{Estimated benchmark response function with 95\% confidence intervals (left), and density-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top middle and top right) and heat wave (bottom middle and bottom right) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$.}
\label{Fig:Empirical_rlts}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The right two panels of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} present the estimated response of electricity demand on the $y$-axis with respect to $a$, denoting the fraction parameter defined in \eqref{eqfraction}, of $\ZZ_a(s)$, depicted on the $x$-axis. As earlier discussed, $\ZZ_a(s)$ approaches $\ZZ_{\ee}(s)$ with a constant functional increment as $a$ increases. The solid lines show the estimates, $\hat{f}(\zeta_a)$, which can be interpreted as the estimated demand responses to progressively but constantly intensifying heat or cold wave shocks, as described in Section \ref{Sec_Est_Shocks}. The dotted lines indicate the 95\% confidence intervals for $f(\zeta_a)$ based on the asymptotic normality result given in \eqref{eqlocal}.
\indent The empirical results from the estimation with $\kappa = 1$, which is designed to account for potential measurement errors, indicate an increase in electricity demand response as the considered shock gets closer to the observed cold or heat wave. For comparison, we also report estimation results without accounting for potential endogeneity, with the $y$-axis scaled to half of that in the case of $\kappa=1$ to enhance visualization. Similar to the benchmark response function, the empirical results for observed heat and cold wave fractions with $\kappa=0$ exhibit a similar upward trend. However, the magnitude is substantially lower compared to the case with $\kappa=1$. Since the estimation results for $\kappa=0$ do not account for endogeneity, we focus on interpreting the estimation results with $\kappa=1$ as our main empirical findings. % Moreover, this increase is more pronounced in the cold wave scenario, compared to the heat wave scenario.
\indent Note that the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} provides statistical insights into how the considered cold and heat wave events change temperature distributions. As the considered cold wave shock approaches the observed severe cold wave, the mean temperature experiences a linear decline from 2.31°C to -1.53°C, with a substantial increase in variance ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$), indicating greater temperature dispersion. Concurrently, skewness decreases ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$), and kurtosis declines ($2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$), signifying a more symmetrical and less peaked distribution. In contrast, as the considered heat wave shock approaches the observed severe heat wave, the mean temperature rises linearly from 26.02°C to 28.54°C, with a modest increase in variance ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$), rising skewness ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$), and declining kurtosis ($2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$), reflecting a more right-skewed but less peaked distribution. As illustrated in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}, these distributional changes, characterized by greater variance shifts per unit change in mean temperature, reveal that cold wave shocks have a significantly greater impact on electricity demand, with a 28.06\% increase, compared to a 9.89\% increase observed during heat wave shocks.
\indent The observation that cold wave shocks lead to a greater increase (7.31\%) in electricity demand per unit change in mean temperature, following the transition from $\ZZ_{\nn}$ to $\ZZ_{\ee}$, compared to heat wave shocks (3.93\%) highlights that electricity demand is more sensitive to the extreme and intense temperature conditions associated with cold waves. This implies that demand response is influenced not only by temperature extremes but also by the specific nature of these extremes. This finding departs from existing literature, which predominantly focused on the demand response to changes in temperature levels alone, and also highlights the importance of understanding how shifts in temperature distributions impact electricity demand. Such insights emphasize the need for energy planning that accounts for the varying effects of temperature distribution changes, particularly in the context of increasingly severe cold wave events.
\indent Notably, as the cold waves intensify, electricity demand rises at a diminishing rate as incremental heating needs taper off. More specifically, the demand response values for the cold wave event at fraction parameters $a$ of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are estimated at 0.1677, 0.2328, and 0.2806, respectively. Given that electricity demand is expressed in natural logarithms, these values indicate that a functional shock causing normal temperatures to approach extreme levels by 33\% corresponds to a 16.77\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. An additional 33\% progression toward extreme temperatures results in a further 6.51\% increase, followed by an additional 4.77\% increase with a complete transition to extreme conditions. Collectively, the full transition from normal temperatures in January 2020 to extreme temperatures in January 2021 corresponds to a total 28.06\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand.
\indent Conversely, electricity demand is estimated to increase at an accelerating rate as the heat waves intensify, driven by heightened cooling requirements. More specifically, the demand response values for the heat wave events at fraction parameters $a$ of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are 0.0222, 0.0498, and 0.0989, respectively. Using the same approach, these results indicate that a functional shock causing normal temperatures to approach extreme levels by 33\% corresponds to a 2.22\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. An additional 33\% progression toward extreme temperatures results in a 2.76\% year-over-year increase, followed by an additional 4.91\% increase with the complete transition to extreme conditions. Collectively, the full transition from normal temperatures in August 2017 to extreme temperatures in August 2018 corresponds to a total 9.89\% year-over-year rise in monthly electricity demand. This contrasting behavior can be attributed to the extensive reliance on air conditioning during heat waves and the substitution effect between natural gas and electricity for heating purposes during cold waves.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Hazard-to-Demand Model}\label{DtoD_Rlt2}
\noindent In this section, we analyze the impact of extreme temperature events on residential electricity demand using the DSR model with the LHR (resp.\ LRHR) predictor for both hypothetical and historical heat (resp.\ cold) wave scenarios, collectively referred to as the hazard-to-demand model. Figure \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts} illustrates the benchmark response function $\widetilde{\psi}(s)$, focusing on the extreme temperature ranges of $[-20, 5]$ and $[25, 40]$, and the corresponding estimated electricity demand response as a function of parameter $a$ within the hazard-to-demand model. While the estimation results from the hazard-to-demand model are broadly consistent with those from the density-to-demand model, they provide distinct interpretative insights into how variations in the conditional probability of extreme temperature events distinctly influence electricity demand under cold and heat wave scenarios.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.2\textwidth, width=0.41\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_TRF_C.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.2\textwidth, width=0.58\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_TRF_Cshocks.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.2\textwidth, width=0.41\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_TRF_H.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.2\textwidth, width=0.58\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/HtoD_TRF_Hshocks.png}
\caption{Estimated benchmark response function with 95\% confidence intervals (left), and LHR-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top middle and top right) and heat wave (bottom middle and bottom right) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$.}
\label{Fig:HtoD_rlts}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent While both models capture increased temperature sensitivity, the hazard-to-demand model produces higher response function values in the extreme heat range but lower values in the extreme cold range compared to the density-to-demand model. Notably, it provides a more reliable representation of the response function at the lower temperature boundary, offering a structured depiction of cold extremes. Specifically, electricity demand rises as temperatures decline within the cold temperature range. However, at extremely low temperatures, demand exhibits diminishing sensitivity to further declines, reflecting saturation effects driven by persistent heating requirements and substitution effects with natural gas. In contrast, in the hot temperature range, rising temperatures correspond to an increased conditional probability of extreme heat events, leading to a steady rise in electricity demand, particularly at higher temperatures. This increased sensitivity is primarily driven by intensive cooling needs, highlighting the asymmetric response of electricity demand to temperature extremes. Further discussion on these distinctions is provided in the following section. %Together, these findings demonstrate how the hazard-to-demand model captures the probabilistic impact of extreme temperature events on electricity demand, providing a distinct perspective beyond absolute temperature effects.
\indent Although with a smaller overall magnitude, the hazard-to-demand model aligns with the density-to-demand model for historical extreme temperature events. The cold wave shocks result in a greater increase in electricity demand per 1°C change in mean temperature (3.01\%) following the transition from $\ZZ_{\nn}$ to $\ZZ_{\ee}$, compared to the heat wave shocks (1.80\%). Moreover, as the cold waves intensify, the rate of increase in electricity demand diminishes, reflecting tapering incremental heating needs. Specifically, the LRHR-based demand response values for the cold wave events at fraction parameters $a$ of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are estimated at 0.0987, 0.1113, and 0.1155, respectively. These estimates indicate that a functional shock causing normal temperatures to shift toward extreme cold levels by 33\% corresponds to a 9.87\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. An additional 33\% progression toward extreme cold conditions results in a further 1.26\% increase, followed by an additional 0.42\% increase with a complete transition to extreme cold conditions.
\indent For the heat wave events, the LHR-based demand response values at fraction parameters $a$ of 0.33, 0.66, and 1.0 are estimated at 0.0111, 0.0228, and 0.0453, respectively. These results indicate that a functional shock causing normal temperatures to shift toward extreme heat levels by 33\% corresponds to a 1.11\% year-over-year increase in monthly electricity demand. An additional 33\% progression toward extreme heat conditions results in a further 1.17\% increase, followed by an additional 2.25\% increase with a complete transition to extreme heat conditions. Both the density-to-demand and hazard-to-demand models, despite differences in their estimated magnitudes, consistently reveal distinct demand response patterns for the heat wave and cold wave events. The cold wave shocks result in more significant demand increases overall while the heat wave shocks exhibit a stronger incremental effect as temperatures approach extreme levels.
\indent Lastly, similar to the density-to-demand model, the empirical results from the hazard-to-demand model for $\kappa=0$ exhibit an upward trend but with a substantially lower magnitude compared to the case with $\kappa=1$. As the estimation results for $\kappa=0$ do not account for endogeneity, they are not considered for interpretation.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Some Discussion on the Distributional Predictors} \label{sec_more}
\noindent Our empirical findings for extreme temperature events provide more practical insights than those derived from existing functional approaches. A key limitation of conventional methods is their tendency to yield inaccurate estimates at the boundaries, particularly in data-sparse regions near critical temperature thresholds such as -20°C and 40°C. This boundary issue can lead to misinterpretations of demand responses at extreme temperatures, potentially resulting in significant misjudgments in energy policy and management.
\indent By leveraging both representative heat and cold wave scenarios, as well as demand responses at specific temperature levels, our approach provides broader distributional insights into electricity demand dynamics under extreme temperature events. Specifically, we incorporate higher-order distributional changes associated with extreme temperatures, illustrating how such conditions result in significantly greater increases in electricity demand compared to normal scenarios--an effect that has been largely overlooked in previous studies. Additionally, we integrate the LHR and LRHR predictors, which are expected to more effectively capture electricity demand dynamics under extreme temperature conditions, into the hazard-to-demand model, a framework not previously explored in the literature. Furthermore, our estimation results remain robust to endogeneity concerns arising from measurement errors in the distributional predictors.
%\indent The estimation results from both models, as presented in Figures \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} and \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}, indicate that the hazard-to-demand model more effectively captures electricity demand dynamics under extreme temperature conditions. In the extreme cold range, the benchmark response function from the hazard-to-demand model (the top left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}) remains non-decreasing, except below $-16.2$°C, a threshold not observed in historical cold wave events. In contrast, the benchmark response function from the density-to-demand model (the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}) begins to decline at $-13.3$°C, suggesting an implausible reduction in electricity demand under extreme cold temperatures. Similarly, in the extreme heat range, the hazard-to-demand model demonstrates a steeper increase in demand, surpassing the growth rate implied by the density-to-demand model. While both models consistently show that cold waves result in greater demand increases than heat waves, the density-to-demand model exhibits excessive sensitivity, predicting disproportionately large demand fluctuations in response to imperceptibly small temperature variations (e.g., 0.1°C) under extreme cold conditions. In contrast, the hazard-to-demand model demonstrates more moderate sensitivity but still exhibits slightly exaggerated responses under extreme cold scenarios. In this context, the benchmark response function estimates from the hazard-to-demand model align more closely with empirical observations from historical heat and cold wave events.
The estimation results from both models, as presented in Figures \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} and \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}, indicate that the benchmark response function from the hazard-to-demand model more effectively captures electricity demand dynamics under extreme temperature conditions than that of the density-to-demand model. In the extreme cold range, the benchmark response function from the hazard-to-demand model (top left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}) remains non-decreasing, except below $-16.2$°C, a threshold not observed in historical cold wave events. In contrast, the benchmark response function from the density-to-demand model (left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}) begins to decline at $-13.3$°C, suggesting an implausible reduction in electricity demand under extreme cold temperatures. Similarly, in the extreme heat range, the benchmark response function from the hazard-to-demand model suggests a steeper increase in demand, surpassing the growth rate implied by that of the density-to-demand model.
While benchmark response functions from both models consistently show that cold waves result in greater demand increases than heat waves, that of the density-to-demand model exhibits excessive sensitivity, predicting disproportionately large demand fluctuations in response to imperceptibly small temperature variations (e.g., 0.1°C) under extreme cold conditions. In contrast, the benchmark response function from the hazard-to-demand model under extreme cold scenarios demonstrates more moderate sensitivity but still exhibits slightly larger responses compared to extreme heat scenarios. In this context, the hazard-to-demand model aligns more closely with empirical observations from historical heat and cold wave events.
%\indent It is important to note that both the density-to-demand and hazard-to-demand models capture the incremental effects of extreme heat on electricity demand, whereas the benchmark response function \( \widetilde{\psi}(s) \) fails to capture such effects as temperature approaches extreme heat. This suggests that distributional characteristics associated with heat wave events, such as a more right-skewed but less peaked distributional change, further amplify electricity demand in a nonlinear manner. In contrast, incorporating the distributional characteristics of historical cold wave events into the benchmark response function does not qualitatively affect its overall shape.
\indent In the reported estimation results for the functional shocks generated from the observed cold and heat waves (the right panels of Figures \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} and \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}), it is important to note that both the density-to-demand and hazard-to-demand models capture the incremental effects of extreme heat on electricity demand, whereas the benchmark response function \( \widetilde{\psi}(s) \) from either of the models fails to capture such effects as temperature approaches extreme heat. This suggests that distributional characteristics associated with heat wave events, such as a more right-skewed distributional change with significantly reduced kurtosis, further amplify electricity demand in a nonlinear manner. In contrast, incorporating distributional characteristics of historical cold wave events, such as significantly increased variance, into the benchmark response function does not qualitatively affect its overall shape.
%\indent The hazard-to-demand model provides a more precise framework for analyzing the impact of extreme temperature events on electricity demand. Unlike the PDF, which considers the entire temperature distribution and consequently may dilute the influence of rare but critical extreme events that will occur as tail events, the LHR predictor imposes substantial importance on tail events, as obviously shown by its construction. This allows for a more targeted analysis, focusing on the likelihood of temperatures persisting within an extreme range given that they have already exceeded a critical threshold (e.g., -15°C or 35°C). By emphasizing tail events, the LHR approach enhances the reliability of demand estimations under extreme temperature conditions.
Based on the derived implications above, the hazard-to-demand model appears to provide an empirically more sensible framework for analyzing the impact of extreme temperature events on electricity demand. This may be because, unlike the PDF, which considers the entire temperature distribution and may consequently dilute the influence of rare but critical extreme events that occur as tail events, the LHR predictor assigns substantial importance to tail events, as is evident from its construction. This allows for a more targeted analysis, focusing on the likelihood of temperatures persisting within an extreme range given that they have already exceeded a critical threshold (e.g., -15°C or 35°C). By emphasizing tail events, the LHR approach enhances the reliability of demand estimations under extreme temperature conditions.
\indent An essential factor in extreme temperature analysis would be the cumulative temperature effect, wherein prolonged exposure to high or low temperatures significantly increases electricity demand for cooling or heating, even if the actual temperature remains unchanged. This phenomenon results in an apparent paradox where electricity demand continues to rise despite stable temperature levels, as extended exposure amplifies the need for indoor climate control. For instance, during a heatwave, electricity demand increases not only due to immediate high temperatures but also because prolonged exposure intensifies cooling requirements. In this context, the PDF, which captures only the relative frequency of temperatures without considering exposure duration, may exhibit weaker comovement with electricity demand, particularly under extreme conditions. Conversely, the LHR framework, which inherently accounts for the persistence of extreme temperature states, is expected to provide a more robust methodological foundation for assessing the dynamic relationship between extreme temperature events and electricity demand.
\indent It might be of interest to consider quantile function corresponding to $\phi_t$ as the distributional predictor in our DSR model. The model with the quantile function predictor shares a conceptual similarity with the density-to-demand and hazard-to-demand models in that all three utilize the distributional properties of temperature as predictive variables. However, these models differ fundamentally in their interpretation of the demand response function \( f \). In the density-to-demand and hazard-to-demand models, the kernel-weighted benchmark response function \( \widetilde{\psi}(s) \) measures the impact of more frequently occurring temperatures around a given temperature level \( s \in [-20,40] \), either unconditionally or conditionally, while allowing for potential variations in associated temperature quantiles. In contrast, a similar quantity, which can similarly be defined in the quantile-to-demand model, represents the effect of changes around the \( s \)-quantile, where \( s \in [0,1] \), with the corresponding temperature level varying due to monthly (seasonal) fluctuations. % For example, note that the \( s \)-quantile in a summer month is significantly higher than in a winter month. Thus the benchmark response function measures the effect of changes of various temperature levels corresponding to the $s$-quantile and its around.
%Note that, for example, the \( s \)-quantile in a summer month is significantly higher than in a winter month. In other words, the \( s \)-quantile fluctuates seasonally, and \( f(s) \) captures the impact of changes in this \( s \)-quantile across the months of the year. % Due to this difference, the quantile-to-demand model may reveal new empirical findings that are not clearly captured by the density-to-demand model or provide evidence that reinforces findings from the density-to-demand model. % 서교수~! GoodGood! please go ahead!
%\commWK{We now consider the quantile-to-demand model, which involves the predictor of temperature quantile functions. This model shares similarities with the density-to-demand model in that both use the distributional properties of temperature as a predictor. However, a significant difference lies in the interpretation of the demand response function \( f \). Specifically, the response function \( f(s) \) in the temperature density-to-demand model accounts for the effect of the relatively more frequent occurrence of temperatures around the level \( s \), while allowing for possible changes in temperature quantiles associated with this variation. In contrast, the response function in the temperature quantile-to-demand model measures the effect of changes in the \( 100s\% \) quantile, with the corresponding temperature level varying. For example, the \( 100s\% \) quantile in a summer month will be significantly higher than in a winter month. Because of this distinction, the quantile-to-demand model may reveal new empirical findings that are not clearly captured by the density-to-demand model or provide evidence that reinforces findings from the density-to-demand model.}
%second??? \commWK{The quantile-to-demand model, which utilizes temperature quantile functions as predictors, shares a similarity with the density-to-demand model in relying on temperature’s distributional properties to explain electricity demand. However, these models differ significantly in their interpretation of the demand response function. The density-to-demand model evaluates the impact of more frequently occurring temperatures around a specific level $s$, with $s \in [-20,40]$. In contrast, the quantile-to-demand model focuses on changes in the $\alpha$-quantile, where $\alpha \in [0,1]$, with the corresponding temperature level varying according to seasonal variations in temperature \footnote{For example, the \( \alpha\% \) quantile in a summer month will be significantly higher than in a winter month.} Thus, the effect of any change in $\alpha$-quantile aggregates seasonal variations of the demand responses according to of electricity demand caused by in aggregates seasonal variation of the electricity demand caused by the effect and thus reflecting seasonal variations in temperature levels. This distinction may position the quantile-to-demand model as effective for analyzing demand responses under extreme temperature events, such as heat waves, where the relevance of past temperature patterns captured by the density function may diminish. Despite a potentially lower model fit, the quantile-to-demand model would provide interesting insights into heterogeneous demand shifts under extreme conditions.}
%(Older version) Some might wonder if the quantile function models \commWK{capture} extreme temperature events more effectively than the density function. Specifically, the difference lies in how each approach handles the heterogeneous impact of temperature on electricity demand. The temperature density-to-demand model accounts for the varying influence of each temperature level on demand, whereas the temperature quantile-to-demand model considers the heterogeneous effects of temperature quantiles on demand. As a result, while the density function may more accurately capture the average fluctuations in electricity demand, the quantile function, despite its relatively lower model fit, may be better suited to explaining demand responses under extreme temperature conditions. For instance, during a heat wave, where consumers face unprecedented temperatures, the relevance of past temperature impacts (as modeled by the density function) may diminish, making the quantile function more effective in modeling demand changes at extreme temperatures. In addition, the quantile function would better manage the heterogeneous support of the temperature density function.
%\indent In this context, we further examine the impact of temperature quantiles on electricity demand during extreme weather events by estimating the quantile-to-demand model. Note that \( f(s) \) represents the effect of changes in the \( s \)-quantile and can be estimated as \( \hat{f}(s) \) (see the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts}) using a kernel function around \( s \). This quantity captures the marginal impact of changes in a specific quantile while holding others constant, analogous to a linear regression model in a finite-dimensional setting. However, in practice, independent shifts in individual quantiles are implausible, leading to interpretational ambiguities and a weaker connection to extreme temperature events. To address this, we instead examine the effects of quantile shocks, denoted as \( \zeta_a \), which provide a more interpretable framework. Specifically, we define the total quantile change induced by a shock \( \zeta_a \) as \( Q > 0 \), capturing the cumulative effect of quantile adjustments. For the heat wave scenario, where \( a \in [0.5,0.95] \), we introduce a shock by increasing all \( s \)-quantiles with \( s \geq 0.5 \) uniformly while maintaining the total quantile change at \( Q \). Formally, we define $\zeta_{0.5}(s) = Q \times 1\{0.5\leq s \leq 1\} / (1-0.5)$, distributing \( Q \) across the specified interval. As \( a \) increases, the total quantile shift becomes more concentrated in the upper quantiles, following $\zeta_{a}(s) = Q \times 1\{a\leq s \leq 1\} / (1-a)$. Conversely, in the cold wave scenario, where \( a \in [0.05,0.5] \), we consider a total quantile decrease of \( -Q \), distributing it over the interval \( [0,a] \) as $\zeta_a(s) = - Q \times 1\{0 \leq s \leq a\} / a$. As \( a \) decreases, the quantile shift is increasingly concentrated in the lower quantiles. By analyzing the function \( \hat{f}(\zeta_a) \) for various \( \zeta_a \) in both scenarios, we assess how electricity demand responds to quantile shocks concentrated at different parts of the distribution.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
%\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_desc1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth, width=0.5\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Sensitivity.png}
\caption{The estimated temperature quantile sensitivity, truncated within the [0.05, 0.95] range, with dotted lines representing the 95\% confidence intervals.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%\indent In this context, we further examine the impact of temperature quantiles on electricity demand during extreme weather events by estimating the quantile-to-demand model. Notably, the benchmark temperature quantile response function in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} remains largely insignificant, except within the 0.63 to 0.87 quantile range for $\kappa=1$. This contrasts with the temperature density and LHR sensitivity presented in the left panels of Figures \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} and \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}. The temperature quantile time series exhibits a monthly pattern, with lower values in winter and higher values in summer, whereas residential electricity demand exhibits a dual-peak structure, rising sharply in both summer and winter. This divergence introduces nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature and electricity demand, as an increase in temperature quantile time series simultaneously reduces heating demand while increasing cooling demand. Consequently, unlike an increase in the temperature density or LHR time series, which is unambiguously associated with higher cooling (heating) demand around 40°C (-20°C), applying fixed-quantile shocks in the quantile-to-demand framework would result in ambiguous slope estimates due to these offsetting effects. Similarly, incorporating the distributional characteristics into the quantile shocks in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} would not change the result of producing insignificant or ambiguous temperature sensitivity.
