Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:42:45.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASYMPTOTIC SIZE OF KLEIBERGEN’S LM AND CONDITIONAL LR TESTS FOR MOMENT CONDITION MODELS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2016

Donald W.K. Andrews  and
Patrik Guggenberger
Donald W.K. Andrews*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Patrik Guggenberger
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
*
*Address correspondence to Donald W.K. Andrews, Cowles Foundation, P.O. Box 208281, New Haven, CT 06520-8281; e-mail: donald.andrews@yale.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An influential paper by Kleibergen (2005, Econometrica 73, 1103–1123) introduces Lagrange multiplier (LM) and conditional likelihood ratio-like (CLR) tests for nonlinear moment condition models. These procedures aim to have good size performance even when the parameters are unidentified or poorly identified. However, the asymptotic size and similarity (in a uniform sense) of these procedures have not been determined in the literature. This paper does so.

This paper shows that the LM test has correct asymptotic size and is asymptotically similar for a suitably chosen parameter space of null distributions. It shows that the CLR tests also have these properties when the dimension p of the unknown parameter θ equals 1. When p ≥ 2, however, the asymptotic size properties are found to depend on how the conditioning statistic, upon which the CLR tests depend, is weighted. Two weighting methods have been suggested in the literature. The paper shows that the CLR tests are guaranteed to have correct asymptotic size when p ≥ 2 when the weighting is based on an estimator of the variance of the sample moments, i.e., moment-variance weighting, combined with the Robin and Smith (2000, Econometric Theory 16, 151–175) rank statistic. The paper also determines a formula for the asymptotic size of the CLR test when the weighting is based on an estimator of the variance of the sample Jacobian. However, the results of the paper do not guarantee correct asymptotic size when p ≥ 2 with the Jacobian-variance weighting, combined with the Robin and Smith (2000, Econometric Theory 16, 151–175) rank statistic, because two key sample quantities are not necessarily asymptotically independent under some identification scenarios.

Analogous results for confidence sets are provided. Even for the special case of a linear instrumental variable regression model with two or more right-hand side endogenous variables, the results of the paper are new to the literature.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Econometric Theory , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , October 2017 , pp. 1046 - 1080
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Andrews and Guggenberger gratefully acknowledge the research support of the National Science Foundation via grant numbers SES-1058376 and SES-1355504, and SES-1021101, SES-1326827, and SES-1462707, respectively. The authors thank four referees, the co-editor, the editor Peter Phillips, Isaiah Andrews, Xu Cheng, Anna Mikusheva, and Jim Stock and the participants of seminars at the following universities for helpful comments: Boston, Boston College, Brown, Chicago, Cologne, Columbia, Freiburg, Hanover, Harvard/MIT, Hebrew Jerusalem, Konstanz, Manchester, Maryland, Michigan, Montreal, New York, Northwestern, Ohio State, Pompeu Fabra, Princeton, Queen’s, Strasbourg, University College London, Washington, and Wisconsin.