To illustrate the difference between the quantile-to-demand model and the previously considered models, we additionally examine the impact of temperature quantiles on electricity demand during extreme weather events by estimating the quantile-to-demand model, a more detailed description of which is provided in Section \ref{app_quantile} of the Appendix. Notably, the benchmark response function from the quantile-to-demand model, reported in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}, remains largely insignificant, except within the 0.63 to 0.87 quantile range for $\kappa=1$. This contrasts with the temperature density and LHR sensitivity presented in the left panels of Figures \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} and \ref{Fig:HtoD_rlts}. The temperature quantile time series exhibits a monthly pattern, with lower values in winter and higher values in summer, whereas residential electricity demand exhibits a dual-peak structure, rising sharply in both summer and winter. This divergence introduces nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature and electricity demand, as an increase in temperature quantile time series simultaneously reduces heating demand while increasing cooling demand. Consequently, unlike an increase in the temperature density or LHR time series, which is unambiguously associated with higher cooling (heating) demand around 40°C (-20°C), applying fixed-quantile shocks in the quantile-to-demand framework would result in ambiguous slope estimates due to these offsetting effects. Similarly, incorporating the distributional characteristics into the quantile shocks in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} would not change the result of producing insignificant or ambiguous temperature sensitivity.
%\commWK{(WK STOPPED HERE)}
%\begin{figure}[t]
%\begin{center}
% \includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.66\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock.png}
% \includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.33\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock_Progress.png}
% \caption{Estimated quantile functions and functional shocks for cold wave (left) and heat wave (middle), and the progression of functional quantile shocks (right), transitioning from moderate (dashed lines) to severe (solid lines) for heat waves (red) and cold waves (blue).}
% \label{Fig:Quantile_Shock}
%\end{center}
%\end{figure}
%\indent Focusing on the temperature effects under extreme condition as in the Section \ref{DtoD_Rlt}, the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} illustrates the quantile shocks for the cold wave, where the impact is most pronounced in the lower quantiles, especially those associated with the coldest temperatures. This reflects that the January 2021 cold wave caused a significant downward shift in the quantile function compared to January 2020, with the most substantial changes at the lowest quantiles. On the middle panel, the quantile shocks for the heat wave reveal a more uniform increase across the quantiles, with a greater effect at the higher quantiles. This suggests that the August 2018 heat wave led to a consistent rise in temperatures, primarily intensifying the highest quantile events. The right panel of the figure presents the progression of the heat wave and cold wave shocks, as depicted in Figures \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock0} - \ref{Fig:CLR_Func_shock}, transformed into their respective quantile functions.
%\indent Table \ref{tab:Quant_est} presents the estimation results from the quantile-to-demand model with 95\% local confidence intervals. Note that the demand response estimates for both cold wave and heat wave shocks, as presented in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock}, are statistically insignificant for the majority of the generated functional shocks. Therefore, we report the empirical results only for severe functional shocks. Under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$, the demand response to a cold wave shock, modeled using orthonormal Fourier basis functions, is estimated at -0.0417 and -0.0645, corresponding to a 4.17\% reduction in demand or an insignificant impact. Similarly, the demand response to a heat wave shock is estimated at -0.0258 and 0.0681, indicating a 2.58\% reduction in demand or a statistically insignificant effect. These findings may imply that the quantile-to-demand model, which may be more robust to measurement error, appears to have inherent limitations in capturing the nonlinear temperature effects due to the aforementioned two counteracting forces. Lastly, the RMSE values from the quantile-to-demand model are 0.0933 and 0.1375 for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively. These results indicate a decline in the goodness of fit compared to the density-to-demand model.
%\begin{table}[t]
%\centering
%\caption{Estimation results for quantile-to-demand model}
%\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|c}
% \hline
% & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for CW} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{DR for HW} & \\
% \hline
% & Est & 95\% C.I. & Est & 95\% C.I. & RMSE \\
% \hline
% $\kappa=0$ & -0.0417 & (-0.0783, -0.0051) & -0.0258 & (-0.0424, -0.0092) & 0.0933\\
% $\kappa=1$ & -0.0645 & (-0.1803,0.0513) & 0.0681 & (-0.0081,0.1442) & 0.1375 \\
% \hline
%\end{tabular}%
%\label{tab:Quant_est}%
%\end{table}%
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Concluding Remarks}\label{Sec_conclude}
\noindent In this paper, we study the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand using distributional predictors of temperature, which are likely to contain measurement errors. Given that residential electricity demand is highly sensitive to temperature fluctuations, accurately capturing these nonlinearities is critical, especially during extreme temperature events where underestimation could jeopardize grid stability. Additionally, measurement errors may stem from the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature distributions represent true distributions, compounded by data quality issues and limitations within the estimation process.
\indent We address these challenges by applying our DSR framework with distributional predictors. This approach allows for the effective identification of nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature distribution and electricity demand, even in the presence of measurement errors. Through the analysis of historical heat wave and cold wave shocks of varying intensities within a distributional context, we find that the hazard-to-demand model more reliably captures nonlinear temperature sensitivity than the density-to-demand model, particularly in extreme conditions. Our results indicate that residential electricity demand is significantly more sensitive to intense cold waves, with demand increasing sharply as temperatures decline. However, as cold wave severity intensifies, the rate of electricity demand growth diminishes, whereas for heat waves, demand growth accelerates with increasing intensity. %Furthermore, the temperature quantile-to-demand model fails to produce economically meaningful estimates.
\indent Given our findings, energy practitioners should prioritize incorporating detailed temperature distribution analysis, particularly when planning for extreme weather events. Our empirical findings suggest that residential electricity demand exhibits greater sensitivity to cold waves compared to heat waves, albeit with a slower rate of increase in demand, highlighting the need for advanced demand estimating models that account for these nonlinear sensitivities. Moreover, it is crucial to address potential measurement errors by adopting robust econometric techniques, in order to ensure that demand response strategies are based on accurate and reliable estimates. Our econometric approach would enhance grid stability and support effective energy management during extreme temperature events.
\bigskip
\section*{Disclosure Statement}
\noindent The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
%%%%%%%%% BIBLIOGRAPHY %%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv} %chicago,elsarticle-harv...ecta, econometrica...informs2014
\bibliography{FRKETQ_P3/FRKET_biblio}
\bigskip
\appendix\label{Sec_Append}
\section{Technical Appendix}\label{sec_app_est}
This technical appendix provides a detailed discussion of the asymptotic properties of the proposed estimator along with the necessary mathematical preliminaries.
\subsection{Mathematical preliminaries} \label{sec_app_prelim}
This section briefly reviews essential mathematical concepts for the proposed estimator and introduce notation.
Let $\mathcal H_1$ be a separable Hilbert space with inner product $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_1$ and norm $\|\cdot\|_1$. A $\mathcal H_1$-valued random variable $Z$ is defined as a measurable map from the underlying probability space to $\mathcal H_1$. Such a random element $Z$ is said to be square-integrable if $\mathbb{E}[\|Z\|_1^2]<\infty$. Let $\mathcal H_2$ be another such Hilbert space; in the context of our DSR model, a relevant example of $\mathcal H_2$ is either $\mathcal H_1$ or $\mathbb{R}$ as Euclidean 1-space. We let $\otimes$ denote the tensor product associated with $\mathcal H_1$ and $\mathcal H_2$; more specifically, for any $\zeta_1 \in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$,
\begin{equation*}
\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2 (\cdot) = \langle \zeta_1,\cdot \rangle_1 \zeta_2;
\end{equation*}
note that $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2$ is a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$. For any mean-zero square-integrable random elements $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, $\mathbb{E}[Z_1 \otimes Z_2]$, defined as a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$, is called the (cross-)covariance of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. We call $A:\mathcal H_1 \mapsto \mathcal H_2$ a bounded linear map if $A$ is a linear map and its operator norm, defined as $\|A\|_{\op}=\sup_{\|\zeta\|_1\leq 1} \|A\zeta\|_2$, is finite. For any bounded linear map $A$, we let $A^\ast$ be the adjoint map defined by the property $\langle A\zeta_1,\zeta_2 \rangle_2=\langle \zeta_1,A^\ast\zeta_2 \rangle_1$ for all $\zeta_1\in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$. We say that $A$ is a compact operator if $\mathcal H_1=\mathcal H_2$ and there exist orthonormal bases $\{\zeta_{1,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $\{\zeta_{2,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ such that $A = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j \zeta_{1,j} \otimes \zeta_{2,j}$ with $a_j$ tending to zero as $j$ increases; in this expression, if $A$ is self-adjoint ($A=A^\ast$) and nonnegative ($\langle A\zeta,\zeta \rangle_1\geq 0$), it may be assumed that $a_j\geq 0$ and $\zeta_{1,j}=\zeta_{2,j}$, and furthermore they are understood as the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors. A compact operator $A$ is Hilbert-Schmidt if $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{\zeta_j\}_{j\geq1}$, and in this case, the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\|A\|_{\HS}$ is defined as $\|A\|_{\HS}= \sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2}$. It is well known that $\|A\|_{\op} \leq \|A\|_{\HS}$ (see e.g., \citealp{Bosq2000}, (1.55)).
\subsection{Equivalent formulation of the proposed estimator} \label{sec_app_est_1}
Our estimator, discussed in Section \ref{Sec_Model}, is a suitable adaptation of the functional IV estimator proposed by \cite{seong2021functional} for our DSR model. First, observe that for an IV $Z_t$ satisfying \eqref{eqreg3}, the following can directly be deduced from \eqref{eqreg2}: $C_{Zy} = fC_{XZ}^\ast$, where $C_{Zy} = \mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (y_t-\mathbb{E}[y_t])]$. This in turn leads to the following identity:
\begin{align} \label{eqpopulation}
C_{Zy}C_{XZ} = f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ},
\end{align}
where $C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes u_t]=0$.
As in \cite{seong2021functional}, where the FFR model is studied, we construct an estimator that mimics the population relationship \eqref{eqpopulation}. We first replace $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ in \eqref{eqpopulation} with their sample counterparts $\widehat C_{Zy} =T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T)\otimes (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$, where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$, and $\widehat C_{XZ}$, which is introduced in Section \ref{Sec_Model}. Noting that $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ is not invertible (see e.g., \citealp{Benatia2017}), we employ a regularized inverse of $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ to compute an estimator from the sample equation. Specifically, %as in \cite{seong2021functional},
we consider a rank-regularized inverse $(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eqregul}
(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\hat{\lambda}_j^{-2}} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where, for $\alpha$ tending to zero, $\KK$ is determined as
\begin{equation} \label{eqchoicek}
\KK = \max_{j\geq 1} \{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}.
\end{equation}
Note that $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ becomes the $\KK$-dimensional projection $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j$. Regularized inverses, similar to \eqref{eqregul}, are widely used in the literature on the functional linear model (see, e.g., \citealp{Chen_et_al_2020,seong2021functional,seo2024optimal}). The estimator $\hat{f}$ is constructed as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$
\begin{align} \label{eqest1}
\hat{f} (x)= \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (x).
\end{align}
Using \eqref{eqregul} and the definitions of the operators above, along with some algebra, it can be shown that \eqref{eqest1} is equivalent to the expression given in \eqref{eqest}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem1}
The choice $\KK$ in \eqref{eqchoicek} is adopted from \cite{seong2021functional} concerning the FFR model. Based on this choice, we study the asymptotic properties of our estimator. Of course, with only a minor modification, it is possible to extend the desired asymptotic results, which will be discussed, for an alternative choice of $\KK$, such as $\KK = m + \max_{j\geq 1}\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for some finite $m$. This choice may be preferred when researchers want to retain at least $m$ eigenelements for estimation. The case with $m=1$ also has some theoretical justification, given that we need at least one eigenelement for the proposed estimator to be well defined for every $T$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Consistency and asymptotic normality}\label{sec_app_est_2}
This section establishes the consistency and asymptotic normality of the proposed estimator, both of which are fundamental to our empirical analysis in Section \ref{Sec_Empirics}.
\subsubsection{Sone notational and theoretical simplifications}\label{sec_app_est2a}
%For notational convenience, we hereafter let $\langle \zeta_1,\zeta_2 \rangle$ denote the inner product of $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ regardless of the Hilbert space where $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ take values. Since the inner product is defined for the elements in the same space, there is no risk of confusion. Similarly we let $\|\zeta_1\|$ denote the norm of $\zeta_1$ in any Hilbert space. Subsequently, the considered Hilbert space is either $L^2[a,b]$ (the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$) or Euclidean 1-space $\mathbb{R}$. If $\zeta_1 \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathbb{R}$, then $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2$ is understood as the scalar multiplication map defined by $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2(x) = \zeta_1 \zeta_2 x$. Similarly, we may define $\mathbb{E}[u_t\otimes u_t]$, which is defined as the map $\mathbb{R} \ni x \mapsto \sigma^2_u x \in \mathbb{R}$. For any linear operator $A$, $\|A\|_{\op}$ (resp.\ $\|A\|_{\HS}$) denotes the operator norm (Hilbert-Schmidt) norm, regardless of where $A$ act on; in fact in Euclidean 1-space, these norms are trivially determined since any linear operator on $\mathbb{R}$ is a scalar multiplication.\footnote{Any linear operator $A$ on $\mathbb{R}$ must be a scalar multiplication given by $x \mapsto ax$ for some $a$, then $\|A\|_{\op}= \|A\|_{\HS} = |a|$}
For notational convenience, we hereafter let $\|\zeta_1\|$ denote the norm of $\zeta_1$ regardless of the Hilbert space in which $\zeta_1$ takes values. There is little risk of confusion following this simplification since, in the sequel, the considered Hilbert space is either $L^2[a,b]$ (the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$) or Euclidean 1-space $\mathbb{R}$. For any linear operator $A_T$ and a nonnegative real number $B_T$ depending on $T$, we let $A_T = O_p(B_T)$ (resp.\ $A_T = o_p(B_T)$) if $\|A_T\|_{\op}$ is $O_p(B_T)$ (resp.\ $o_p(B_T))$ whenever it is convenient as in \citet[Supplementary material]{seo2020functional}.
We subsequently consider the case where \( y_t \), \( X_t \), and \( Z_t \) have zero means, which reduces the regression model \eqref{eqreg1} to \( y_t = f(X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t \). Under this simplification, the population (e.g., \( C_{XZ} \)) and sample covariance operators (e.g., \( \widehat{C}_{XZ} \)) introduced in Section \ref{sec_method} are naturally interpreted as being defined without centering or demeaning the associated variables. As earlier discussed by \cite{seong2021functional}, extending the subsequent results to cases where the means are unknown and must be estimated requires only minor modifications, such as replacing variables with their centered or demeaned counterparts. Consequently, we omit these details.
%the consistency and local asymptotic normality to be established remain unchanged with or without this simplification.
\subsubsection{Assumptions and main results}
It turns out that $ C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast $ are self-adjoint, nonnegative and compact (see \citealp{Bosq2000}, p.\ 117). We thus hereafter let
\begin{equation*}
C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 g_j \otimes g_j, \quad C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 h_j \otimes h_j,
\end{equation*}
where $\lambda_j$, $g_j$, and $h_j$ are relevant eigenelements (see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}). Let $C_{ZZ}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes Z_t]$, $\sigma_u^2=\mathbb{E}[u_t^2]$ and $C_{Zu}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]$. We let $\widehat{C}_{ZZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{Zu}$ be defined as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{C}_{ZZ}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes Z_t, \quad %\widehat{C}_{uu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T u_t\otimes u_t, \quad
\widehat{C}_{Zu}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes u_t,
\end{equation*}
which may be understood as the sample counterparts of $C_{ZZ}$ and $C_{Zu}$. We employ the following assumptions: below, $\mathfrak{F}_t$ denotes the natural filtration given by $\sigma(\{Z_s\}_{s\leq t+1}, \{u_s\}_{s\leq t})$ and let $\tau_j = 2\sqrt{2} \max\{ (\lambda_{j-1}^2-\lambda_j^2)^{-1}, (\lambda_{j}^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2)^{-1} \}$ as in \cite{seong2021functional}.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum1}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item Equation \eqref{eqreg2} holds; \item $\{X_t,Z_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is stationary and geometrically strongly mixing, $\mathbb{E}[\|X_t\|^2] < \infty$, and $\mathbb{E}[\|Z_t\|^2] < \infty$; \item $\mathbb{E}[u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=0$, $\mathbb{E}[u_t^2|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=\sigma_u^2$, and, for some $\delta>0$, $\sup_{1\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}[\|u_t\|^{2+\delta}|\mathfrak F_{t-1}] < \infty$; \item $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|f(b_j)\|^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{b_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ of $\mathcal H$; \item $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ}-{C}_{XZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{ZZ}-{C}_{ZZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and $\|\widehat{C}_{Zu}-{C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$; \item $\ker C_{XZ}=\{0\}$; \item \label{eq001a1}$\lambda_1^2 > \lambda_2^2 > \cdots > 0$; \item \label{eq001a2}$T^{-1}\alpha^{-1} \to 0$ and $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \to_p 0$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum1} are adapted from Assumptions M and E of \cite{seong2021functional} studying the FFR model, and similar assumptions have been employed in the literature on the FSR model (see e.g., \citealp{Hall2007}). Condition \ref{eq001a2} is a technical requirement that $\alpha$ decay at an appropriate rate depending on the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j\}$ and $T$. This subtle requirement on $\alpha$ may be relaxed if some additional (but still standard in the literature on the functional linear model) assumptions on the decay rate of $\lambda_j^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2$ as a function of $j$ are employed. For example, if Assumption \ref{assum2}, which is to appear, is satisfied, then it is straightforward to see that the consistency result given in Proposition \ref{prop1} can be established with e.g., \( \alpha^{-1} = o(T^{1/4}) \), without requiring Assumption \ref{assum1}\ref{eq001a2} (see Remark \ref{remrate} in Section \ref{sec_math}).
%it is common to assume that $\lambda_j^2 - \lambda_{j+1}^2$ is eventually convex and bounded above by $O(j^{\gamma})$ for some $\gamma > 3$ (see Assumption 2 below and also Assumption E2 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). In this case, $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\KK4)$ the assumption
We next present the consistency result, which elaborates on Proposition \ref{prop1} given in Section \ref{Sec_Model}:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop1a}
Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}, $\|\hat{f} - f\|_{\op} \to_p 0$.
\end{proposition}
We next obtain the asymptotic normality result \eqref{eqlocal} for any specified $\zeta \in \mathcal H$. To this end, we employ the following assumptions: below, we let $\upsilon_{t}(j,\ell) = \langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle -\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle]$ for $j,\ell \geq 1$. % and $\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle \tilde{\zeta}, {C}_{ZZ} \tilde{\zeta} \rangle$, where $\tilde{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle {g}_j,\zeta \rangle {C}_{XZ}({g}_j)$.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum2} For some $c_\circ>0$, $\rho>2$, $\varsigma>1/2$, $\delta_{\zeta}>1/2$ and $m>1$, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\lambda_j^2 \leq c_\circ j^{-\rho}$; \item \label{assum2b} $\lambda_j^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2 \geq c_\circ j^{-\rho-1}$; \item \label{assum2b2} $\|f(g_j)\| \leq c_\circ j^{-\varsigma}$; \item \label{assum2c} $\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t(j,\ell)\upsilon_{t-s}(j,\ell)] \leq c_\circ s^{-m}\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t^2(j,\ell)]$ for $s\geq 1$, and furthermore, $\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle^4]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$ and $\mathbb{E}[\langle Z_t,h_j \rangle^4]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$; \item \label{assum2c2} $\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle \leq c_\circ j^{-\delta_{\zeta}}$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The above assumptions are obvious adaptation of the conditions given by \cite{Hall2007} and \cite{seong2021functional}, which seem to be standard in the literature. Particularly, \cite{seong2021functional} established useful asymptotic results for the FFR model under assumptions similar to Assumption \ref{assum2}, and some of these asymptotic results are used to study the asymptotic properties of our estimator. In order to establish the asymptotic normality result, we need more conditions, which are stated below:
\begin{assumption}\label{assum3}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\alpha^{-1} = o(T^{1/3})$; \item \label{assum3b} $\varsigma + \delta_{\zeta} > \rho/2+2$, $2\delta_{\zeta} \geq \rho+1$ and $T \alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho} = O(1)$; \item\label{assum3c} ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle \to_p \infty$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption} Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3b} requires $f$ and $\zeta$ to be sufficiently smooth with respect to the eigenvectors $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ so that the entire map or element can be well approximated by those eigenvectors; this is a standard requirement in asymptotic analysis in the literature on the functional linear model (see e.g., \citealp{seong2021functional} and reference therein). Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3c} requires a certain quantity depending on $\zeta$ to diverge to infinity. This condition is expected to be satisfied for many possible choices of $\zeta$ (see Section 3.2 of \citealp{Carrasco2007}; Remark 4 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). Although the desired asymptotic normality result is established under these requirements, a weaker version of \eqref{eqlocal}, with \( f(\zeta) \) replaced by \( f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta) \), still holds without requiring that these conditions be satisfied, as long as \( \alpha \) decays at a sufficiently slow rate. This allows for statistical inference on $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$. As discussed by \citet[Section 3.2]{seong2021functional}, $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ may be understood as the best linear approximation of $\zeta$ based on the covariation of $X_t$ and $Z_t$, thus this weaker result still provides interpretable insights for practitioners.
The desired asymptotic normality result is given as follows:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop2} Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation*}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (y_t-\hat{f}(X_t))^2$ and $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{proposition}
With some algebra, it can be shown that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, as given in Proposition \ref{prop2} can be written as
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t\rangle\right)^2,
\end{equation*}
which corresponds to \eqref{eqtheta} without demeaning the variables.
\subsubsection{Mathematical proofs} \label{sec_math}
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop1a}}
Using \eqref{eqreg2} and the expression given in \eqref{eqest1}, the proposed estimator $\hat{f}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{f} = \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} + \widehat{C}_{Zu} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag, \label{eq:b0}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat \Pi_{\KK}= \sum_{j=1} ^{\KK} \widehat g_j \otimes \widehat g_j$ as earlier introduced.
%Under our assumptions, we apply the central limit theorem for strongly mixing sequences (see, e.g., \citeauthor{heyde1974central}, \citeyear{heyde1974central}) and for martingale difference sequences to find that
% $ T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\langle x_t,w_1 \rangle \langle z_t,w_2 \rangle - \langle \mathcal C_{xz} w_1, w_2 \rangle \right) $ and $T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle $ converge in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1,w_2 \in \mathcal H$.
% \begin{align}\label{pfresult2}
% \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle
% \end{align}
%converges in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1$ and $w_2$.
% Then, by applying Theorem 3 of \citet[Chapter 1]{skorohod2001}, it can be shown that
% \begin{align}
% \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T (x_t \otimes z_t - \mathcal C_{xz}) = O_p(1)\quad\text{and}\quad \quad \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T z_t \otimes u_t = O_p(1); \label{eqcltref}
% \end{align}
% see also Lemma A.1 of \cite{seo2020functional}.
As shown in the proof of Theorem 1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, we have $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq \alpha^{-1/2}$ and $\|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}. Consequently, we find that
\begin{equation*}
\|\widehat{f} - f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS} \|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
\end{equation*}
We hereafter assume that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ consists of an orthonormal basis; this can simply be achieved by assigning an appropriate vector to each zero eigenvalue with no loss of generality (see e.g., the proof of Lemma A.1 of \citealp{seo2024optimal}). From the properties of the operator norm and the fact that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ is an orthonormal basis, we find the following:
\begin{equation*}
\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} -f\|^2_{\op} \leq \sum_{j=1}^\infty \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f\hat({g}_j)\|^2.
\end{equation*}
Thus the proof becomes complete if $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j)-f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \to_p 0$ is shown. From
% \begin{equation} \label{eqpf0006add2wadd0}
% \|\widehat{\mathcal A}- \mathcal A \widehat{\Pi}_{\K}\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
% \end{equation}
%the following can be shown by
nearly identical arguments used to derive (8.63) of \cite{Bosq2000}, %and (S2.2) of \cite{seong2021functional},
we find that %and the property of the operator norm such that $\Vert \cdot \Vert_{\op} \leq \Vert \cdot \Vert_{\HS}$:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f({g}_j)\|^2 + O_p(1)\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j.\label{eqpf0006add2wadd}
\end{equation}
Since $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f(g_j)\|^2 < \infty$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}, $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \| f(g_j)|^2$ converges in probability to zero as $T$ gets larger (note that $\KK$ diverges as $T \to \infty$). In addition,
$
\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}\|_{\op} + \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast- C_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\| C_{XZ}\|_{\op} = O_p(T^{-1/2})$ by the properties of the operator norm and Assumption \ref{assum1}. Combining all these results, we find that \eqref{eqpf0006add2wadd} is $o_p(1)$ as desired. \qed
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop2}}
In this proof, we let $g_j^s = \sgn(\langle \hat{g}_j, g_j \rangle)g_j$ as in the proof of Theorem 2 of \cite{seong2021functional}. We also note that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}$ can equivalently
be written as $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle.$
%We let ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$ and $\sigma^2_u = \mathbb{E}[u_t^2]$.
From nearly identical arguments used in the proof of Theorem 2 of \cite{seong2021functional} (particularly, see (S2.4)-(S2.6) and (S2.11) of their papers) and Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum2}, it can be shown that $\alpha \KK^\rho = O_p(1)$ and also
\begin{equation} \label{eqadda0}
\| \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag - {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2}T^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK}\tau_j) \leq O_p(T^{-1/2} \alpha^{-3/2-2/\rho}) = o_p(1).
\end{equation}
%Observe that $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}(\hat{f}-f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}) = \sqrt{1/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t \otimes u_t\right) \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$. Following
%we find the following from \eqref{eqadda0}:
%\begin{equation}
%\hat{f} = \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} + \widehat{C}_{Zu} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag, \label{eq:b0}
%\end{equation}
We observe that
\begin{equation} \label{eqdecom}
\hat{f}(\zeta) -f(\zeta) = (\hat{f}-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK})(\zeta) + f(\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}-\Pi_{\KK})(\zeta) + f(\Pi_{\KK}-I)(\zeta),
\end{equation}
where $\Pi_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} g_j^s \otimes g_j^s$. The first term in \eqref{eqdecom}, $(\hat{f}-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK})(\zeta)$, satisfies the following:
\begin{align} \label{eqconv1}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK})(\zeta)% &= \sqrt{\frac{1}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t \otimes u_t\right) \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta) \\
&=\sqrt{\frac{1}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t \otimes u_t\right) \left({C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag + o_p(1) \right) (\zeta),
%\to_d N(0,1),
\end{align}
where the equality follows from simple algebra (as in \eqref{eq:b0}) and \eqref{eqadda0}. If define $\xi_t = {\sigma_u^{-1}{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}^{-1/2} (Z_t \otimes u_t) {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta)$, then $\sigma_u^{-1} \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)^{-1/2} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t \otimes u_t\right) {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta) = T^{-1/2}\sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t$. Then as can obviously be deduced from (S2.7) and (S2.8) by \cite{seong2021functional}, the above $\{\xi_t\}$ is a martingale difference sequence (w.r.t. $\mathcal F_{t-1})$ and also $\mathbb{E}[\xi_t^2] = 1$. Then, from the employed assumption and the standard central limit theorem for a martingale difference sequence, we find that $ T^{-1/2}\sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t \to_d N(0,1)$, and hence we conclude that
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}(\zeta)-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1).
\end{equation*}
%it can be shown that \begin{equation} \sqrt{\frac{1}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t \otimes u_t\right) {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t. \end{equation}Under the employed assumptions, the sequence $\xi_t$ is a martingale difference, and thus we deduce from the arguments used for (S2.8 Theorem 4 of \cite{seong2021functional}, it can be shown that $T^{-1/2}\sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t \to N(0,\langle C_{uu}, \rangle$where $\mathbb{E}[\xi_t\otimes \xi_t] = {{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}^{-1} (Z_t \otimes u_t) {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta)$, a key input for the above result is that
%To deduce the convergence in distribution, together with \eqref{eqadda0} and Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}, we use nearly identical arguments used to show (S2.8) of \cite{seong2021functional}. %(along with Remark 10 of their paper).
%To add some more details, it can be shown that we may replace $\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta)$ by ${C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta)$ with allowing only asymptotically negligible terms in \eqref{eqconv1}. If we define $\xi_t = {{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}^{-1/2} (Z_t \otimes u_t) {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta)$, then it can be shown that \begin{equation} \sqrt{\frac{1}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t \otimes u_t\right) \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{{\sigma}^2_u T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t. \end{equation}Under the employed assumptions, the sequence $\xi_t$ is a martingale difference, and thus we deduce from the arguments used for (S2.8 Theorem 4 of \cite{seong2021functional}, it can be shown that $T^{-1/2}\sum_{t=1}^T \xi_t \to N(0,\langle C_{uu}, \rangle$where $\mathbb{E}[\xi_t\otimes \xi_t] = {{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}^{-1} (Z_t \otimes u_t) {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag (\zeta)$, a key input for the above result is that
We then note that the second term in \eqref{eqdecom}, $f(\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}-\Pi_{\KK})(\zeta)$, can be rewritten as $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (A_1+A_2+A_3)$, where $A_1 = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_2 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_3 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(g_j)$. To analyze these terms, we first investigate the stochastic order of the quantity $\langle (\hat{C}_{XZ} -{C_{XZ}}) g_j,h_{\ell}\rangle$. From Assumption \ref{assum2} and nearly identical arguments used in the unnumbered equation between (S2.28) and (S2.29) in \cite{seong2021functional}, the following can be shown:
\begin{equation} \label{eqadd01a}
T\mathbb{E}[\langle (\hat{C}_{XZ} -{C_{XZ}}) g_j,h_{\ell}\rangle^2] \leq \sum_{s=0}^T\mathbb{E}[v_t(j,\ell)v_{t-s}(j,\ell)]\leq O(1) \mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle^2\langle Z_{t},h_{\ell} \rangle^2] = O(\lambda_j\lambda_{\ell}),
\end{equation} where the second inequality follows from Assumption \ref{assum2}\ref{assum2c} and the third inequality follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and Assumption \ref{assum2}\ref{assum2c}. \eqref{eqadd01a} implies that $\langle (\hat{C}_{XZ} -{C_{XZ}}) g_j,h_{\ell}\rangle=O_p(T^{-1/2}\sqrt{\lambda_j \lambda_{\ell}})$. Combining this result with Lemma S1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, we conclude that $\|\hat{v}_j-v_j\|^2 = O_p(T^{-1}j^2)$ holds under Assumption \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}. In turn, from similar arguments used in the proofs of (S2.16) and (S2.33) in \cite{seong2021functional}, the following can also be deduced:
\begin{align*}
\|f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)\|^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{\rho+2-2\varsigma},\\
\langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{\rho+2-2\delta_{\zeta}}.
\end{align*}
Combining these results with the conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum3}, it can be shown (see pp.\ S12-S13 of the Supplementary Material in \citealp{seong2021functional}) that
\begin{equation} \label{eqconv1a}
\sqrt{T}(\|A_1\| + \|A_2\| + \|A_3\|) \leq O_p(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} j^{\rho/2 - \varsigma-\delta + 1}) = O_p(\KK^{\rho/2 - \varsigma-\delta + 2}) = o_p(1),
\end{equation}
where the last equality is deduced from that $\KK \to \infty$ as $T\to \infty$ and $\rho/2 - \varsigma-\delta + 2 < 0$ under Assumption \ref{assum3}.
%where the last equality is deduced from that $\alpha \KK^\rho = O_p(1)$, which we obtained earlier.
%(From these results, it is concluded that $\langle (\hat{\SA} - \SA)v_j,v_{\ell}\rangle = T^{-1/2}\lambda_j^{1/2}\lambda_{\ell}^{1/2}$.
%Combining this result with the employed assumptions and Lemma S1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, $\|\hat{v}_j-v_j\| = O_p(T^{-1/2}j^2)$ can be shown. In turn, the following can also be shown from nearly identical arguments used in the proofs of (S2.16) and (S2.33) of \cite{seong2021functional}:
%\begin{align}
% &\langle \hat{v}_j-v_j,\beta_h\rangle = O_p(T^{-1/2})j^{\rho/2+1-\varsigma}, \label{eqpf07a}\\
% &\langle \hat{v}_j-v_j,\zeta_2\rangle = O_p(T^{-1/2}) j^{ \rho/2 + 1-\delta}.\label{eqpf07b}
%\end{align}
%Combining these results with the conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum3}, it can be shown with nearly identical arguments used in \cite{seong2021functional} that $\|A_1\|, \|A_2\|$ and $\|A_3\|$ are all $O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and,
The third term in \eqref{eqdecom}, $f({\Pi}_{\KK}-I)(\zeta)$, satisfies that
\begin{equation}\label{eqconv1aa}
\|f({\Pi}_{\KK}-I)(\zeta)\|^2\leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|\langle g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(g_j^s) \|^2
\leq O(1)\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma} = O(\KK^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma+1})= O(\alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho}),
\end{equation}
where the second inequality follows from Assumptions \ref{assum2}\ref{assum2b2} and \ref{assum2}\ref{assum2c2}, the first equality follows from the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula for the Riemann zert-function (see, e.g., (5.6) of \citealp{ibukiyama2014euler}) and the second equality follows from the fact that $\alpha \KK^\rho = O_p(1)$.
Therefore, from \eqref{eqconv1a} and \eqref{eqconv1aa}, we find that
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} ({f}\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}-f)(\zeta) = O_p(1/\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}) + O(T^{1/2}\alpha^{(\varsigma+\delta_{\zeta}-1/2)/\rho} /\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}).
\end{equation*}
Under Assumption \ref{assum3}, the above is $o_p(1)$. We therefore conclude that
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}-f)(\zeta) = \sqrt{\frac{T}{{\sigma}^2_u{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)) + o_p(1) \to_d N(0,1).
\end{equation*}
To establish the desired asymptotic normality result, it only remains to show that (i) $\|\hat{\sigma}_u^2- {\sigma}_u^2\| \to_p 0$ and (ii) $\|\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)-\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)\| \to_p 0$. Under the employed assumptions, the former follows directly from the consistency of $\hat{f}$. The latter follows from \eqref{eqadda0}, as discussed by \cite{seong2021functional} in their proof of Theorem 2. \qed % and replacing ${\sigma}_u^2\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)$ with $\hat{\sigma}_u^2\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ does not affect the result given in \eqref{eqconv1}. This follows from arguments nearly identical to those used in the proof of Theorem 2 in \cite{seong2021functional}, and thus the details are omitted. \qed
%and $A_4 = f(\Pi_{\KK}-I) \zeta$, where $\Pi_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} g_j \otimes g_j$ and $g_j^s = \sgn \langle g_j, \hat{g}_j \rangle g_j$.
%From this result, we find that, if $f$ and $\zeta$ are smooth enough with respect to $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ (and thus $\varsigma$ and $\delta_{\zeta}$) are large enough, $\alpha$ is allowed to $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$.
\begin{remark} \label{remrate}
%From our proofs of Propositions \ref{prop1} and \ref{prop2}, $\hat{f}-f$ can be deomposed as follows:
% $\hat{f}-f = O_p(f(\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} - {\Pi}_{\KK})) + O_p(f(I - {\Pi}_{\KK})) + O_p(T^{-1/2}\alpha^{-1/2})$. We first note that
%\begin{align}
%\|f(\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}- {\Pi}_{\KK})\|_{\op}
%&= \|\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \ f(\hat{g}_j-g_j) \otimes \hat{g}_j - \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} f ({g}_j) \otimes ({g}_j-\hat{g}_j)\|_{\op} \notag \\
%&\leq O_p(T^{-1/2}) \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} j^{\rho+1}= O_p(T^{-1/2})\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} j^{\rho/2+1} \notag \\ &\leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\reg^{-1/2-2/\rho}\reg^{1/2+2/\rho}\KK^{\rho/2+2})=O_p(T^{-1/2}\reg^{-1/2-2/\rho}). \label{eqappadd01}
% \end{align}
As shown in the earlier proof of Proposition \ref{prop1a}, under Assumption \ref{assum1}, we have $\|\hat{f}-f\|_{\op} = O_p(\alpha^{-1/2}T^{-1/2}) + O_p(\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f(g_j)\|^2) + O_p(T^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j)$, where the first two terms are $o_p(1)$ as shown in our earlier proof. Suppose further that $\alpha = o(T^{1/4})$ and Assumption \ref{assum2} are satisfied. Then as shown by \cite{seong2021functional}, $\alpha \KK^{\rho} = O_p(1)$, and by combining this result with Assumption \ref{assum2}, we find that
$O_p(T^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j) \leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\sum_{t=1}^{\KK} j^{\rho+1}) = O_p(T^{-1/2} \KK^{\rho+2}) = O_p(T^{-1/2}\alpha^{-(\rho+2)/\rho})$, which is $o_p(1)$ since $\alpha=o(T^{1/4})$ and $\rho>2$.
\end{remark}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Quantile function predictor} \label{app_quantile}
In Section \ref{sec_more}, we considered the quantile-to-demand model for comparison with the density-to-demand and hazard-to-demand models. In the DSR model given in \eqref{eqreg1}, as an alternative to the CLR, LHR, or LRHR predictors, practitioners may consider the quantile function corresponding to $\phi_t$ as the distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$. In this case,
\begin{equation*}
X_t^\circ(r) = \inf \left\{ x \in [a,b] : \int_{a}^{x} \phi_t(s) \, ds \leq r \right\}, \quad r \in [a,b].
\end{equation*}
Like other distributional predictors, the quantile function predictor must be estimated in advance from raw temperature data. This can be done by replacing $\phi_t$ with the estimate $\hat{\phi}_t$ as described in Section \ref{Sec_Data_1}. Alternatively, the quantile function predictor can be directly estimated from the raw temperature data by replacing population quantiles with sample quantiles. Specifically, if \( x_{[j]} \) for \( j=1,\ldots,N_t \) are the ordered (smallest to largest) raw temperature observations at time \( t \), we may define
\begin{equation} \label{qfpredictor}
X_t(r) = x_{[N_t r]} \quad \text{if \( N_t r \) is an integer,}
\end{equation}
for \( r \in [0,1] \). If \( N_t r \) is not an integer, we employ a linear interpolation scheme to estimate values proportionally between neighboring data points. The quantile function predictor $X_t$ constructed in this way may be regarded as a reasonable proxy for $X_t^\circ$. Thus, we estimate the model in \eqref{eqreg2} as in the other DSR models considered in Sections \ref{DtoD_Rlt} and \ref{DtoD_Rlt2}. The results reported in Section \ref{sec_more} are based on the quantile predictor constructed as in \eqref{qfpredictor}.
\end{document}
\documentclass[11pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,amsfonts,amstext}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{mathtools}
%\usepackage[longnamesfirst]{natbib}
\usepackage{natbib}
% \bibpunct[, ]{(}{)}{,}{a}{}{,}%
\def\bibfont{\small}%
\def\bibsep{\smallskipamount}%
\def\bibhang{24pt}%
\def\newblock{\ }%
\def\BIBand{and}%
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{cancel}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttable}
\appto\TPTnoteSettings{\linespread{1}\footnotesize} % small text if *not* flushleft
\makeatletter %small text if flushleft
\g@addto@macro\TPT@defaults{\linespread{1}\footnotesize}
\makeatother
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\sisetup{group-digits = true,
group-separator = {,}, % default: \, (thinspace)
round-mode = places,
round-precision = 3 }
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{thrmappendix}
\usepackage{alltt}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{accents}
%\usepackage{hypernat}
\usepackage{mathtools,dsfont}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\definecolor{blue(pigment)}{rgb}{0.2, 0.2, 0.6}
\hypersetup{
colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=blue,
filecolor=magenta,
urlcolor=cyan,
citecolor=blue(pigment),
}
\usepackage[capitalize,noabbrev]{cleveref}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage[inline,shortlabels]{enumitem}
\newtoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}\toggletrue{SUPPLEMENTAL}
\togglefalse{SUPPLEMENTAL} %COMMENT OUT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
\newcommand{\Supplemental}[2]{\iftoggle{SUPPLEMENTAL}{#1}{#2}}
\newtoggle{BLINDED}\toggletrue{BLINDED}
\togglefalse{BLINDED} %COMMENT OUT FOR BLINDED VERSION
\newcommand{\Blinded}[2]{\iftoggle{BLINDED}{#1}{#2}}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.8in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.01in}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newtheorem{axi}{Axiom}[section]
\renewcommand{\theassumption}{A\arabic{assumption}}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[]
\newtheorem{lemma}[]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[]
\newtheorem{example}{Example}[]
\newcommand{\pconv}{\xrightarrow{p}}
\newcommand{\dconv}{\xrightarrow{d}}
\newcommand{\avgt}{\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T}
\newcommand{\avgn}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}}
\newcommand{\tr}{^{\top}}
\newcommand{\KK}{{\rm K}}
\newcommand{\HH}{{\rm F}}
\newcommand{\PP}{{\rm P}}
\newcommand{\QQ}{{\rm Q}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\DeclareMathOperator{\op}{op}
\newcommand{\ASD}[1]{\{\scalebox{0.85}{$\hspace{-0.1em}#1\hspace{-0.1em}$}\}}
\crefformat{footnote}{#2\footnotemark[#1]#3} %cleveref
\crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{conjecture}{Conjecture}{Conjectures}
\Crefname{section}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsection}{Section}{Sections}
\Crefname{subsubsection}{Section}{Sections}
\crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{appendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\Crefname{subsubappendix}{Appendix}{Appendices}
\crefname{equation}{}{}
\Crefname{equation}{Equation}{Equations}
%
\crefformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}
\crefrangeformat{enumi}{(#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\crefmultiformat{enumi}{(#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
\Crefformat{enumi}{Part (#2#1#3)}
\Crefrangeformat{enumi}{Parts (#3#1#4)\crefrangeconjunction(#5#2#6)}
\Crefmultiformat{enumi}{Parts (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}{, (#2#1#3)}{ and~(#2#1#3)}
%
\crefname{assumption}{}{}
\Crefname{assumption}{Assumption}{Assumptions}
\newcommand{\creflastconjunction}{, and\nobreakspace} %Oxford comma
\newcommand{\crefrangeconjunction}{--}
\DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `dirname #1`/`basename #1 .tif`.png}
\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.png}
\graphicspath{ {./Figures/} }
\newcommand{\citeposs}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}
\newcommand{\matf}[1]{#1} %matrix formatting
\newcommand{\vecf}[1]{#1} %vector formatting
% \newcommand{\matf}[1]{\underline{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}}} %matrix formatting
% \newcommand{\vecf}[1]{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{#1}}} %vector formatting
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{Var}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Cov}{Cov}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Corr}{Corr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\const}{const.}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ran}{ran}
\DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{rank}
\DeclareMathOperator{\spn}{span}
\DeclareMathOperator{\HS}{HS}
\newcommand{\Varp}[1]{\Var\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Covp}[1]{\Cov\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\Corrp}[1]{\Corr\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\WP}{\textrm{ w.p.\ }}
\newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}
\newcommand{\Hnull}{{\mathbb H}_0}\newcommand{\Halt}{{\mathbb H}_1}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sgn}{sgn}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{E}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Q}{Q}
\let\Pr\relax \DeclareMathOperator{\Pr}{P} %comment out if Pr desired
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\plim}{plim}
\DeclareMathOperator{\1}{\mathds{1}}
\newcommand{\Ind}[1]{\1\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\Normal}{\mathrm{N}}
\newcommand{\Normalp}[2]{\Normal\left(#1,#2\right)}
\newcommand{\BetaDist}{\textrm{Beta}}
\newcommand{\DirDist}{\textrm{Dir}}
\newcommand{\UnifDist}{\textrm{Unif}}
\newcommand{\weaklyto}{\rightsquigarrow}
\newcommand{\diff}{d} %differential operator: easy to change to upright if needed.
%(partial) derivatives:
\newcommand{\pD}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
\newcommand{\pDD}[2]{\frac{\partial^2 #1}{\partial #2^2}}
\newcommand{\D}[2]{\frac{\diff #1}{\diff #2}}
\newcommand{\DD}[2]{\frac{\diff^2 #1}{\diff #2^2}}
\newcommand{\independenT}[2]{\mathrel{\rlap{$#1#2$}\mkern2mu{#1#2}}}
\newcommand\independent{\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}}
\newcommand{\indep}{\independent}
\providecommand{\absbig}[1]{\left\lvert#1\right\rvert}
\providecommand{\normbig}[1]{\left\lVert#1\right\rVert}
\providecommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert}
\providecommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert}
\newcommand\commWK{\textcolor{blue}}
\newcommand\commKS{\textcolor{red}}
\let\originalleft\left
\let\originalright\right
\renewcommand{\left}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}
\renewcommand{\right}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}
%Bibliography spacing fix
\let\oldthebibliography=\thebibliography
\let\endoldthebibliography=\endthebibliography
\renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1]{%
\begin{oldthebibliography}{#1}%
\setlength{\parskip}{0ex}%
\setlength{\itemsep}{0ex}%
}%
{%
\end{oldthebibliography}%
}
% \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\roman{enumi}}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\theenumi)}
\allowdisplaybreaks[3]
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
\title{Estimating the Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity of \\ \vspace{0.5em} Residential Electricity Demand under Measurement Errors\thanks{We deeply appreciate Hyunjin Yang (KEPCO) and Sungro Lee (KOGAS) for generously providing residential electricity demand and local temperature data in the Republic of Korea. Kyungsik Nam's research was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2024.}}
% We deeply appreciate all valuable comments from ... and to participants of the ... for useful feedback.
\author{Kyungsik Nam\thanks{Assistant Professor, Division of Climate Change, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 17035, Republic of Korea. E-mail: \texttt{ksnam@hufs.ac.kr}}, \,\, Won-Ki Seo\thanks{Lecturer, School of Economics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: \texttt{won-ki.seo@sydney.edu.au}}}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\noindent We estimate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand during extreme temperature events, with a focus on addressing measurement errors. Recognizing the importance of accurate demand estimation for grid stability, we develop a function-to-scalar model that effectively identifies nonlinearities, even in the presence of measurement errors. After incorporating appropriate centering transformations of the functional temperature data, this econometric framework is applied to both temperature density-to-demand and quantile-to-demand models. The empirical findings for the density-based model reveal that residential electricity demand is more responsive to cold waves than to heat waves in a nonlinear fashion. Additionally, we show that the temperature quantile-to-demand model produces insignificant demand response estimates. These results underscore the need for robust modeling techniques to accurately forecast demand under extreme conditions, offering valuable insights for energy practitioners.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{0.4\baselineskip}
\vfill
\noindent JEL Classification: C33, C51, C53, Q41 \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Key words and phrases}: Functional regression, measurement error, electricity demand, temperature sensitivity, heat wave
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\setcounter{page}{0} \thispagestyle{empty}
\baselineskip19.5pt
\pagenumbering{arabic}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newpage
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec_Intro}
\input{FRKETQ_P3/01_FRKET_Intro}
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Econometric Model and Estimator}\label{sec_method}
\input{FRKETQ_P3/02_FRKET_Econometrics}
\bigskip
%\newpage
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Data}\label{Sec_Data}
\input{FRKETQ_P3/03_FRKET_Data}
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Empirical Investigation}\label{Sec_Empirics}
\input{FRKETQ_P3/04_FRKET_Empirics_v5}
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Concluding Remarks}\label{Sec_conclude}
\input{FRKETQ_P3/05_FRKET_Conclude}
\bigskip
\section*{Disclosure Statement}
\noindent The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
%%%%%%%%% BIBLIOGRAPHY %%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv} %chicago,elsarticle-harv...ecta, econometrica...informs2014
\bibliography{FRKETQ_P3/FRKET_biblio}
\bigskip
\appendix\label{Sec_Append}
\input{FRKETQ_P3/06_FRKET_APPENDIX}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\end{document}
\noindent Accurately estimating electricity demand during extreme weather events is vital for ensuring energy security and enhancing grid reliability. For energy practitioners and policymakers, precise demand estimation is crucial for managing supply and demand, preventing power outages, and ensuring that the energy infrastructure can withstand increased loads during such critical periods. As climate change leads to more frequent and severe weather conditions, precise demand estimation becomes a key priority for sustainable energy management.
% (Research Question, KS will do this by August)
\indent The unexpected spikes in electricity demand during extreme temperature events present unique challenges that require advanced econometric modeling to ensure grid reliability. It is known that residential electricity demand is highly sensitive to temperature changes, and extreme weather can lead to nonlinear increases in demand, placing significant stress on grid infrastructure. Electricity demand would be substantially underestimated without accurately capturing these nonlinearities, risking grid stability. Therefore, modeling the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand is essential to inform effective energy management strategies and secure the grid's resilience against future weather extremes.
\indent The key challenge in estimating the nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature lies in the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature densities are treated as true densities. This assumption can introduce bias into demand response estimates since errors from the estimation process may distort the results. Furthermore, generating a representative temperature density using hourly regional data adds further estimation errors, which can lead to biased and inconsistent demand response estimates. These errors are particularly problematic during extreme temperature events, compromising the reliability of forecasts critical for energy security and grid stability.
\indent Building on the foundational work of \cite{engle1986semiparametric}, a substantial body of literature has applied the cointegration framework for analyzing electricity demand, with noticeable contributions from \cite{engle1989merging}, \cite{silk1997short}, \cite{beenstock1999demand}, \cite{chang2014time}, \cite{chang2016disentangling}, and \cite{chang2021forecasting}, among others. Subsequently, the literature has focused on incorporating nonlinear temperature variables, such as Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD), or employing nonlinear econometric methods to evaluate the impact of temperature fluctuations on electricity demand, including \cite{sailor1997sensitivity}, \cite{henley1997non}, \cite{henley1998residential}, \cite{valor2001daily}, \cite{pardo2002temperature}, and \cite{apadula2012relationships}. In particular, smooth transition, panel threshold, and switching regression models have been employed to capture nonlinear demand responses (\citealp{moral2005modelling}; \citealp{bessec2008non}). More recently, density-based functional approaches have emerged to analyze these effects across sectors, providing deeper insights into the nonlinearity between temperature and electricity demand (\citealp{chang2016new}; \citealp{miller2022modeling}).
\indent The nonlinear relationship between electricity demand and temperature has been further explored through various advanced methodologies. For instance, \cite{teixeira2017} integrated linear regression with artificial neural networks to capture diverse consumption patterns, while \cite{caro2020} and \cite{sharma2020} utilized periodically correlated models and synergy of recurrent neural networks with fuzzy logic, respectively, to enhance load forecasting accuracy. Meanwhile, \cite{sigauke2013extreme} applied tail-quantile estimation to analyze extreme daily increases in peak electricity demand, highlighting the critical role of temperature-driven demand fluctuations. Lastly, \cite{sultana2022} refined short-term demand forecasts using machine learning, focusing on managing temperature-induced variability.
\indent Compared to the existing literature, we introduce a functional econometric approach that effectively captures the nonlinearity of residential electricity demand response, even in the presence of measurement errors—a dimension that has not been thoroughly addressed in the existing literature. By addressing the complexities introduced by the measurement errors, our approach provides a more robust estimation, setting it apart from traditional techniques that may overlook these critical factors. Furthermore, our approach differs significantly from existing studies by focusing on the nonlinear demand response of residential electricity to changes in temperature density, rather than just temperature levels. This allows for a more comprehensive analysis, capturing the broader distributional effects of temperature fluctuations, particularly during extreme weather events. By examining shifts in the entire temperature distribution, we provide deeper insights into how extreme temperatures impact electricity demand.
\indent Instead of viewing density and quantile functions as competing methods, we consider them complementary strategies, each providing unique insights to form a comprehensive analytical framework. The density-based approach offers direct interpretability within a compositional data framework, allowing for clear analysis of temperature's impact on electricity demand across the entire distribution. On the other hand, quantile functions address heterogeneous support more effectively and excel in estimating the cumulative effects of temperature at highest or lowest quantiles. Notably, these issues have not been adequately addressed in the existing literature. In this paper, we apply the Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation for density-valued functional data and mean centering for quantile-valued functional data. These transformations enable us to handle the distinct characteristics of each functional data, providing a more robust analysis.
\indent The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec_method} details the econometric methodology employed to estimate the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand in the presence of measurement errors. Section \ref{Sec_Data} discusses the residential electricity demand and local temperature data from the Republic of Korea. Given two extreme weather events, Section \ref{Sec_Empirics} presents empirical results illustrating the nonlinear sensitivity of temperature density and quantile functions. Finally, Section \ref{Sec_conclude} provides concluding remarks, with econometric proofs included in the Appendix.
\subsection{Distributional predictors of temperature and measurement errors} \label{sec_method_1}
We let $y_t$ be the electricity demand, a practical measurement of which is detailed in Section \ref{Sec_Data}, and $X_t^\circ$ be a functional object that summarizes the distributional properties of temperature. There may be various choices for $X_t^\circ$, but we in this paper focus on two choices, (i) the CLR transformation and (ii) quantile function corresponding to the probablity density function, denoted $p_t$, of temperature. The former seems to be a standard choice in the literature, and the latter has it own merit, compared to the former, to our empirical application.
If the density $p_t$ of temperature is supported on $[a,b]$, then the CLR transformation $X_t^\circ$ of $p_t$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqclr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log p_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \log p_t (s) ds, \quad r\in [a,b]
\end{equation}
%As discussed in the recent literature, it is not advisable to consider the original density function of temperatures, say $p_t$, as the predictor $X_t^\circ$. This is because that the nonlinear restrictions (i) $p_t(r)\geq 0$ for all $r\in [a,b]$ and (ii) $\int_{a}^b p_t(r) dr=1$, which are essentially required for $p_t$ to be a proper density, prevent us from using the existing well-developed statistical theory developed in a Hilbert space setting (see e.g., \citealp{petersen2016,Hron2016330,SEO2019}). As a way to circumvent this issue, we consider the following CLR transformation of $p_t$, which were earlier proposed in the literature (\citealp{Egozcue2006}) :
Under some mathematical conditions on the underlying probability density $p_t$, the transformation from $p_t$ to its CLR transformation not only embeds the probability densities on $[a,b]$ into a linear subspace of the $L^2[0,1]$ Hilbert space but also is invertible. Thus, the CLR transfomration of $p_t$ have been considered a standard choice in the model involving distributional functional data (see e.g., \citealp{kokoszka2019forecasting,SEO2019,seong2021functional})
We also let $X_t^\circ$ be the quantile function corresponding to $p_t$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eqqf}
X_t^\circ(r) = \inf \{x \in [a,b]:\int_{a}^{x} p_t(s) ds \leq r\}, \quad r\in [0,1].
\end{equation}
It is well known that, for the CLR transformation to be an invertible transformation of a set of probability densities, $p_t$ needs to be supported on a common compact interval $[a,b]$ for every $t$ (see e.g., \citealp{Egozcue2006,Boogaart2014}). This requires us to estimate all the temperature densities on a common interval. On the other hand, the quantile functions do not require such a restriction, and the support of the function can vary over time.
In practice, $p_t$ cannot be directly observed, and thus $X_t^\circ$ is not observable. For empirical analysis, it needs to be constructed from the raw temperature data; specifically, we may replace $p_t$ or $\log p_t$ with relevant nonparametric estimate in \eqref{eqclr} (as in \citealp{SEO2019}) or replace population quantiles with sample quantiles in \eqref{eqqf}. However, this replacement necessarily introduces estimation/smoothing errors, and may lead inconsistent estimation of the model. Subsequently, we discuss econometric methods for studying the distributional impact of temperature on electricity demand that are robust to the presence of these estimation/smoothing errors contained in the distributional predictor.
%\noindent In empirical studies involving density- or quantile-valued functional data, two challenges arise: (i) the nonlinear constraints make simple functional data analysis inadequate for properly defining these functions within a Hilbert space, and (ii) the true density or quantile function of an economic or climate variable is unobservable, requiring nonparametric density or quantile estimates as proxies.
%\indent To address the first challenge, researchers often apply invertible transformations such as the CLR transformation introduced by \cite{Egozcue2006} to the estimated density functions. As such, we first apply the CLR transformation to the time series of the temperature density function.\footnote{A small value of 0.001 is added to the entire temperature density function to conduct the CLR transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} We then incorporate the hypothetically generated functional shocks based on the CLR-transformed and temporally demeaned functional data. These CLR-transformed temperature density functions, along with the functional shocks, are represented in the function space using orthonormal Fourier basis vectors.
%\indent Unlike density functions, which exploit the CLR transformation to define linear operators for Hilbert space analysis, quantile functions lack an appropriate invertible transformation, making Hilbert space analysis more challenging. Quantile functions map quantiles to temperature values without the constant sum constraint inherent in density functions. This limitation complicates quantile function analysis within the Hilbert space. Acknowledging this limitation, we simply apply a mean centering operation to represent the quantile function in the function space using Fourier basis functions.
%\indent Regarding the second challenge, researchers typically replace unobservable true density or quantile function with nonparametric density or quantile estimates, and these estimates would be susceptible to measurement errors. As discussed earlier, such measurement errors—stemming from data quality issues or limitations in the estimation process itself—can lead to inconsistent estimates, introducing bias into the analysis of nonlinear responses, particularly regarding temperature's impact on electricity demand. In this light, addressing measurement error is critical for accurately uncovering the true nature of nonlinear demand response, underscoring the need for more robust methodologies.
\subsection{Econometric model and estimator} \label{Sec_Model}
For the subsequent discussion, it will be convenient to introduce some essential notation. We let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions defined on $[a,b]$ with inner product $\langle g,h \rangle = \int_{a}^b g(s)h(s)ds$ for and norm $\|g\|=\sqrt{\langle g,g \rangle}$, where $g,h \in \mathcal H$; $\mathcal H$ is a commonly considered Hilbert space in the literature on functional data analysis. The distributional predictor $X_t^\circ$ and its measurement $X_t$, which are introduced in \eqref{sec_method_1}, are understood as random elements in $\mathcal H$. Essential concepts on $\mathcal H$ and notation, which we subsequently consider, are reviewed in Section \ref{sec_app_prelim}.
To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$,\footnote{The linear map $f$ can be equivalently expressed as an integral transformation associated with a kernel function $\mathrm k_f$, as follows: $ f(X_t^{\circ}) = \int_{a}^b \mathcal \mathrm k_f (r) X_t^{\circ}(r)dr$. Obviously, estimation $\mathrm{k}_f$ is identical to estimation of $f$. However, we in this paper, focus on $f$.} and $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$.
\eqref{eqreg1} pertains to the function-to-scalar regression (FSR) model, which is extensively discussed in the literature. As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, in practice, $X_t^\circ$ is not directly observed and has to be estimated or smoothed from discrete samples $\{p_t^{\circ} (s_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_t}$ of $p_t$, and practitioners often have no choice but to replace $X_t^{\circ}$ with its feasible estimate $X_t$. As earlier pointed out by \citet[Sections 2 and 5.3]{seong2021functional}, this is a common source of endogeneity in the regression model involving functional data, and ignoring such errors may be detrimental to the use of standard estimators of $f$, requiring the exogeneity of the predictor, developed in the literature.
To illustrate this issue with a concrete example, we assume that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ measures the additive departure of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t]=0$. Then, from \eqref{eqreg1}, we find that the following relationship holds:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg2}
y_t = \mu+ f (X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$ holds. In the above, $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated, i.e., $\mathbb{E}[X_t\otimes u_t] \neq 0$), where $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product (see Section \ref{sec_app_prelim} of Appendix).\footnote{Specifically, for any $g,h$ taking values in $\mathcal H$, $ g \otimes h (x) = \langle g,x \rangle h = (\int_{a}^{b} g(s)x(r)dr)h$ for any $x\in \mathcal H$.}
As is well known in the literature (see e.g., \citealp{seong2021functional}, Sections 1--2), this endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition $\mathbb{E}[X_t\otimes u_t]=0$, inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid.
To estimate $f$ from \eqref{eqreg2} and implement valid statistical inference, we in this paper adapt the functional IV estimator developed for function-to-function regression (FFR) model to our context. To this end, we let $Z_t$ be the functional Instrumental Variable (IV) satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{align}\label{eqreg3}
C_{XZ}:=\mathbb{E}[(X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])\otimes (Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])]\neq 0, \quad
C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]=0. %\, \text{ or equivalently }\, C_{Zy}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes y_t] = f C_{XZ}^\ast,
\end{align}
The above consists of only the minimal requirements for the IV $Z_t$. More conditions for the consistency and (local) asymptotic normality of our estimator will be detailed in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix.
ssuming that the measurement errors are not serially correlated and $X_{t}$ exhibits a time series dependence, in our empirical analysis we will let $Z_t$ be a lagged distributional predictor as in \citet[Section 5.3]{seong2021functional}. To obtain our proposed estimator, we need to compute the sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (X_t-\bar{X}_T) \otimes (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T) \otimes (X_t-\bar{X}_T),
%\widehat{C}_{Zy} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes y_t, \quad
% \quad %\widehat{C}_{Zu} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} Z_t \otimes u_t,
%\widehat{\Gamma}_{yX} =\widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ}, \quad \widehat{\Gamma}_{X} = \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are, respectively, the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast (:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$. As is well known in the literature, $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2 \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j.
\end{equation}
The eigenelements can be computed using the standard functional principal component analysis (FPCA) as in \cite{seong2021functional}.
Then our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $\KK$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$; a more detailed and technical requirement on the choice of $\KK$ will be postponed to Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix. If $\KK$ is appropriately determined, it is straightforward to compute the estimator using $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and the sample eigenelements $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2,\hat{g}_j\}$. The above estimator is in fact a sample analogue estimator based on the population equation $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}= f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$, which holds when $Z_t$ satisfies \eqref{eqreg3} (see Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix for more detailed discussion.). From this equation, the estimator \eqref{eqest} is obtained by (i) replacing the population operators $C_{Zy}$ and $C_{XZ}$ with their sample counterparts $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and then (ii) employing a regularized inverse of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$, which is necessary to compute the estimator.
Adapting the theoretical results developed for FFR model by \cite{seong2021functional}, we establish the consistency of $\hat{f}$ under appropriate assumptions as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Under Assumption \ref{assum1} given in Section \ref{sec_app_est}, $\hat{f}$ is a consistent estimator of $f$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} is intentionally presented without any mathematical details; a more rigorous version is provided in the Appendix (see Proposition \ref{prop1a}). The consistency stated in Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that for every $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\hat{f}(x)$ converges in probability to $f(x)$.
It is often of interest for practitioners to see the effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$; \commWK{specifically, in our empirical analysis, $\zeta$ will be set to extreme temperature events, called heat wave and cold wave, and we are interested in the effect of these events on $y_t$.} The consistency result given by Proposition \ref{prop1} implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$. Beyond the consistent estimation, the following results, which can be used for statistical inference on $f(\zeta)$, can be established under some appropriate conditions (see Proposition \ref{prop2} in the Appendix):
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator, which was earlier obtained by \cite{seong2021functional} in the FFR model.
\subsection{Raw data and temperature densities} \label{Sec_Data_1}
\noindent To investigate nonlinear temperature sensitivity while accounting for potential measurement errors, we analyze an extensive dataset that includes residential electricity demand (unit: GWh) and local temperature (unit: degrees Celsius) readings from the Republic of Korea, covering the period from January 1999 to December 2023 (300 monthly observations). The residential electricity demand data are provided by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), the state-owned utility company responsible for electricity sales across the country. Given the inherent variability in the number of days within each month, we have normalized the raw monthly electricity demand by dividing it by the number of effective days per month. This adjustment yields a metric referred to as the electricity demand per effective day, as outlined in \cite{chang2014time}, which underscores the importance of accounting for temporal differences in energy demand analysis.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth, width=0.8\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Y_Graph.png}
\caption{Natural log of residential electricity demand per effective day and its 12-month moving average (top), and their deviation process (down) from January 1999 to December 2023.}
\label{Fig:Y_Graphs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent \cite{chang2016new} found no empirical evidence suggesting that non-climate variables significantly influence the demand response to temperature in the residential sector. Building on this finding, and to isolate the short-run fluctuations in residential electricity demand, we calculate the deviation from the natural logarithm of a 12-month moving average of electricity demand per effective day, which are illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Y_Graphs}. This deviation serves as a proxy for the short-run component of electricity demand, allowing us to focus on the short-run effects of temperature changes while filtering out long-run effects of income and electricity price. By employing this detrending approach, we ensure that our analysis effectively captures the nonlinear responses of residential electricity demand to temperature fluctuations, independent of other non-climate factors.
%(heterogeneous support problem with density generation)
\indent To model the seasonality, we retrieve the hourly temperature data from the KMA National Climate Data Center.\footnote{Downloaded from https://data.kma.go.kr/cmmn/main.do on July 1, 2024.} We then construct the monthly temperature density function over the common support, $[-20,40]$ using hourly temperature observations from the five largest cities—Seoul, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan-covering the territory of the Republic of Korea.\footnote{Instead of estimating the range of the common support, we adopt the common support of $[-20,40]$ with grid difference, $0.1$, as established in the literature (\citealp{chang2014time}; \citealp{chang2016new}).} To represent the temperature density function of the Republic of Korea, we calculate the weighted average of the estimated time series for these five density functions, assigning weights based on the annual proportion of electricity sales in each of the five regions (Seoul Metropolitan Area [Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi], Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan).\footnote{The combined annual electricity consumption of the five regions accounts for approximately 55.3\% of the national total on average during the period from 1999 to 2021. Due to data availability constraints, the proportions for the years 2022 and 2023 have been substituted with the values from 2021.}\footnote{The annual regional consumption data was obtained from the Korea Energy Statistics Information System (KESIS) and can be accessed at \url{https://www.kesis.net/sub/subChart.jsp?report_id=33150&reportType=0} (data downloaded on July 1, 2024).}
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip} illustrates the time series of a temperature density function, estimated using the normal kernel and plug-in bandwidth, and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics. Note that the generated monthly temperature density functions exhibit significant heterogeneity, particularly between summer and winter. The time-series analysis of monthly temperature distributions in the Republic of Korea from 1999 to 2023 reveals stable seasonal cycles in the mean temperature, reflecting consistent annual patterns. However, the standard deviation indicates increasing variability, particularly post-2010, suggesting a growing spread in temperature values around the mean. The skewness exhibits seasonal fluctuations, with positive skewness during warmer months indicating a higher frequency of extreme high temperatures, and negative skewness during colder months reflecting an increase in extreme low temperatures. However, this skewness does not show a clear trend of increasing asymmetry over time but rather indicates a recurring seasonal pattern. The kurtosis remains relatively stable but experiences significant spikes, particularly after 2010. These spikes suggest periods with more frequent and intense extreme temperature events. Thus, while the skewness reflects consistent seasonal variability, the spikes in kurtosis indicate a rise in temperature extremes, likely influenced by climate change.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.4\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc0.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.55\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates of the temperature distribution in the Republic of Korea (left) and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics (right). The red lines indicate August 2017 and August 2018, while the blue lines represent January 2020 and January 2021.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
% \indent This non-homogeneous support presents challenges for the functional econometric methodologies, potentially rendering them inappropriate for this analysis. To address this issue, we apply the Lorenz Curve transformation combined with the quantile function, as suggested by \cite{bongiorno2019describing}, to mitigate the problem of non-homogeneous support throughout the sample period. Based on the common support range of $[-20, 40]$, more specifically, we extend the estimated quantile function by setting the 0$^\textrm{th}$ and 100$^\textrm{th}$ percentiles to the minimum and maximum values of the generated quantile functions, respectively. This approach allows the entire quantile function over the common support to capture the seasonality throughout the sample period.
% (Lorenz curve implication with L''(p) transformation)
%\indent We generate the Lorenz curve using the formula $\hat{L}(p) = \frac{1}{\bar{X}} \int_0^p \hat{Q}(r) , dr$, where $\hat{Q}(r)$ represents the empirical quantile function at the $r$-th quantile, and $\bar{X}$ is the empirical mean of the quantile function. Next, we derive the second derivative of the Lorenz curve, $L(p)$, using the formula $L''(p) = \frac{1}{\bar{X}} f\{Q(p)\}$, where $f\{Q(p)\}$ is the density-quantile function, as presented in equation (4) of \cite{bongiorno2019describing}. Subsequently, the negative Centered-Log-Ratio (CLR) transformation is applied to the empirical $L''(p)$ to ensure it is defined within the Hilbert Space. Note that these transformation processes effectively result in the positive CLR transformation of the density function, although two different approaches would produce different results due to extended grid number and kernel estimation techniques (Do this more...).
\subsection{Construction of the distributional predictors}
As discussed in Section \ref{sec_method_1}, distributional predictors in practice need to be estimated in advance from the raw data. For the CLR transformations, we use the estimated densities, denoted as $\hat{p}_t$, obtained in Section \ref{Sec_Data_1} (see Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}), and construct $X_t$ as follows:\begin{equation}\label{eqclr2} X_t(r) = \log \hat{p}_t(r) - \int_{-20}^{40} \log \hat{p}_t (s) ds.\footnote{As is common in the literature (see e.g., Section 5.2, \citealp{seoshang22}), a small value of $10^{-3}$ is added to the entire temperature density function $\hat{p}_t$ to implement the log transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} \end{equation} On the other hand, when $X_t^\circ$ is the quantile function corresponding to $p_t$, we directly estimate it from the raw temperature data by replacing population quantiles with sample quantiles.
%\indent To address the first challenge, researchers often apply invertible transformations such as the CLR transformation introduced by \cite{Egozcue2006} to the estimated density functions. As such, we first apply the CLR transformation to the time series of the temperature density function.\footnote{A small value of 0.001 is added to the entire temperature density function to conduct the CLR transformation over the common support range of $[-20,40]$.} We then incorporate the hypothetically generated functional shocks based on the CLR-transformed and temporally demeaned functional data. These CLR-transformed temperature density functions, along with the functional shocks, are represented in the function space using orthonormal Fourier basis vectors.
%\indent Unlike density functions, which exploit the CLR transformation to define linear operators for Hilbert space analysis, quantile functions lack an appropriate invertible transformation, making Hilbert space analysis more challenging. Quantile functions map quantiles to temperature values without the constant sum constraint inherent in density functions. This limitation complicates quantile function analysis within the Hilbert space. Acknowledging this limitation, we simply apply a mean centering operation to represent the quantile function in the function space using Fourier basis functions.
%\indent Regarding the second challenge, researchers typically replace unobservable true density or quantile function with nonparametric density or quantile estimates, and these estimates would be susceptible to measurement errors. As discussed earlier, such measurement errors—stemming from data quality issues or limitations in the estimation process itself—can lead to inconsistent estimates, introducing bias into the analysis of nonlinear responses, particularly regarding temperature's impact on electricity demand. In this light, addressing measurement error is critical for accurately uncovering the true nature of nonlinear demand response, underscoring the need for more robust methodologies.
% weakness of Chang et al. (2016) approach) no clr transformation \& measurement error: Points: Nonlinear temperature sensitivity with functional approach, CLR transformation for Hilbert space, measurement error
% errors originating from temperature measurement sites can complicate the analysis, potentially skewing density estimation and, by extension, the overall results.
\indent Throughout this paper, we set $K$ in equation \eqref{eqest} to 3.\footnote{Following the results given in Section \ref{sec_app_est} of Appendix and Remark \ref{rem1}, we set $\KK=1+\max_{j\geq 1}\{\tilde{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for $\alpha = 0.1 \times T^{-0.3}$, where $\tilde{\lambda}_j^2=\lambda_j^2/\sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2$ and this is to obtain a choice of $\KK$ which is independent of the scale of $X_t$ and $Z_t$; see S5 of \cite{seong2021functional}.} \commWK{Noting that the measurement errors are caused by smoothing $X_t$ from its discrete realizations, we assume that the measurement errors are serially uncorrelated, and let $X_{t-\kappa}$ be the IV for our empirical analysis; similar approaches were earlier adopted in the numerical studies given by \cite{seong2021functional,Chen_et_al_2020}. Given that our approach relies on the autocovariance structure of the distributional predictor, it is essential to carefully select the value of $\kappa$.} A larger $\kappa$ value might lead to the loss of crucial information, particularly in capturing the temporal dynamics of the functional data. Therefore, we have chosen to set $\kappa$ to 1. This selection enables us to account for potential errors in density/quantile estimation process or data quality while minimizing the risk of information loss, thus enhancing the robustness and reliability of our analysis.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Functional Shocks for Cold Wave and Heat Wave}\label{Sec_Est_Shocks}
\noindent The Republic of Korea experienced two significant extreme weather events for the sample period.\footnote{Source: \url{https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Hottest-Day-Korean-History}, \url{https://watchers.news/2021/01/11/historic-cold-wave-and-heavy-snow-hit-south-korea/}} In August 2018, the Republic of Korea experienced one of its most intense heat waves on record, with temperatures soaring to an average of 29.2°C, the highest since record-keeping began in 1907. This extreme heat led to the residential electricity demand of 8,851.04 GWh during that month, underscoring the strain placed on the energy grid by cooling needs. Similarly, January 2021 was marked by a significant cold wave, with temperatures plunging to an average of -6.1°C, well below the seasonal norm. During this period, residential electricity demand also spiked to 7,163.28 GWh as households increased heating usage to cope with the severe cold.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.95\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock0.png}
\caption{Kernel density estimates comparing January 2021 (solid) and January 2020 (dotted) on the left, and August 2018 (solid) and August 2017 (dotted) on the right, with the black lines representing their differences.}
\label{Fig:Func_shock2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2} illustrates changes in the monthly temperature distributions during extreme weather events—specifically, a heat wave in August 2018 and a cold wave in January 2021. In the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, the blue solid line represents the temperature distribution in January 2021, compared to the blue dashed line for January 2020, with the black line showing the distributional difference, capturing the effect of the cold wave. Similarly, in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}, the red solid line represents the temperature distribution in August 2018, while the red dashed line shows the temperature distribution in August 2017, with the black line indicating the difference between these two distributions, implying the functional shock of the heat wave.
\indent Moreover, the temperature distributions during the 2018 heat wave and the 2021 cold wave exhibit distinct shifts indicative of extreme weather conditions. The August 2018 distribution is skewed significantly to the right, reflecting a higher frequency of exceptionally high temperatures, with a pronounced right tail indicating extreme heat events. Conversely, the January 2021 distribution is heavily skewed to the left, highlighting a prevalence of unusually low temperatures, with a long left tail denoting severe cold conditions. These graphs reveal the significant shifts in temperature distributions during these extreme events, illustrating how both the heat wave and cold wave deviated sharply from typical conditions in the preceding months.% The black lines representing the differences from the previous months underscore the magnitude of these deviations, clearly illustrating the substantial impact of these climatic anomalies.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock2.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quantile_shock_Desc.png}
\caption{Selected functional shocks for cold waves (blue), shifted 50 grids to the right, and heat waves (red), shifted 50 grids to the left (left), and the mean change of the functional density shocks during the shifting process (right).}
\label{Fig:Func_shock3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent In Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock3}, we generate functional shocks by parallelly shifting the previously mentioned shocks, in order to identify the nonlinear response of electricity demand per effective day (nonlinear demand response, in short). Specifically, the functional shock for the heat wave is shifted to the left, and the functional shock for the cold wave is shifted to the right, each across a range of one to 50 grids. By applying the CLR transformation to each shifted temperature distribution, this approach enables us to observe the functional shocks within a more moderated framework. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock3} illustrates the 50-grid left-shifted heat wave shock (red dashed line) and the 50-grid right-shifted cold wave shock (blue dashed line). As expected, these shifts result in changes to the mean of the temperature distributions, as depicted in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock3}. For instance, the mean temperature in August 2018 was approximately 28.54°C, compared to 26.02°C in August 2017. However, after applying a 50-grid left shift, the means of the temperature distributions were adjusted to approximately 23.55°C and 21.06°C, respectively. Thus, while the heat wave shock resulted in a mean increase of 2.49°C, shifting the temperature distributions reveals variations in the perceived impact of the heat wave shock, depending on the defined temperature level.
\indent In the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock3}, similarly, we observe the functional shock generated by shifting the cold wave shock (blue solid line) to the right across a range of grids. The original cold wave shock, represented by the blue solid line, shows significant deviations from the previous month, as seen in the black line in the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock2}. More specifically, the analysis of the cold wave shock involves comparing the temperature distributions of January 2021 and January 2020. The observed difference in mean temperatures between these two months is 3.84°C, as shown in the right panel of the figure. To preserve this difference while examining the impact of varying cold wave intensities, both temperature distributions were shifted to the right by an equal amount. Within this framework, a weak cold wave shock is defined by a shift from a temperature distribution with a mean of 7.30°C to one with a mean of 3.46°C. In contrast, a strong cold wave shock is characterized by a shift from a mean of 2.30°C to a mean of -1.53°C. These adjustments maintain the mean difference between the two distributions, while effectively illustrating how different levels of cold wave intensity can be generated and analyzed.
\indent In the cold wave scenario, as described in the right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_descrip}, the variance for the cold wave scenario shows a significant increase from January 2020 to January 2021, reflecting a wider spread of temperatures in 2021 ($17.30 \rightarrow 51.37$). This suggests that 2021 experienced a more varied range of cold temperatures compared to the previous year. However, the skewness and kurtosis decrease for the cold wave, implying that while the temperature distribution became more dispersed, it also became more symmetrical and less peaked ($0.14 \rightarrow -0.04$ \& $2.62 \rightarrow 2.40$). This indicates that extreme cold events were less frequent in 2021 than in 2020. For the heat wave scenario, on the other hand, the variance increases much less than for the cold wave ($15.0 \rightarrow 17.11$). However, while skewness increases, kurtosis decreases, indicating that the temperature distribution in 2018 became more skewed to the right but less peaked compared to 2017 ($-0.06 \rightarrow 0.20$ \& $2.90 \rightarrow 2.50$). This suggests that extreme high-temperature events were more frequent but not as intense in 2018. Ultimately, while both cold and heat waves lead to increased variance, reflecting more extreme conditions compared to the previous year, they have different effects on the shape of the temperature distribution. The cold wave results in a more symmetrical and less extreme distribution, whereas the heat wave leads to greater asymmetry with more frequent but less intense extreme temperatures.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Density-to-Demand Model}
% (Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity)
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth, width=0.9\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Empirical_rlt1.png}
\caption{Density-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top) and heat wave (bottom) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ (left) and $\kappa = 1$ (right). The black line indicates the estimation results for the orthornormal Legendre basis functions.}
\label{Fig:Empirical_rlts}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
% (economic implications)
\indent We utilize both $80$ orthonormal Fourier basis function and $80$ orthonormal Legendre basis function to represent the distributional predictor in the function space. Figure \ref{Fig:Empirical_rlts} presents the estimation results for the density-to-demand model with Fourier (red) and Legendre (black) basis functions, incorporating the functional shocks generated by heat waves and cold waves. The dotted lines in the Figure indicate 95\% confidence intervals \commWK{for the response of $y_t$ on the specified temperature events}. The short-run estimates for $\kappa = 1$, \commWK{which is expected to effectively account for measurement errors (see e.g., \citealp{seong2021functional})}, yield particularly insightful outcomes.
\indent The top panel illustrates the demand response to cold wave shocks (blue lines) across different temperature levels. Notably, under $\kappa=1$, which is most effective when measurement errors are \commWK{serially uncorrelated}, there is a pronounced increase in electricity demand response as temperatures drop. This suggests that colder conditions, particularly under intense cold wave shocks, significantly drive up electricity demand due to increased heating needs. The bottom panel of the figure shows the demand response to heat wave shocks (red lines), where demand response increases as temperatures increase, especially under $\kappa=1$. This reflects the heightened demand for cooling during extreme heat events. Overall, the FSR model with $\kappa=1$, where the measurement errors are modeled as \commWK{a serially uncorrelated sequence}, consistently provides the more reliable estimates, underscoring the non-linear and temperature-sensitive nature of the electricity demand response.
\indent Note that a modest heat wave shock is defined by the distributional difference between a mean of 21.06°C and 23.55°C, with the final value of 23.55°C representing the occurrence of the heat wave shock. Similarly, the strongest heat wave shock is characterized by the difference between a mean of 26.06°C and 28.54°C, with the latter value marking the occurrence of the shock. The corresponding demand response values are 0.0591 at 23.55°C, 0.0874 at 25.95°C, and 0.0989 at 28.54°C. Given that demand is expressed in natural logarithms and that the demand response at a specific temperature reflects the relative impact of a cold or heat wave shock, the results indicate that an increase in temperature from 23.55°C to 25.95°C leads to a year-over-year monthly demand growth rate that is 2.83\% higher than the year-over-year monthly growth rate observed at 23.55°C, with demand response value rising by 0.0283 from 0.0591 to 0.0874. Furthermore, as the temperature escalates further from 25.95°C to 28.54°C, the demand growth rate increases by an additional 1.15\% compared to the year-over-year monthly growth rate at 25.95°C, with demand response value rising by 0.0115 from 0.0874 to 0.0989.
\indent Notably, cold wave shocks generate a more significant impact than heat wave shocks. The demand response values at 3.46°C, 1.06°C, and -1.53°C are 0.2138, 0.2794, and 0.2806, respectively. These empirical results indicate that when the average temperature decreases from 3.46°C to 1.06°C during a moderate cold wave, the year-over-year monthly demand growth rate is 6.56\% higher than the year-over-year monthly growth rate observed at 3.46°C. Additionally, as the temperature drops further from 1.06°C to -1.53°C during an extreme cold wave, the year-over-year monthly demand growth rate increases by an additional 0.12\% compared to the year-over-year monthly growth rate at 1.06°C. It is important to note that the FSR model with $\kappa=0$, which does not account for measurement error, fails to identify such nonlinearity. Moreover, utilizing Legendre basis functions results in a slightly lower temperature sensitivity in magnitude, but the overall shape of the sensitivity curve remains nearly identical to that obtained using Fourier basis functions.
\indent The observation that cold wave shocks significantly increase electricity demand more than heat wave shocks implies that electricity demand is more sensitive to the more intense and extreme temperature conditions associated with cold waves. This further implies that the demand response is not just a function of temperature extremes but also the nature of these extremes. This finding departs from existing literature, which primarily focuses on the demand response to temperature level changes alone, and highlights the importance of understanding how shifts in temperature distributions impact electricity demand. Such insights emphasize the need for energy planning that accounts for the varying effects of temperature distribution changes, particularly in the context of increasingly severe cold wave events.
\indent The existing functional approach is susceptible to boundary issues, particularly in estimating the nonlinear relationship between temperature and electricity demand using a functional Fourier flexible form (\citealp{gallant1981bias}; \citealp{chang2016new}). A notable drawback of this method is its tendency to produce inaccurate estimates at the boundaries, especially in regions where data are sparse, such as around the critical temperature thresholds of -20°C and 40°C. These boundary estimates are economically significant, as they can lead to substantial implications in policy and energy management. In contrast, our approach does not focus on the demand response at specific temperature levels but rather generates hypothetical functional shocks to analyze the impact of extreme temperatures. This approach is less prone to boundary issues, providing more reliable estimates by effectively circumventing the problems associated with critical temperature points.
\indent Note that our approach involves addressing the measurement error problem to mitigate potential endogeneity issues. If endogeneity exists, it can bias the nonlinear response estimates. The IV approach corrects this bias by using instruments that are correlated with the endogenous regressors but uncorrelated with the error term. However, this correction may introduce larger standard errors and increased variance, which can diminish the model's goodness of fit—meaning the model may not align as closely with the observed data compared to the standard functional approach. This trade-off becomes apparent in our results with orthonormal Fourier (Legendre) Basis functions, as reflected by the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) values are recorded as 0.0822 (0.0822) and 0.1227 (0.1222) for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively.
\bigskip
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Empirical Results for Quantile-to-Demand Model}
\noindent Some might wonder if the quantile function models \commWK{capture} extreme temperature events more effectively than the density function. Specifically, the difference lies in how each approach handles the heterogeneous impact of temperature on electricity demand. The temperature density-to-demand model accounts for the varying influence of each temperature level on demand, whereas the temperature quantile-to-demand model considers the heterogeneous effects of temperature quantiles on demand. As a result, while the density function may more accurately capture the average fluctuations in electricity demand, the quantile function, despite its relatively lower model fit, may be better suited to explaining demand responses under extreme temperature conditions. For instance, during a heat wave, where consumers face unprecedented temperatures, the relevance of past temperature impacts (as modeled by the density function) may diminish, making the quantile function more effective in modeling demand changes at extreme temperatures. In addition, the quantile function would better manage the heterogeneous support of the temperature density function.
%\indent Note that the cumulative temperature effect refers to the phenomenon where prolonged periods of high or low temperatures lead to an increased demand for cooling or heating, respectively, even when the actual temperature level remains constant. This seemingly paradoxical rise in electricity demand occurs because sustained exposure to extreme temperatures exacerbates the need for maintaining indoor climate conditions. Given that quantile functions directly capture how extreme temperature values accumulate across different quantiles, they could be effective in assessing the impact of prolonged high temperatures on electricity demand. By focusing on the tails of the distribution, quantile functions may highlight the increased demand that arises from upper- or lower-end temperature quantiles.
\indent In this context, we further examine the effects of temperature quantiles on electricity demand for extreme weather events. The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} displays the \commWK{temporal mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis at various qunatile levels (which are computed from the time series $\{X_t(u)\}_{t=1}^T$ for each $u \in [0,1]$}), providing insights into how the temperature changes across different quantiles. The mean temperature increases steadily across the quantiles, reflecting the expected rise in temperature values from lower to higher quantiles. The standard deviation decreases, indicating that temperature values become less variable at higher quantiles. The skewness becomes more negative as the quantile increases, signifying that higher temperatures are more concentrated towards their upper range, leading to a more skewed distribution. Conversely, kurtosis decreases initially but sharply increases at the highest quantiles, suggesting a less peaked distribution initially but with more pronounced tails, indicating more frequent extreme temperature events in these higher quantiles. The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip} shows kernel density estimates for the 1st to 4th \commWK{quartiles}. The density curves illustrate that lower \commWK{quartiles} (1st and 2nd) are more tightly clustered, while higher \commWK{quartiles} (3rd and 4th) exhibit greater dispersion, reflecting the variability and occurrence of extreme temperatures in these ranges.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_desc1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_desc2.png}
\caption{Descriptive statistics of quantile function for each temperature quantile (left) and kernel density estimates of four quantile ranges (right).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent Note that the statistical relationship between the temperature quantile function and electricity demand varies seasonally. During summer, the positive relationship is observed as higher temperatures increase cooling demand, while in winter, the negative relationship is observed due to the increased heating demand at lower temperatures. As it turns out that the negative effects during winter outweigh the positive effects in summer, the overall effect of the quantile function at each temperature quantile on electricity demand becomes negative. As illustrated in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}, moreover, the temperature quantile function at the high quantile exhibits lower volatility and skewness but significantly higher kurtosis compared to that at the low quantile. This distinction indicates that while temperature fluctuations are less pronounced at higher quantiles, extreme values (peaks) occur more frequently, leading to a sharper distribution. As a result, the effects of the temperature quantile function at the low quantile on electricity demand are notably smaller than those at the high quantile. This finding highlights a unique characteristic of the quantile function, as it can capture relationships that density functions cannot, given that density functions are constrained to non-negative values.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quantile_shock_Desc.png}
\caption{Estimated quantile functions and functional shocks for cold wave (top left) and heat wave (top right). The functional quantile shocks for cold (blue) and heat (red) waves are shifted for modest cold wave (blue dotted) and heat wave shocks (red dotted) in the bottom left panel. The mean change of the upper (line) and lower (dotted) tenth quantiles of the functional quantile shocks during the shifting process (bottom right).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\indent The top left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} illustrates the quantile shocks for the cold wave, where the impact is most pronounced in the lower quantiles, especially those associated with the coldest temperatures. This reflects that the January 2021 cold wave caused a significant downward shift in the quantile function compared to January 2020, with the most substantial changes at the lowest quantiles. On the top right panel, the quantile shocks for the heat wave reveal a more uniform increase across the quantiles, with a greater effect at the higher quantiles. This suggests that the August 2018 heat wave led to a consistent rise in temperatures, primarily intensifying extreme high-temperature events.
\indent The bottom two panels in Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_Shock} illustrate the functional quantile shocks for both cold wave and heat wave events as a result of shifting the quantile functions in Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock3}.\footnote{The sequence of quantile shocks with varying cold and heat wave intensities is generated by adding the density function in January 2020 and August 2017 to the sequence of temperature density shocks in the left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Func_shock3}. This addition is followed by transforming the resulting density functions into their respective quantile functions.} More specifically, the bottom left panel shows the dotted blue (red) line representing quantile shocks generated by modest cold (heat) waves, while the solid blue (red) line reflects the strongest cold (heat) wave shocks. These shocks arise from the temperature quantile shifts under varying cold or heat wave intensities. In the bottom right panel, moreover, the solid (dotted) red line illustrates the mean changes of the upper (lower) tenth quantiles for heat wave shocks during the shifting process, while the solid (dotted) blue line indicates the same for cold wave shocks. Note that we include an additional Fourier or Legendre basis function corresponding to the constant term because the upward or downward quantile shifting shocks generate a mean change. Unlike the density-to-demand model with CLR transformation, restricting the constant term of the basis function to zero would result in identical quantile shocks across the temperature quantiles.
%\indent While density and quantile functions exhibit similar mean, these two functions differ significantly due to the distinct ways each function encapsulates data characteristics. Density functions directly reflect the probability distribution, effectively capturing the central tendency, spread, asymmetry, and tail behavior. In particular, skewness reveals the asymmetry of a distribution, while kurtosis measures tail thickness and central peak sharpness, providing key insights into distribution shape and tail behavior. On the other hand, quantile functions excel at describing extreme values, capturing the temperature's change at the tails more effectively than skewness and kurtosis alone. These statistical differences indicate that critical information, such as skewness and kurtosis of the temperature density function, would be missed when relying solely on quantile functions in electricity demand modeling. Thus, combining both functions enhances explanatory power, particularly for modeling extreme temperatures or other tail-heavy phenomena.
%In contrast, quantile functions, being more responsive to extreme values across the distribution, can show disparities in skewness and kurtosis even when the mean and variance are aligned. Specifically, the sample correlations between the time series of temperature density and quantile functions for mean, variance, skewness, and kurtosis are 1, 0.71, -0.36, and 0.01, respectively.
%\indent In this context, we consider augmenting the quantile-to-demand model with demeaned skewness and kurtosis of the temperature density function to improve the precision of demand response estimation. One caveat is, however, that this augmentation assumes that the heat wave and cold wave shocks generated by the quantile functions do not alter the skewness and kurtosis of the temperature density function. This presumption may overlook the potential impact that is induced by changing these higher-order moments.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.35\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Sensitivity.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.6\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Est_rlt.png}
\caption{Estimated temperature quantile sensitivity (left) and quantile-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top right) and heat wave (bottom right) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$, using Fourier (blue and red) and Legendre (black) basis functions. The dotted lines indicate the 95\% local confidence intervals with the Fourier basis function.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_non_est}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%
\indent The left panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_non_est} provides the temperature quantile sensitivity with respect to the residential electricity demand. To approximate $\hat{f}$ in equation \eqref{eqest} in the local context and interpret its impact on electricity demand, we start by constructing \( x \) as a sequence of indicators. This approach enables us to focus on approximating $\hat{f}$, allowing for a more refined resolution in approximating $\hat{f}$ values as permitted by the data. Once an accurate local approximation of $\hat{f}$ is obtained, we can examine $\hat{f}(x)$, the value of $\hat{f}$ at a specific \( x \). Specifically, $\hat{f}(x)$ represents the effect of a change in a given quantile while other quantiles remain fixed, akin to the interpretation in linear regression. However, in reality, it is rare for a single quantile to shift independently of others, which can introduce interpretational ambiguities despite the robustness of the approximation.
\indent To address this, we introduce a concept of total quantile change, denoted as \( Q \), to capture the cumulative impact of quantile adjustments. Starting with an even shock from the \( 0.5 \) quantile to the \( 1 \) quantile, \( Q \) is distributed uniformly over this range, represented as a step function with a value of \( 1 \) from \( x = 0.5 \) onward, where \( Q = 0.5 \times 1 = 0.5 \). Subsequently, we increase the quantile range incrementally (e.g., from the \( 0.55 \) quantile to the \( 1 \) quantile) while maintaining the same \( Q \), thus gradually concentrating the quantile change at higher quantiles. Conversely, for a negative shock of \( -Q \), we consider evenly reducing quantiles from the lower end, concentrating the change in lower quantiles. By analyzing the function $\hat{f}(x)$ across these step function sequences, we can observe how electricity demand responds to quantile shocks concentrated at various parts of the distribution, providing insights into which quantile ranges most significantly influence demand.
\indent Not surprisingly, the estimated temperature quantile sensitivity exhibits a U-shaped pattern, consistent with findings from \cite{chang2014time} regarding temperature density sensitivity. However, unlike \cite{chang2014time}, the nonlinearity in cooling demand was found to be statistically insignificant. In contrast, the heating demand demonstrates statistically significant sensitivity to temperature changes. Notably, when the temperature rises above the 0.4 quantile, electricity demand decreases, with this reduction intensifying up to the 0.7 quantile before gradually diminishing. This behavior reveals a unique nonlinear pattern in the relationship between temperature quantile and electricity demand, highlighting the asymmetrical effects of temperature on electricity demand across different quantiles.
\indent The right panel of Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_non_est} presents the estimation results of extreme temperature events from the Fourier- and Legendre-based quantile-to-demand model with 95\% local confidence intervals. Unlike the density-to-demand approach, the quantile-based model fails to capture nonlinear temperature sensitivity with statistical significance. The absence of nonlinearity may be due to the quantile-to-demand model's limitations in explaining the time series pattern of electricity demand using the cumulative temperature effects. The RMSE values from the quantile-to-demand model are 0.0933 (0.0933) and 0.1375 (0.1456) when using orthonormal Fourier (Legendre) basis function for $\kappa = 0$ and $1$, respectively. These results indicate a decline in the goodness of fit compared to the density-to-demand model.
%Figure \ref{Fig:Quantile_non_est} clearly demonstrates the necessity of incorporating higher-order moments of temperature density function into the quantile-to-demand model. Ignoring these moments consistently results in underestimating demand response, whether assuming no measurement error or serially uncorrelated error. However, it turns out that the quantile-to-demand model no longer shows increasing temperature sensitivity. Unlike the density-to-demand approach, the quantile-based model fails to capture nonlinear temperature sensitivity. This absence of pronounced changes may be due to the quantile-to-demand model’s inability to fully account for higher-order temperature effects, which are crucial for reflecting demand response under extreme conditions. As a result, the quantile-based model may oversimplify the relationship between temperature variations and electricity demand, leading to the observed flat response. %Notably, the quantile-based approach exhibits more pronounced sensitivity to extreme temperature conditions compared to the density-based results, with significant increases in electricity demand under extreme cold and heat waves when higher-order moments are considered and $\kappa=1$ is applied. This comparison highlights the superior ability of the quantile-based approach to capture demand responses under extreme temperature conditions.%, underscoring the critical role of accounting for non-linear characteristics in temperature distributions.
\noindent In this paper, we estimate the nonlinear temperature sensitivity of residential electricity demand while accounting for measurement errors. Given that residential electricity demand is highly sensitive to temperature fluctuations, accurately capturing these nonlinearities is critical, especially during extreme temperature events where underestimation could jeopardize grid stability. Additionally, measurement errors often stem from the assumption that nonparametrically estimated temperature densities represent true densities, compounded by data quality issues and limitations within the estimation process.
\indent We tackle these challenges by applying a function-to-scalar regression to both temperature density-to-demand and quantile-to-demand models. This approach enables us to effectively identify nonlinearities in the relationship between temperature distribution and electricity demand, even when measurement errors are present. Through the analysis of historical heat wave and cold wave shocks of varying intensities within a distributional context, we discover that residential electricity demand is significantly more sensitive to the extreme conditions associated with intense cold waves. Additionally, the temperature quantile-to-demand model fails to yield reliable estimates.
\indent Given our findings, energy practitioners should prioritize incorporating detailed temperature distribution analysis, particularly when planning for extreme weather events. Our empirical results reveal that residential electricity demand is more sensitive to intense cold waves than to heat waves, highlighting the need for robust demand forecasting models that account for these nonlinear sensitivities. Moreover, it is crucial to address potential measurement errors by adopting advanced techniques, in order to ensure that demand response strategies are based on accurate and reliable estimates. Our econometric approach would enhance grid stability and support effective energy management during extreme temperature events.
\section{Asymptotic analysis}\label{sec_app_est}
\subsection{Preliminaries} \label{sec_app_prelim}
We let $\mathcal H_1$ a separable Hilbert space with inner product $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_1$ %(e.g., the $L^2[0,1]$ space of square integrable functions)
and norm $\|\cdot\|_1$. A $\mathcal H_1$-valued random variable $Z$ is defined as a measurable map from the underlying probability space to $\mathcal H_1$. Such a random element $Z$ is said to be square-integrable if $\mathbb{E}[\|Z\|_1^2<\infty]$. Let $\mathcal H_2$ be another such Hilbert space. We let $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product defined by $\mathcal H_1$ and $\mathcal H_2$, i.e., for any $\zeta_1 \in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$,
\begin{equation}
\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2 (\cdot) = \langle \zeta_1,\cdot \rangle \zeta_2;
\end{equation}
note that $\zeta_1\otimes \zeta_2$ is a map from $\mathcal H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$.
For any mean-zero square-integrable random elements $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, $\mathbb{E}[Z_1 \otimes Z_2]$ is called the covariance operator of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. We call $A:\mathcal H_1 \mapsto \mathcal H_2$ a bounded linear map if $A$ is a linear map and its operator norm, defined as $\|A\|_{\op}=\sup_{|\zeta|\leq 1} \|A\zeta\|$, is finite. For any bounded linear $A$, we let $A^\ast$ be the adjoint map defined by the property $\langle A\zeta_1,\zeta_2 \rangle_2=\langle \zeta_1,A^\ast\zeta_2 \rangle_1$ for all $\zeta_1\in \mathcal H_1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \mathcal H_2$. We say that $A$ is a compact operator if $\mathcal H_1=\mathcal H_2$ and there exist orthonormal bases $\{\zeta_{1,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $\{\zeta_{2,j}\}_{j\geq 1}$ such that $A = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j \zeta_{1,j} \otimes \zeta_{2,j}$ with $a_j$ tending to zero as $j$ increases; in this expression, if $A$ is self-adjoint ($A=A^\ast$) and nonnegative ($\langle A\zeta,\zeta \rangle_1\geq 0$), it may be assumed that $a_j\geq 0$ and $\zeta_{1,j}=\zeta_{2,j}$, and furthermore they are understood as the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors. A compact operator $A$ is Hilbert-Schmidt if $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{\zeta_j\}_{j\geq1}$, and in this case, the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\|A\|_{\HS}$ is defined as $\|A\|_{\HS}= \sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|A \zeta_j\|_1^2}$. It is well known that $\|A\|_{\op} \leq \|A\|_{\HS}$.
\subsection{Functional IV estimator in the FSR model} \label{sec_app_est_1}
We consider a suitable adaptation of the functional IV estimator (FIVE) proposed by \cite{seong2021functional} for our FSR model.
We find that for an IV $Z_t$ satisfying \eqref{eqreg3}, we find from \eqref{eqreg2} that $C_{Zy} = fC_{XZ}^\ast$ and hence
\begin{align} \label{eqpopulation}
C_{Zy}C_{XZ} = f C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ},
\end{align}
where $C_{Zu}:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes u_t]=0$.
As in \cite{seong2021functional} studying on the FFR model, we construct an estimator mimicking the population relationship \eqref{eqpopulation}. We first replace $C_{Zy}C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ}$ given in \eqref{eqpopulation} with their sample counterparts $\widehat C_{Zy}\widehat C_{XZ}$ (where $\widehat C_{Zy}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T)\otimes (y_t-\bar{y}_T)$ with $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$) and $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$. We then employ a regularized inverse of $\widehat C_{XZ}^\ast \widehat C_{XZ}$ to compute an estimator from the sample equation. Specifically, as in \cite{seong2021functional}, we consider the rank-regularized inverse $(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ of $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eqregul}
(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\hat{\lambda}_j^{-2}} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j,
\end{equation}
where $\KK$ is determined as
\begin{equation} \label{eqchoicek}
\KK = \max_{j\geq 1} \{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha$ tending to zero. Note that $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}(\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag$ becomes the $\KK$-dimensional projection $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j$ and similar regularized inverses are widely used in the literature on the functional linear model. The estimator $\hat{f}$ is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$
\begin{align} \label{eqest1}
\hat{f} (x)= \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag (x).
\end{align}
With some algebra, it can be shown that \eqref{eqest1} is identical to the expression given by \eqref{eqest}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem1}
The choice $\KK$ in \eqref{eqchoicek} is adopted from \cite{seong2021functional} concerning the FFR model. Of course, with only a minor modification, we can obtain the desired asymptotic results— which will be discussed—under an alternative choice, such as $\KK = m + \max_{j\geq 1}\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2 \geq \alpha\}$ for some finite $m$, if necessary. This choice may be preferred when researchers want to retain at least $m$ eigenelements for estimation. The case with $m=1$ also has some theoretical justification, given that we need at least one eigenelement for the proposed estimator to be well defined for every $T$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Consistency and local asymptotic normality of the estimator}\label{sec_app_est_2}
This section discusses the consistency and local asymptotic normality of the proposed estimator, which are fundamental for our empirical analysis. As in \cite{seong2021functional}, for simplicity, we consider the case where $y_t$, $X_t$, and $Z_t$ have zero means, so the regression model \eqref{eqreg1} simplifies to $y_t = f(X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t$. In this case, the population (e.g., $C_{XZ}$) or sample covariance operators (e.g., $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$) introduced in Section \ref{sec_method} are naturally understood as defined without centering or demeaning. As discussed in \cite{seong2021functional}, extending the subsequent results to the case where the means are unknown and need to be estimated is straightforward, and the consistency and local asymptotic normality to be established remain unchanged with or without this simplification.
\subsubsection{Assumptions and main results}
Hereafter, we let
\begin{equation}
C_{XZ}^\ast C_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 g_j \otimes g_j, \quad C_{XZ} C_{XZ}^\ast = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j^2 h_j \otimes h_j,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_j$, $g_j$, and $h_j$ are relevant eigenelements. Let $C_{ZZ}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes Z_t]$, $C_{uu}=\mathbb{E}[u_t\otimes u_t]$ and $C_{Zu}=\mathbb{E}[Z_t\otimes u_t]$. We define $\widehat{C}_{ZZ}$, $\widehat{C}_{uu}$ and $\widehat{C}_{Zu}$ be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{C}_{ZZ}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes Z_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{uu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T u_t\otimes u_t, \quad \widehat{C}_{Zu}=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t\otimes u_t,
\end{equation}
which may be understood as the sample counterparts of $C_{ZZ}$, $C_{uu}$ and $C_{Zu}$. We employ the following assumptions: below, $\mathfrak{F}_t$ denotes the natural filtration given by $\sigma(\{Z_s\}_{s\leq t+1}, \{u_s\}_{s\leq t})$ and let $\tau_j = 2\sqrt{2} \max\{ (\lambda_{j-1}^2-\lambda_j^2)^{-1}, (\lambda_{j}^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2)^{-1} \}$ as in \cite{seong2021functional}.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum1}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item Equation \eqref{eqreg2} holds; \item $\{X_t,Z_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is stationary and geometrically strongly mixing, $\mathbb{E}[\|X_t\|^2] < \infty$, and $\mathbb{E}[\|Z_t\|^2] < \infty$; \item $\mathbb{E}[u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=0$, $\mathbb{E}[u_t \otimes u_t|\mathfrak F_{t-1}]=C_{uu}$, and $\sup_{1\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}[\|u\|_t^{2+\delta}|\mathfrak F_{t-1}] < \infty$ for some $\delta>0$; \item $\sum_{j=1}^\infty |f(b_j)|^2 < \infty$ for some orthonormal basis $\{b_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ of $\mathcal H$; \item $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ}-{C}_{XZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{ZZ}-{C}_{ZZ}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$, $\|\widehat{C}_{Zu}-{C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and $\|\widehat{C}_{uu} - C_{uu}\|_{\HS}= o_p(1)$; \item $\ker C_{XZ}=\{0\}$; \item \label{eq001a1}$\lambda_1^2 > \lambda_2^2 > \cdots > 0$; \item $T^{-1}\alpha^{-1} \to 0$ and $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \to_p 0$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum1} are adapted from Assumptions M and E of \cite{seong2021functional} studying the FFR model, and similar assumptions have been employed in the literature on functional linear models. Condition \ref{eq001a1} is a technical requirement that $\alpha$ decay at an appropriate rate depending on the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $T$. This subtle requirement on $\alpha$ may be relaxed if some additional (but standard in the literature on the functional linear model) assumptions are employed, which will be discussed later in this section. %it is common to assume that $\lambda_j^2 - \lambda_{j+1}^2$ is eventually convex and bounded above by $O(j^{\gamma})$ for some $\gamma > 3$ (see Assumption 2 below and also Assumption E2 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). In this case, $T^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j \leq O_p(T^{-1/2}\KK4)$ the assumption
We then present the following consistency result, which details Proposition \ref{prop1} given in Section \ref{Sec_Model}:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop1a}
Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}, $\|\hat{f} - f\|_{\op} \to_p 0$.
\end{proposition}
We next obtain the local asymptotic normality result \eqref{eqlocal} for any specified $\zeta \in \mathcal H$. To this end, we employ the following assumptions: below, we let $\upsilon_{t}(j,\ell) = \langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle -\mathbb{E}[\langle X_t,g_j \rangle\langle Z_t,h_{\ell}\rangle]$ for $j,\ell \geq 1$ and $\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle \tilde{\zeta}, {C}_{ZZ} \tilde{\zeta} \rangle$, where $\tilde{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} {\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle {g}_j,\zeta \rangle {C}_{XZ}{g}_j$.
\begin{assumption}\label{assum2} For some $c_\circ>0$, $\rho>2$, $\varsigma>1/2$, $\delta_{\zeta}>1/2$ and $m>1$, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\lambda_j^2 \leq c_\circ j^{-\rho}$; \item $\lambda_j^2-\lambda_{j+1}^2 \geq c_\circ j^{-\rho-1}$; \item $|f(g_j)| \leq c_\circ j^{-\varsigma}$; \item $\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t(j,\ell)\upsilon_{t-s}(j,\ell)] \leq c_\circ s^{-m}\mathbb{E}[\upsilon_t^2(j,\ell)]$ for $s\geq 1$, and furthermore, $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle X_t,g_j \rangle Z_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$ and $\mathbb{E}[\|\langle Z_t,h_j \rangle X_t\|^2]\leq c_{\circ} \lambda_j^2$; \item $\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle \leq c_\circ j^{-\delta_{\zeta}}$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption}
The above assumptions are obvious adaptation of the conditions given by \cite{Hall2007} and \cite{seong2021functional}, which seem to be standard in the literature. Particularly, \cite{seong2021functional} established useful asymptotic results for the FFR model under Assumption \ref{assum2}, which are also useful in the considered FSR model. In fact, if Assumption \ref{assum2} is additionally satisfied, the consistency result given in Proposition \ref{prop1} can be established with $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$ without requiring Assumption \ref{assum1}\ref{eq001a1}; this is a direct consequence of Theorem 3 of \cite{seong2021functional}, and in fact, adapting their result developed for the FFR model to the FSR model is straightforward. In order to establish the local asymptotic normality result, we need more conditions, which are stated below:
\begin{assumption}\label{assum3}
\begin{enumerate*}[(i)]
\item $\alpha^{-1} = o(T^{1/3})$; \item \label{assum3b} $\varsigma + \delta_{\zeta} > \rho/2+2$, $2\delta_{\zeta} \geq \rho+1$ and $T \alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho} = O(1)$; \item\label{assum3c} ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{enumerate*}
\end{assumption} Particularly Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3b} requires $f$ and $\zeta$ to be smooth enough with respect to the eigenvectors $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ so that the entire map or element can be well approximated by those eigenvectors; this is a standard requirement in asymptotic analysis in the literature on functional linear models (see e.g., \citealp{seong2021functional} and reference therein). Assumption \ref{assum3}\ref{assum3c} requires a certain quantity depending on $\zeta$ to diverge to infinity, and this condition is expected to be satisfied for many possible choices of $\zeta$ (see the discussion given Remark 10 of \citealp{seong2021functional}). We obtain the desired asymptotic normality result under this requirement. However, it turns out that even if such a smoothness condition is not satisfied, (i) \eqref{eqlocal} with $f(\zeta)$ beging replaced by $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ holds as long as $\alpha$ decays at a sufficiently slow rate, and thus we can implement statistical inference on $f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ and (ii) $\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ may be understood as the best linear approximation of $\zeta$ based on the covariation of $X_t$ and $Z_t$ (see Section 3.2 of \citealp{seong2021functional}).
The desired asymptotic normality result is given as follows:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop2} Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T (y_t-\hat{f}(X_t))$ and $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$.
\end{proposition}
With some algebra, it can be shown that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$, as given in Proposition \ref{prop2} can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta2}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t\rangle\right)^2,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to \eqref{eqtheta} without demeaning the variables.
\subsubsection{Mathematical proofs}
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop1a}}
Using \eqref{eqreg2} and the expression given in \eqref{eqest1}, we find that
\begin{equation}
\hat{f} = \widehat{C}_{Zy} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag = f \widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} + \widehat{C}_{Zu} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag, \label{eq:b0}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat \Pi_{\KK}= \sum_{j=1} ^{\KK} \widehat g_j \otimes \widehat g_j$ as earlier introduced.
%Under our assumptions, we apply the central limit theorem for strongly mixing sequences (see, e.g., \citeauthor{heyde1974central}, \citeyear{heyde1974central}) and for martingale difference sequences to find that
% $ T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\langle x_t,w_1 \rangle \langle z_t,w_2 \rangle - \langle \mathcal C_{xz} w_1, w_2 \rangle \right) $ and $T^{-1/2} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle $ converge in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1,w_2 \in \mathcal H$.
% \begin{align}\label{pfresult2}
% \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T \langle z_t,w_1 \rangle \langle u_t,w_2 \rangle
% \end{align}
%converges in distribution to a well defined random variable for all $w_1$ and $w_2$.
% Then, by applying Theorem 3 of \citet[Chapter 1]{skorohod2001}, it can be shown that
% \begin{align}
% \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T (x_t \otimes z_t - \mathcal C_{xz}) = O_p(1)\quad\text{and}\quad \quad \sup_{T} \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}} \sum_{t=1}^T z_t \otimes u_t = O_p(1); \label{eqcltref}
% \end{align}
% see also Lemma A.1 of \cite{seo2020functional}.
As shown in the proof of Theorem 1 of \cite{seong2021functional}, we have $\|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq \alpha^{-1/2}$ and $\|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS}=O_p(T^{-1/2})$ by Assumption \ref{assum1}. We thus find that
\begin{align}
\|\widehat{f} - f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{\mathcal C}_{Zu}\|_{\HS} \|\widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
\end{align}
From the properties of the operator norm and that $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ consists of an orthonormal basis, we find that
\begin{equation}
\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK} -f\|_{\op} \leq \sum_{j=1}^\infty \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f\hat({g}_j)\|.
\end{equation}
Thus the proof becomes complete if $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}\hat{g}_j -f\hat{g}_j\| \to_p 0$ is shown. From
% \begin{equation} \label{eqpf0006add2wadd0}
% \|\widehat{\mathcal A}- \mathcal A \widehat{\Pi}_{\K}\|_{\op} \leq O_p(\alpha^{-1/2} T^{-1/2}).
% \end{equation}
%the following can be shown by
nearly identical arguments used to derive (8.63) of \cite{Bosq2000} and (S2.2) of \cite{seong2021functional}, we find that %and the property of the operator norm such that $\Vert \cdot \Vert_{\op} \leq \Vert \cdot \Vert_{\HS}$:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \|f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\hat{g}_j) -f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|f(\hat{g}_j)\|^2 \leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f({g}_j)\|^2 + O_p(1)\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \tau_j.\label{eqpf0006add2wadd}
\end{equation}
Since $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \|f(g_j)\|^2 < \infty$ under Assumption \ref{assum1}, $\sum_{j=\KK+1}^\infty \| f(g_j)|^2$ converges in probability to zero as $T$ gets larger (note that $\KK$ diverges as $T \to \infty$). In addition,
$
\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}^{\ast} C_{XZ}\|_{\op} \leq \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}- C_{XZ}\|_{\op} + \|\widehat{ C}_{XZ}^\ast- C_{XZ}^\ast\|_{\op}\| C_{XZ}\|_{\op} = O_p(T^{-1/2})$ as shown by (S2.3) of \cite{seong2021functional}. Combining all these results, we find that \eqref{eqpf0006add2wadd} is $o_p(1)$ as desired. \qed
\subsubsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop2}}
Observe that $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}$ in \eqref{eqtheta} can be equivalently written as follows:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \widehat{C}_{XZ} (\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle.
\end{equation}
We let ${\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)= \langle {\zeta}, ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag{C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{ZZ} {C}_{XZ} ({C}_{XZ}^\ast {C}_{XZ})^\dag {\zeta} \rangle$. From Theorem 4 (with its proof and Remark 10) of \cite{seong2021functional}, we find that Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3} lead us to the following:
\begin{equation} \label{eqconv1}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}} (\hat{f}(\zeta)-f\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1).
\end{equation}
Note that $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}(\zeta)\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta))$ can be written as $\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (A_1+A_2+A_3+A_4)$, where $A_1 = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_2 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)$, $A_3 =\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle f(g_j)$, and $A_4 = f(\Pi_{\KK}-I) \zeta$, where $\Pi_{\KK} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} g_j \otimes g_j$ and $g_j^s = \sgn \langle g_j, \hat{g}_j \rangle g_j$. Under Assumptions \ref{assum1}-\ref{assum3}, it is shown by \cite{seong2021functional} (see (S2.11), (S2.16) and (S2.33)) that $\KK = O_p(\alpha^{-1/\rho})$ and
\begin{align}
\|f(\hat{g}_j-g_j^s)\|^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{\rho+2-2\varsigma},\\
\langle \hat{g}_j-g_j^s,\zeta \rangle^2 = O_p(T^{-1}) j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}+2 + \rho}.
\end{align}
Combining these results with the conditions given in Assumption \ref{assum3}, it can be shown with nearly identical arguments used in \cite{seong2021functional} that $\|A_1\|, \|A_2\|$ and $\|A_3\|$ are all $O_p(T^{-1/2})$ and, moreover,
\begin{equation}
\|A_4\|^2\leq \sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} \|\langle g_j,\zeta \rangle f(g_j) \|^2 %\leq\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}} \|f(g_j) \|
\leq O(1)\sum_{j=\KK+1}^{\infty} j^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma} = O((\KK+1)^{-2\delta_{\zeta}-2\varsigma+1})= O(\alpha^{(2\varsigma+2\delta_{\zeta}-1)/\rho}),
\end{equation}
where the first equality follows from the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula for the Riemann zera-function (see e.g., (5.6) of \citealp{ibukiyama2014euler}).
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqconv2}
\sqrt{T/\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)} (\hat{f}\widehat{\Pi}_{\KK}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) = O_p(1/\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}) + O(T^{-1/2}\alpha^{(\varsigma+\delta_{\zeta}-1/2)/\rho} /\sqrt{\theta_{\KK}(\zeta)}).
\end{equation}
Under Assumption \ref{assum3}, the above is $o_p(1)$. Lastly, we note that \cite{seong2021functional} shows that $|\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)- \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)| \to_p 0$ and replacing $ \theta_{\KK}(\zeta)$ with $\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)$ does not affect the results given in \eqref{eqconv1} and \eqref{eqconv2}. \qed
%From this result, we find that, if $f$ and $\zeta$ are smooth enough with respect to $\{g_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ (and thus $\varsigma$ and $\delta_{\zeta}$) are large enough, $\alpha$ is allowed to $\alpha = o(T^{1/3})$.
\documentclass[10pt]{beamer}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{dsfont}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{lmodern}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{threeparttable}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{enumerate}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{animate}
\usepackage{beamerthemebars}
\usepackage{amsmath,amsmath,amsfonts,amsbsy}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{beamerthemelined}
\usepackage{subfigure}
\usepackage{multimedia}
%\usenavigationsymbolstemplate{}
%\setbeamertemplate{headline}{\hfill \insertpagenumber}
%\setbeamertemplate{background canvas}[vertical shading][bottom=black!10!yellow!7!white,top=black!10!yellow!7!white]
\mode<presentation>
{
% \usetheme{Copenhagen}
\usetheme{cambridgeus}
% \usecolortheme{lily}
\usecolortheme{orchid}
% \setbeamercovered{transparent}
\usefonttheme{professionalfonts}
\useoutertheme[subsection=true]{smoothbars} % Beamer Outer Theme
%\useoutertheme{progressbar} % Beamer Outer Theme
%\useinnertheme{progressbar} %
}
%\useinnertheme{circles}
\renewcommand{\part}{\mbox{$\partial$}}
\renewcommand{\a}{\mbox{$\alpha$}}
\expandafter\def\expandafter\insertshorttitle\expandafter{%
\insertshorttitle }% \hfill%
% \insertframenumber\,/\,\inserttotalframenumber}
\title[Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity]
{\normalsize{Estimating the Nonlinear Temperature Sensitivity of \\ \vspace{0.5em} Residential Electricity Demand under Measurement Errors}}
\author[Nam, K. \& Seo, W.K.]
{Kyungsik Nam\inst{1} \and Won-Ki Seo\inst{2}}
\institute[HUFS \& USYD]
{
\inst{1} \emph{Division of Climate Change, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies}
\and
\inst{2} \emph{School of Economics, University of Sydney}
}
\date{November 15, 2024}
% \date{\today}
\begin{document}
\begin{frame}%[plain]
\titlepage
\end{frame}
%\small{
%\begin{frame}{Contents}
%\tableofcontents
%\end{frame}
%}
%\AtBeginSection[]
%{
%\begin{frame}{Contents}
%\tableofcontents[currentsection]
%\end{frame}
%}
%\section{a}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{Introduction}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Introduction}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Introduction}
\begin{itemize}
\item The global increase in extreme temperature events is intensifying challenges in electricity demand management.
\vspace{0.5em}
\item Electricity demand exhibits high sensitivity to temperature fluctuations, especially during extreme weather conditions.
\vspace{0.5em}
\item Traditional models often fail to capture non-linear effects of temperature on electricity demand, particularly in peak or off-peak extremes.
\vspace{0.5em}
\item We focus on how temperature distribution affects residential electricity demand, especially during extreme cold and heat events.
\vspace{0.5em}
\item We aim to support electric grid management and enhance resilience in energy systems facing climate change.
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Literature Review}
\begin{itemize}
\item Engle \emph{et al.} (1986) established a cointegration framework to model the long-run relationship in electricity demand, further expanded by Engle et al. (1989) and Chang \emph{et al.} (2014).
\vspace{0.3em}
\item With HDD \& CDD variables, or nonlinear econometrics, the literature captures the nonlinear temperature effects on electricity demand (Sailor and Muñoz, 1997; Henley and Peirson, 1998; Valor \emph{et al.}, 2001; Pardo \emph{et al.}, 2002; Apadula \emph{et al.}, 2012).
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Smooth transition, panel threshold, and switching regression models have been studied to model nonlinear demand responses (Moral-Carcedo and Vicéns-Otero, 2005; Bessec and Fouquau, 2008).
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Density-based functional approaches have emerged to analyze these nonlinear temperature effects across sectors (Chang \emph{et al.}, 2016 \& Miller and Nam, 2022).
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Motivation and Significance}
\begin{itemize}
\item Unexpected spikes in electricity demand during extreme weather events generate significant challenges for grid reliability, demanding robust econometric modeling.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Residential electricity demand is highly temperature-sensitive, with extreme conditions leading to nonlinear demand increases that stress infrastructure capacity.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Failing to capture these nonlinearities accurately risks underestimating demand, which could compromise grid stability during peak events.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Nonparametric temperature densities are often treated as true, which can introduce bias and distort demand estimates.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Utilizing hourly regional temperature data to generate density estimates introduces further errors, leading to potentially biased and inconsistent demand responses.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Addressing these estimation challenges is essential for accurate forecasting and ensuring grid resilience against future extreme weather events.
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Contribution of This Research}
\begin{itemize}
\item Capture the nonlinear response of residential electricity demand to temperature fluctuations, addressing measurement errors often overlooked in the literature.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Unlike prior studies that consider temperature levels, we analyze temperature density, providing a more comprehensive view of how temperature fluctuations impact demand, especially during extreme weather events.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Leverage both density and quantile functions as complementary tools, each offering unique insights into demand response across the temperature distribution.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item The density approach facilitates a compositional data framework, allowing a clear, distribution-wide analysis of temperature impacts on electricity demand.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Quantile functions are utilized to address heterogeneous support and to estimate cumulative temperature effects at extreme temperature quantiles.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item CLR transformation for density data and mean-centering for quantile data ensure accurate handling of each data type’s distinct features.
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Econometric Model}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Econometric Model and Estimator}
\begin{center}
\textbf{\textrm{\textbf{\Large{Econometric Model and Estimator}}}}
\end{center}
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Econometric Model and Estimator}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Construction of the Distributional Predictors}
\begin{itemize}
\item If the density $p_t$ of temperature is supported on $[a,b]$, then the CLR transformation $X_t^\circ$ of $p_t$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqclr}
X_t^\circ(r) = \log p_t(r) - \int_{a}^b \log p_t (s) ds, \quad r\in [a,b]
\end{equation}
\item Transformation from $p_t$ to its CLR transformation not only embeds the probability densities on $[a,b]$ into a linear subspace of the $L^2[0,1]$ Hilbert space but also is invertible.
\item We also let $X_t^\circ$ be the quantile function corresponding to $p_t$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eqqf}
X_t^\circ(r) = \inf \{x \in [a,b]:\int_{a}^{x} p_t(s) ds \leq r\}, \quad r\in [0,1].
\end{equation}
\item For the CLR transformation to be an invertible transformation of a set of probability densities, $p_t$ needs to be supported on a common compact interval $[a,b]$ for every $t$ (Egozcue et al., 2006; van den Boogaart et al., 2014).
\item Quantile functions do not require such a restriction, and the support of the function can vary over time.
\item In practice, $p_t$ cannot be directly observed, and thus $X_t^\circ$ is not observable.
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Econometric Model}
\begin{itemize}
\item To study temperature sensitivity of electricity demand, we consider the following model:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg1}
y_t = \mu + f (X_t^{\circ}) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $f:\mathcal H\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is a linear map, connecting $y_t$ and $X_t^{\circ}$, and $\mathbb{E}[ \varepsilon_t] = 0$.
\item Assume that $X_t = X_t^{\circ} + e_t$, where $e_t$ measures the additive departure of $X_t$ from $X_t^{\circ}$ and is assumed to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[e_t]=0$. Then, we find that the following relationship holds:
\begin{equation} \label{eqreg2}
y_t = \mu+ f (X_t) + u_t, \quad u_t = f(e_t) + \varepsilon_t,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[u_t] = 0$ holds.
\item $X_t$ and $u_t$ are generally correlated, i.e., $\mathbb{E}[X_t\otimes u_t] \neq 0$).
\item This endogeneity makes the standard estimators, developed under the exogeneity condition $\mathbb{E}[X_t\otimes u_t]=0$, inconsistent and inferential methods associated with those estimators invalid.
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Econometric Estimator}
\begin{itemize}
\item Our proposed estimator $\hat{f}$, which is a map from $\mathcal H$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is defined as follows: for any $x \in \mathcal H$,
\begin{align} \label{eqest}
\hat{f}(x) = T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{j=1}^{K} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, x \rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j,Z_t-\bar{Z}_T \rangle (y_t-\bar{y}_T),
\end{align}
where $\bar{y}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T y_t$ and $K$ is sufficiently smaller than $T$.
\item The sample covariance operators $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and its adjoint $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqcxz}
\widehat{C}_{XZ} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (X_t-\bar{X}_T) \otimes (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T), \quad \widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} (Z_t-\bar{Z}_T) \otimes (X_t-\bar{X}_T), \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T X_t$ and $\bar{Z}_T=T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T Z_t$. $\widehat{C}_{XZ}$ and $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast$ are the sample counterparts of $C_{XZ}$ and $C_{XZ}^\ast (:=\mathbb{E}[(Z_t-\mathbb{E}[Z_t])\otimes (X_t-\mathbb{E}[X_t])])$.
\item $\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ}$ allows the eigendecomposition with respect to its eigenvalues $\{\hat{\lambda}_j^2\}_{j\geq 1}$ and eigenvectors $\{\hat{g}_j\}_{j\geq 1}$, i.e.,
$\widehat{C}_{XZ}^\ast \widehat{C}_{XZ} = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \hat{\lambda}_j^2 \hat{g}_j \otimes \hat{g}_j.$
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Econometric Estimator}
\begin{itemize}
\item The effect $f(\zeta)$ on $y_t$ of a specified distributional perturbation $\zeta$ given to $X_t^\circ$.
\item The consistency result implies that this effect can be estimated by $\hat{f}(\zeta)$.
\item For statistical inference on $\hat{f}(\zeta)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqlocal}
\sqrt{\frac{T}{\hat{\sigma}^2_u \widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta)}}(\hat{f}(\zeta)-f(\zeta)) \to_d N(0,1),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\sigma}^2_u$ is the sample variance of $u_t$, which is computed from the residuals $\hat{u_t} = y_t-\hat{f}(X_t)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eqtheta}
\widehat{\theta}_{\KK}(\zeta) %= \langle \hat{\zeta}, \widehat{C}_{ZZ} \hat{\zeta} \rangle, \quad \text{with} \quad \hat{\zeta} = \sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j,\zeta \rangle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j.
=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{\KK} \hat{\lambda}_j^{-2} \langle \hat{g}_j, \zeta\rangle \langle \widehat{C}_{XZ}\hat{g}_j, Z_t-\bar{Z}_T\rangle\right)^2.
\end{equation}
\item This result may be understood as the local asymptotic normality of the functional IV estimator.
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Data}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Data}
\begin{center}
\textbf{\textrm{\textbf{\Large{Data}}}}
\end{center}
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Data for FSR Model}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Residential Electricity Demand}
\begin{itemize}
\item KEPCO's residential elec. demand (GWh) and temperature (°C), spanning January 1999 to December 2023 (300 monthly obs).
\vspace{0.2em}
\item Monthly elec. demand divided by the number of effective days per month: elec. demand per effective day (Chang \emph{et al.}, 2014).
\vspace{0.2em}
\item Calculate deviations from the natural logarithm of a 12-month moving average of demand per effective day, filtering out long-run influences.
\vspace{0.2em}
\item Residential DR is free from non-climate variables (Chang \emph{et al.}, 2016).
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth, width=0.8\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Y_Graph.png}
%\caption{Natural log of residential electricity demand per effective day and its 12-month moving average (top), and their deviation process (down) from January 1999 to December 2023.}
\label{Fig:Y_Graphs}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Distributional Temperature Data}
\begin{itemize}
\item Hourly temperature data from the KMA National Climate Data Center is gathered for Seoul, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Busan.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item W/ a normal kernel density estimator and plug-in bw, monthly temperature density functions are constructed over a common range of [-20, 40].
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Weighted avg of the five density functions represents the ROK's temperature, w/ weights assigned based on each region’s annual sales proportion.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Directly estimate the quantile function from the raw temperature data.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Taking CLR transformation (density) and mean-centering (quantile), and temporal demean.
\item Utilizes 80 orthonormal Fourier and 80 orthonormal Legendre basis functions to represent the distributional predictor within the function space.
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Distributional Temperature Data}
\begin{itemize}
\item Post-2010, the standard deviation shows greater variability in temperature values.
\vspace{0.2em}
\item Positive skewness during warmer months shows more frequent high temperatures, while negative skewness in colder months shows extreme lows.
\vspace{0.2em}
\item Significant spikes in kurtosis, especially after 2010, suggest an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme temperature events, likely linked to climate change.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.32\textwidth, width=0.4\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc0.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.32\textwidth, width=0.55\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/density_desc.png}
%\caption{Kernel density estimates of the temperature distribution in the Republic of Korea (left) and the dynamics of its descriptive statistics (right). The red lines indicate August 2017 and August 2018, while the blue lines represent January 2020 and January 2021.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Empirical Investigation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Empirical Investigation}
\begin{center}
\textbf{\textrm{\textbf{\Large{Empirical Investigation}}}}
\end{center}
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Heat \& Cold Wave Shocks}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Functional Heat Wave \& Cold Wave Shocks}
\begin{itemize}
\item ROK experienced two notable extreme weather events – an intense heat wave in August 2018 and a severe cold wave in January 2021.
\vspace{0.2em}
\item In August 2018, average temperatures reached 29.2°C, driving residential electricity demand of 8,851.04 GWh.% as cooling requirements strained the energy grid.
\vspace{0.2em}
\item In January 2021, temperatures dropped to an average of -6.1°C, spiking electricity demand to 7,163.28 GWh due to increased heating needs.
\vspace{0.2em}
\item The August 2018 heat wave distribution shows a significant rightward skew, while the January 2021 cold wave is left-skewed, each with extended tails.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.95\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock0.png}
%\caption{Kernel density estimates comparing January 2021 (solid) and January 2020 (dotted) on the left, and August 2018 (solid) and August 2017 (dotted) on the right, with the black lines representing their differences.}
\label{Fig:Func_shock2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Generating Shock Sequences for Heat \& Cold Waves}
\begin{itemize}
\item Functional shocks are created by shifting the temperature distributions of the August 2018 heat wave and January 2021 cold wave across 1 to 50 grids to identify nonlinear demand responses.
\begin{itemize}
\item The heat wave shock is shifted left, reducing the temperature mean.
\item The cold wave shock is shifted right to increase mean temperatures.
\item CLR transformation is applied to shifted distributions.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{0.2em}
\item Show how different intensities of temperature shocks affect electricity demand per effective day.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Func_Shock2.png}
%\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.99\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quantile_shock_Desc.png}
%\caption{Selected functional shocks for cold waves (blue), shifted 50 grids to the right, and heat waves (red), shifted 50 grids to the left (left), and the mean change of the functional density shocks during the shifting process (right).}
\label{Fig:Func_shock3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Density-to-Demand Model}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Estimation Results: Density-to-Demand Model}
\begin{itemize}
\item Increase in electricity demand as temperatures decrease, particularly under $\kappa=1$, reflecting higher demand for heating during extreme cold conditions.
\vspace{0.2em}
\item Increased demand response as temperatures rise, with $\kappa=1$ effectively capturing the heightened cooling demand during heat waves.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth, width=0.9\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Empirical_rlt1.png}
%\caption{Density-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top) and heat wave (bottom) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ (left) and $\kappa = 1$ (right). The black line indicates the estimation results for the orthornormal Legendre basis functions.}
\label{Fig:Empirical_rlts}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Estimation Results: Density-to-Demand Model}
\begin{itemize}
\item FSR model with $\kappa=1$, assuming serially uncorrelated measurement errors, consistently yields more reliable short-run demand estimates.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Electricity demand is more sensitive to cold wave shocks than heat waves.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Electricity demand responds not just to the level of temperature extremes but also to the distributional characteristics of these extremes.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Existing approaches encounter boundary estimation challenges, particularly at sparse data points around critical temperature thresholds (e.g., -20°C and 40°C), which can impact policy decisions.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Unlike level-specific demand response models, our approach applies hypothetical functional shocks to examine extreme temperature impacts, offering more reliable estimates by minimizing boundary-related issues.
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{Quantile-to-Demand Model}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Estimation Results: Quantile-to-Demand Model}
\begin{itemize}
\item While the density function effectively captures average demand fluctuations, the quantile function may offer better insights into demand responses during extreme temperature events.
\vspace{0.2em}
\item Under unprecedented temperature extremes, such as during a heat wave, the quantile function is advantageous for modeling demand changes, as it places less emphasis on historical temperature impacts.
\vspace{0.2em}
\item Quantile function is also better suited for managing the heterogeneous support of the temperature density function.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_desc1.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.48\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_desc2.png}
%\caption{Descriptive statistics of quantile function for each temperature quantile (left) and kernel density estimates of four quantile ranges (right).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Descrip}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Estimation Results: Quantile-to-Demand Model}
\begin{itemize}
\item Significant impacts at lower quantiles during January 2021, indicating a pronounced shift towards colder temperatures compared to January 2020.
\vspace{0.2em}
\item Uniform rise across quantiles for the August 2018, with the largest impact at higher quantiles, highlighting intensified extreme high-temperature events.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth, width=0.9\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Shock.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth, width=0.9\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quantile_shock_Desc.png}
%\caption{Estimated quantile functions and functional shocks for cold wave (top left) and heat wave (top right). The functional quantile shocks for cold (blue) and heat (red) waves are shifted for modest cold wave (blue dotted) and heat wave shocks (red dotted) in the bottom left panel. The mean change of the upper (line) and lower (dotted) tenth quantiles of the functional quantile shocks during the shifting process (bottom right).}
\label{Fig:Quantile_Shock}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}{Estimation Results: Quantile-to-Demand Model}
\begin{itemize}
\item U-shaped pattern, with electricity demand decreasing as temperatures rise above the 0.4 quantile and reaching a minimum around the 0.7 quantile before moderating.
\vspace{0.2em}
\item Cooling demand nonlinearity is statistically insignificant, while heating demand remains significantly sensitive to temperature changes.
\vspace{0.2em}
\item The Q-to-D model does not capture nonlinear temperature sensitivity with statistical significance, potentially due to its limitations in reflecting cumulative temperature effects in time-series demand patterns.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.35\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Sensitivity.png}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth, width=0.6\textwidth]{FRKETQ_P3/Quant_Est_rlt.png}
%\caption{Estimated temperature quantile sensitivity (left) and quantile-based temperature sensitivity for varying cold wave (top right) and heat wave (bottom right) shock intensities under $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa = 1$, using Fourier (blue and red) and Legendre (black) basis functions. The dotted lines indicate the 95\% local confidence intervals with the Fourier basis function.}
\label{Fig:Quantile_non_est}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{frame}{Policy Implications for Electric Grid Resilience}
\begin{itemize}
\item Apply function-to-scalar regression for both temperature density-to-demand and quantile-to-demand models, enabling robust identification of nonlinearities in temperature and electricity demand relationships, despite measurement errors.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Residential electricity demand is significantly more responsive to intense cold waves than to heat waves.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Quantile-to-demand model fails to yield reliable estimates, highlighting challenges in capturing demand responses across temperature distributions.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item Energy practitioners should integrate detailed temperature distribution analysis in demand forecasting, especially for extreme weather planning.
\vspace{0.3em}
\item By addressing measurement errors with advanced econometric methods, provide accurate demand response strategies essential for grid resilience.
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\begin{frame}%[plain]
\titlepage
\end{frame}
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{45}
\expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}
\providecommand{\path}[1]{#1}
\providecommand{\DOIprefix}{doi:}
\providecommand{\ArXivprefix}{arXiv:}
\providecommand{\URLprefix}{URL: }
\providecommand{\Pubmedprefix}{pmid:}
\providecommand{\doi}[1]{\href{http://dx.doi.org/#1}{\path{#1}}}
\providecommand{\Pubmed}[1]{\href{pmid:#1}{\path{#1}}}
\providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
\ifx\xfnm\relax \def\xfnm[#1]{\unskip,\space#1}\fi
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Al-Musaylh et~al.(2019)Al-Musaylh, Deo, Adamowski and
Li}]{al2019short}
\bibinfo{author}{Al-Musaylh, M.S.}, \bibinfo{author}{Deo, R.C.},
\bibinfo{author}{Adamowski, J.F.}, \bibinfo{author}{Li, Y.},
\bibinfo{year}{2019}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Short-term electricity demand forecasting using
machine learning methods enriched with ground-based climate and {ECMWF}
reanalysis atmospheric predictors in southeast queensland, australia}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews}
\bibinfo{volume}{113}, \bibinfo{pages}{109293}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Apadula et~al.(2012)Apadula, Bassini, Elli and
Scapin}]{apadula2012relationships}
\bibinfo{author}{Apadula, F.}, \bibinfo{author}{Bassini, A.},
\bibinfo{author}{Elli, A.}, \bibinfo{author}{Scapin, S.},
\bibinfo{year}{2012}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Relationships between meteorological variables and
monthly electricity demand}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Applied Energy} \bibinfo{volume}{98},
\bibinfo{pages}{346--356}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Beenstock et~al.(1999)Beenstock, Goldin and
Nabot}]{beenstock1999demand}
\bibinfo{author}{Beenstock, M.}, \bibinfo{author}{Goldin, E.},
\bibinfo{author}{Nabot, D.}, \bibinfo{year}{1999}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{The demand for electricity in {I}srael}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy Economics} \bibinfo{volume}{21},
\bibinfo{pages}{168--183}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Benatia et~al.(2017)Benatia, Carrasco and Florens}]{Benatia2017}
\bibinfo{author}{Benatia, D.}, \bibinfo{author}{Carrasco, M.},
\bibinfo{author}{Florens, J.P.}, \bibinfo{year}{2017}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Functional linear regression with functional
response}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Journal of Econometrics} \bibinfo{volume}{201},
\bibinfo{pages}{269--291}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Bessec and Fouquau(2008)}]{bessec2008non}
\bibinfo{author}{Bessec, M.}, \bibinfo{author}{Fouquau, J.},
\bibinfo{year}{2008}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{The non-linear link between electricity consumption
and temperature in {E}urope: A threshold panel approach}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy Economics} \bibinfo{volume}{30},
\bibinfo{pages}{2705--2721}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Block et~al.(1998)Block, Savits and Singh}]{block1998reversed}
\bibinfo{author}{Block, H.W.}, \bibinfo{author}{Savits, T.H.},
\bibinfo{author}{Singh, H.}, \bibinfo{year}{1998}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{The reversed hazard rate function}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Probability in the Engineering and informational
Sciences} \bibinfo{volume}{12}, \bibinfo{pages}{69--90}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{van~den Boogaart et~al.(2014)van~den Boogaart, Egozcue and
Pawlowsky-Glahn}]{Boogaart2014}
\bibinfo{author}{van~den Boogaart, K.G.}, \bibinfo{author}{Egozcue, J.J.},
\bibinfo{author}{Pawlowsky-Glahn, V.}, \bibinfo{year}{2014}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Bayes {H}ilbert spaces}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Australian \& New Zealand Journal of Statistics}
\bibinfo{volume}{56}, \bibinfo{pages}{171--194}.
%Type = Book
\bibitem[{Bosq(2000)}]{Bosq2000}
\bibinfo{author}{Bosq, D.}, \bibinfo{year}{2000}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Linear Processes in Function Spaces}.
\newblock \bibinfo{publisher}{Springer-Verlag New York}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Caro et~al.(2020)}]{caro2020}
\bibinfo{author}{Caro, E.}, et~al., \bibinfo{year}{2020}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Periodically correlated models for short-term
electricity load forecasting}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Electric Power Systems Research}
\bibinfo{volume}{189}, \bibinfo{pages}{106759}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Carrasco et~al.(2007)Carrasco, Florens and Renault}]{Carrasco2007}
\bibinfo{author}{Carrasco, M.}, \bibinfo{author}{Florens, J.P.},
\bibinfo{author}{Renault, E.}, \bibinfo{year}{2007}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Linear inverse problems in structural econometrics
estimation based on spectral decomposition and regularization}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Handbook of Econometrics} \bibinfo{volume}{6},
\bibinfo{pages}{5633--5751}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Chan and Nadarajah(2015)}]{chan2015extreme}
\bibinfo{author}{Chan, S.}, \bibinfo{author}{Nadarajah, S.},
\bibinfo{year}{2015}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Extreme value analysis of electricity demand in the
{UK}}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Applied Economics Letters} \bibinfo{volume}{22},
\bibinfo{pages}{1246--1251}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Chang et~al.(2016a)Chang, Choi, Kim, Miller and
Park}]{chang2016disentangling}
\bibinfo{author}{Chang, Y.}, \bibinfo{author}{Choi, Y.}, \bibinfo{author}{Kim,
C.S.}, \bibinfo{author}{Miller, J.I.}, \bibinfo{author}{Park, J.Y.},
\bibinfo{year}{2016}a.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Disentangling temporal patterns in elasticities: A
functional coefficient panel analysis of electricity demand}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy Economics} \bibinfo{volume}{60},
\bibinfo{pages}{232--243}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Chang et~al.(2021)Chang, Choi, Kim, Miller and
Park}]{chang2021forecasting}
\bibinfo{author}{Chang, Y.}, \bibinfo{author}{Choi, Y.}, \bibinfo{author}{Kim,
C.S.}, \bibinfo{author}{Miller, J.I.}, \bibinfo{author}{Park, J.Y.},
\bibinfo{year}{2021}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Forecasting regional long-run energy demand: A
functional coefficient panel approach}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy Economics} \bibinfo{volume}{96},
\bibinfo{pages}{105117}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Chang et~al.(2014)Chang, Kim, Miller, Park and Park}]{chang2014time}
\bibinfo{author}{Chang, Y.}, \bibinfo{author}{Kim, C.S.},
\bibinfo{author}{Miller, J.I.}, \bibinfo{author}{Park, J.Y.},
\bibinfo{author}{Park, S.}, \bibinfo{year}{2014}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Time-varying long-run income and output elasticities
of electricity demand with an application to {K}orea}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy Economics} \bibinfo{volume}{46},
\bibinfo{pages}{334--347}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Chang et~al.(2016b)Chang, Kim, Miller, Park and Park}]{chang2016new}
\bibinfo{author}{Chang, Y.}, \bibinfo{author}{Kim, C.S.},
\bibinfo{author}{Miller, J.I.}, \bibinfo{author}{Park, J.Y.},
\bibinfo{author}{Park, S.}, \bibinfo{year}{2016}b.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{A new approach to modeling the effects of temperature
fluctuations on monthly electricity demand}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy Economics} \bibinfo{volume}{60},
\bibinfo{pages}{206--216}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Chen et~al.(2022)Chen, Guo and Qiao}]{Chen_et_al_2020}
\bibinfo{author}{Chen, C.}, \bibinfo{author}{Guo, S.}, \bibinfo{author}{Qiao,
X.}, \bibinfo{year}{2022}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Functional linear regression: Dependence and error
contamination}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Journal of Business \& Economic Statistics}
\bibinfo{volume}{40}, \bibinfo{pages}{444--457}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Egozcue et~al.(2006)Egozcue, D{\'i}az-Barrero and
Pawlowsky-Glahn}]{Egozcue2006}
\bibinfo{author}{Egozcue, J.J.}, \bibinfo{author}{D{\'i}az-Barrero, J.L.},
\bibinfo{author}{Pawlowsky-Glahn, V.}, \bibinfo{year}{2006}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{{H}ilbert space of probability density functions
based on {A}itchison geometry}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Acta Mathematica Sinica} \bibinfo{volume}{22},
\bibinfo{pages}{1175--1182}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Engle et~al.(1989)Engle, Granger and Hallman}]{engle1989merging}
\bibinfo{author}{Engle, R.F.}, \bibinfo{author}{Granger, C.W.},
\bibinfo{author}{Hallman, J.J.}, \bibinfo{year}{1989}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Merging short-and long-run forecasts: An application
of seasonal cointegration to monthly electricity sales forecasting}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Journal of econometrics} \bibinfo{volume}{40},
\bibinfo{pages}{45--62}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Engle et~al.(1986)Engle, Granger, Rice and
Weiss}]{engle1986semiparametric}
\bibinfo{author}{Engle, R.F.}, \bibinfo{author}{Granger, C.W.},
\bibinfo{author}{Rice, J.}, \bibinfo{author}{Weiss, A.},
\bibinfo{year}{1986}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Semiparametric estimates of the relation between
weather and electricity sales}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Journal of the American statistical Association}
\bibinfo{volume}{81}, \bibinfo{pages}{310--320}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Hall and Horowitz(2007)}]{Hall2007}
\bibinfo{author}{Hall, P.}, \bibinfo{author}{Horowitz, J.L.},
\bibinfo{year}{2007}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{{Methodology and convergence rates for functional
linear regression}}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Annals of Statistics} \bibinfo{volume}{35},
\bibinfo{pages}{70 -- 91}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Henley and Peirson(1997)}]{henley1997non}
\bibinfo{author}{Henley, A.}, \bibinfo{author}{Peirson, J.},
\bibinfo{year}{1997}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Non-linearities in electricity demand and
temperature: parametric versus non-parametric methods}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Oxford bulletin of economics and statistics}
\bibinfo{volume}{59}, \bibinfo{pages}{149--162}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Henley and Peirson(1998)}]{henley1998residential}
\bibinfo{author}{Henley, A.}, \bibinfo{author}{Peirson, J.},
\bibinfo{year}{1998}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Residential energy demand and the interaction of
price and temperature: British experimental evidence}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy Economics} \bibinfo{volume}{20},
\bibinfo{pages}{157--171}.
%Type = Incollection
\bibitem[{Ibukiyama and Kaneko(2014)}]{ibukiyama2014euler}
\bibinfo{author}{Ibukiyama, T.}, \bibinfo{author}{Kaneko, M.},
\bibinfo{year}{2014}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{The {E}uler--{M}aclaurin summation formula and the
{R}iemann zeta function}, in: \bibinfo{booktitle}{Bernoulli Numbers and Zeta
Functions}. \bibinfo{publisher}{Springer, Tokyo}, pp.
\bibinfo{pages}{65--74}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Kokoszka et~al.(2019)Kokoszka, Miao, Petersen and
Shang}]{kokoszka2019forecasting}
\bibinfo{author}{Kokoszka, P.}, \bibinfo{author}{Miao, H.},
\bibinfo{author}{Petersen, A.}, \bibinfo{author}{Shang, H.L.},
\bibinfo{year}{2019}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Forecasting of density functions with an application
to cross-sectional and intraday returns}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{International Journal of Forecasting}
\bibinfo{volume}{35}, \bibinfo{pages}{1304--1317}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Miller and Nam(2022)}]{miller2022modeling}
\bibinfo{author}{Miller, J.I.}, \bibinfo{author}{Nam, K.},
\bibinfo{year}{2022}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Modeling peak electricity demand: A semiparametric
approach using weather-driven cross-temperature response functions}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy Economics} \bibinfo{volume}{114},
\bibinfo{pages}{106291}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Moral-Carcedo and Vic{\'e}ns-Otero(2005)}]{moral2005modelling}
\bibinfo{author}{Moral-Carcedo, J.}, \bibinfo{author}{Vic{\'e}ns-Otero, J.},
\bibinfo{year}{2005}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Modelling the non-linear response of {S}panish
electricity demand to temperature variations}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy economics} \bibinfo{volume}{27},
\bibinfo{pages}{477--494}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Pardo et~al.(2002)Pardo, Meneu and Valor}]{pardo2002temperature}
\bibinfo{author}{Pardo, A.}, \bibinfo{author}{Meneu, V.},
\bibinfo{author}{Valor, E.}, \bibinfo{year}{2002}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Temperature and seasonality influences on {S}panish
electricity load}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy Economics} \bibinfo{volume}{24},
\bibinfo{pages}{55--70}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Petersen and M\"{u}ller(2016)}]{petersen2016}
\bibinfo{author}{Petersen, A.}, \bibinfo{author}{M\"{u}ller, H.G.},
\bibinfo{year}{2016}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Functional data analysis for density functions by
transformation to a {H}ilbert space}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Annals of Statistics} \bibinfo{volume}{44},
\bibinfo{pages}{183--218}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Rallapalli and Ghosh(2012)}]{rallapalli2012forecasting}
\bibinfo{author}{Rallapalli, S.R.}, \bibinfo{author}{Ghosh, S.},
\bibinfo{year}{2012}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Forecasting monthly peak demand of electricity in
india—a critique}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy policy} \bibinfo{volume}{45},
\bibinfo{pages}{516--520}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Sailor and Mu{\~n}oz(1997)}]{sailor1997sensitivity}
\bibinfo{author}{Sailor, D.J.}, \bibinfo{author}{Mu{\~n}oz, J.R.},
\bibinfo{year}{1997}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Sensitivity of electricity and natural gas
consumption to climate in the {USA}—methodology and results for eight
states}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy} \bibinfo{volume}{22},
\bibinfo{pages}{987--998}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Seo(2024)}]{seo2020functional}
\bibinfo{author}{Seo, W.K.}, \bibinfo{year}{2024}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Functional principal component analysis for
cointegrated functional time series}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Journal of Time Series Analysis}
\bibinfo{volume}{45}, \bibinfo{pages}{320--330}.
\newblock \bibinfo{note}{{S}upplementary Material available at
\url{https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jtsa.12707}}.
%Type = Misc
\bibitem[{Seo(2025)}]{seo2024optimal}
\bibinfo{author}{Seo, W.K.}, \bibinfo{year}{2025}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Optimal linear prediction with functional
observations: Why you can use a simple post-dimension reduction estimator}.
\newblock \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06326}{{\tt arXiv:2401.06326}}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Seo and Beare(2019)}]{SEO2019}
\bibinfo{author}{Seo, W.K.}, \bibinfo{author}{Beare, B.K.},
\bibinfo{year}{2019}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Cointegrated linear processes in {B}ayes {H}ilbert
space}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Statistics \& Probability Letters}
\bibinfo{volume}{147}, \bibinfo{pages}{90 -- 95}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Seo and Shang(2024)}]{seoshang22}
\bibinfo{author}{Seo, W.K.}, \bibinfo{author}{Shang, H.L.},
\bibinfo{year}{2024}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{{Fractionally integrated curve time series with
cointegration}}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Electronic Journal of Statistics}
\bibinfo{volume}{18}, \bibinfo{pages}{3858 -- 3902}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Seong and Seo(2025)}]{seong2021functional}
\bibinfo{author}{Seong, D.}, \bibinfo{author}{Seo, W.K.}, \bibinfo{year}{2025}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Functional instrumental variable regression with an
application to estimating the impact of immigration on native wages}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Econometric Theory,} \bibinfo{volume}{in press}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Sharma et~al.(2020)}]{sharma2020}
\bibinfo{author}{Sharma, R.}, et~al., \bibinfo{year}{2020}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Short-term energy load forecasting with recurrent
neural networks and fuzzy logic}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy} \bibinfo{volume}{196},
\bibinfo{pages}{117085}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Sigauke and Bere(2017)}]{sigauke2017modelling}
\bibinfo{author}{Sigauke, C.}, \bibinfo{author}{Bere, A.},
\bibinfo{year}{2017}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Modelling non-stationary time series using a peaks
over threshold distribution with time varying covariates and threshold: An
application to peak electricity demand}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy} \bibinfo{volume}{119},
\bibinfo{pages}{152--166}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Sigauke and Chikobvu(2011)}]{sigauke2011prediction}
\bibinfo{author}{Sigauke, C.}, \bibinfo{author}{Chikobvu, D.},
\bibinfo{year}{2011}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Prediction of daily peak electricity demand in south
africa using volatility forecasting models}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy Economics} \bibinfo{volume}{33},
\bibinfo{pages}{882--888}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Sigauke and Nemukula(2020)}]{sigauke2020modelling}
\bibinfo{author}{Sigauke, C.}, \bibinfo{author}{Nemukula, M.M.},
\bibinfo{year}{2020}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Modelling extreme peak electricity demand during a
heatwave period: A case study}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy systems} \bibinfo{volume}{11},
\bibinfo{pages}{139--161}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Sigauke et~al.(2013)Sigauke, Verster and
Chikobvu}]{sigauke2013extreme}
\bibinfo{author}{Sigauke, C.}, \bibinfo{author}{Verster, A.},
\bibinfo{author}{Chikobvu, D.}, \bibinfo{year}{2013}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Extreme daily increases in peak electricity demand:
Tail-quantile estimation}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy Policy} \bibinfo{volume}{53},
\bibinfo{pages}{90--96}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Silk and Joutz(1997)}]{silk1997short}
\bibinfo{author}{Silk, J.I.}, \bibinfo{author}{Joutz, F.L.},
\bibinfo{year}{1997}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Short and long-run elasticities in us residential
electricity demand: a co-integration approach}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy economics} \bibinfo{volume}{19},
\bibinfo{pages}{493--513}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Sultana et~al.(2022)}]{sultana2022}
\bibinfo{author}{Sultana, S.}, et~al., \bibinfo{year}{2022}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Forecasting hourly electricity demand in ontario
using {B}ayesian optimization and hybrid models}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Journal of Applied Energy} \bibinfo{volume}{295},
\bibinfo{pages}{116973}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Teixeira et~al.(2017)}]{teixeira2017}
\bibinfo{author}{Teixeira, A.}, et~al., \bibinfo{year}{2017}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Hybrid model for electricity demand forecasting using
multiple linear regression and artificial neural networks}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Energy} \bibinfo{volume}{141},
\bibinfo{pages}{356--368}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Valor et~al.(2001)Valor, Meneu and Caselles}]{valor2001daily}
\bibinfo{author}{Valor, E.}, \bibinfo{author}{Meneu, V.},
\bibinfo{author}{Caselles, V.}, \bibinfo{year}{2001}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Daily air temperature and electricity load in
{S}pain}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Journal of applied Meteorology}
\bibinfo{volume}{40}, \bibinfo{pages}{1413--1421}.
%Type = Article
\bibitem[{Yang et~al.(2020)Yang, Baladandayuthapani, Rao and
Morris}]{yang2020quantile}
\bibinfo{author}{Yang, H.}, \bibinfo{author}{Baladandayuthapani, V.},
\bibinfo{author}{Rao, A.U.}, \bibinfo{author}{Morris, J.S.},
\bibinfo{year}{2020}.
\newblock \bibinfo{title}{Quantile function on scalar regression analysis for
distributional data}.
\newblock \bibinfo{journal}{Journal of the American Statistical Association}
\bibinfo{volume}{115}, \bibinfo{pages}{90--106}.
\end{thebibliography}