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, T.W. & Rubin, H. (1949) Estimation of the parameters of a single equation in a complete set of stochastic equations. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 20, 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K. (1991) Heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix estimation. Econometrica 59, 817–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K. & Cheng, X. (2012) Estimation and inference with weak, semi-strong, and strong identification. Econometrica 80, 2153–2211. Supplemental Material available at Econometrica Supplemental Material, 80, http://www.econometricsociety.org/ecta/Supmat/9456_miscellaneous.pdf.Google Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K. & Cheng, X. (2013) Maximum likelihood estimation and uniform inference with sporadic identification failure. Journal of Econometrics 173, 36–56. Supplemental Material available with Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1824R, 2011, Yale University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K. & Cheng, X. (2014) GMM estimation and uniform subvector inference with possible identification failure. Econometric Theory 30, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K., Cheng, X., & Guggenberger, P. (2009) Generic Results for Establishing the Asymptotic Size of Confidence Sets and Tests. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1813, Yale University.Google Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K. & Guggenberger, P. (2014a) Identification- and Singularity-Robust Inference for Moment Condition Models. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1978, Yale University.Google Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K. & Guggenberger, P. (2014b) Supplement to ‘Asymptotic Size of Kleibergen’s LM and Conditional LR Tests for Moment Condition Models’. Econometric Theory, Supplementary Material available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266466616000347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K., Moreira, M.J., & Stock, J.H. (2006) Optimal two-sided invariant similar tests for instrumental variables regression. Econometrica 74, 715–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K., Moreira, M.J., & Stock, J.H. (2008) Efficient two-sided nonsimilar invariant tests in IV regression with weak instruments. Journal of Econometrics 146, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, I. (2016) Conditional linear combination tests for weakly identified models. Econometrica, first published online 29 October 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, I. & Mikusheva, A. (2015) Maximum likelihood inference in weakly identified DSGE models. Quantitative Economics 6, 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, I. & Mikusheva, A. (2016a) A geometric approach to nonlinear econometric models. Econometrica 84, 1249–1264.Google Scholar
Andrews, I. & Mikusheva, A. (2016b) Conditional inference with a functional nuisance parameter. Econometrica 84, 1571–1612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, S., Levinsohn, J., & Pakes, A. (1995) Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica 63, 841–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavanagh, C.L., Elliott, G., & Stock, J.H. (1995) Inference in models with nearly integrated regressors. Econometric Theory 11, 1131–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, G. (2007) Decision theory applied to an instrumental variables model. Econometrica 75, 609–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhuri, S., Richardson, T., Robins, J., & Zivot, E. (2010) A new projection-type split-sample score test in linear instrumental variables regression. Econometric Theory 26, 1820–1837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhuri, S. & Zivot, E. (2011) A new method of projection-based inference in GMM with weakly identified nuisance parameters. Journal of Econometrics 164, 239–251.Google Scholar
Cheng, X. (2015) Robust inference in nonlinear models with mixed identification strength. Journal of Econometrics 189, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernozhukov, V., Hansen, C., & Jansson, M. (2009) Admissible invariant similar tests for instrumental variables regression. Econometric Theory 25, 806–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, I. & Phillips, P.C.B. (1992) Asymptotic and finite sample distribution theory for IV estimators and tests in partially identified structural equations. Journal of Econometrics 51, 113–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cragg, J.C. & Donald, S.G. (1996) On the asymptotic properties of LDU-based tests of the rank of a matrix. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91, 1301–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cragg, J.C. & Donald, S.G. (1997) Inferring the rank of a matrix. Journal of Econometrics 76, 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufour, J.-M. (1989) Nonlinear hypotheses, inequality restrictions, and non-nested hypotheses: Exact simultaneous tests in linear regressions. Econometrica 57, 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufour, J.-M. & Jasiak, J. (2001) Finite sample limited information inference methods for structural equations and structural models with generated regressors. International Economic Review 42, 815–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guggenberger, P. (2012) On the asymptotic size distortion of tests when instruments locally violate the exogeneity condition. Econometric Theory 28, 387–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guggenberger, P., Kleibergen, F., Mavroeidis, S., & Chen, L. (2012) On the asymptotic sizes of subset Anderson-Rubin and Lagrange multiplier tests in linear instrumental variables regression. Econometrica 80, 2649–2666.Google Scholar
Guggenberger, P., Ramalho, J.J.S., & Smith, R.J. (2012) GEL statistics under weak identification. Journal of Econometrics 170, 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guggenberger, P. & Smith, R.J. (2005) Generalized empirical likelihood estimators and tests under partial, weak and strong identification. Econometric Theory 21, 667–709.Google Scholar
Hillier, G. (2009) Exact properties of the conditional likelihood ratio test in an IV regression model. Econometric Theory 25, 915–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoue, A. & Rossi, B. (2011) Testing for weak identification in possibly nonlinear models. Journal of Econometrics 161, 246–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleibergen, F. (2002) Pivotal statistics for testing structural parameters in instrumental variables regression. Econometrica 70, 1781–1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleibergen, F. (2004) Testing subsets of structural parameters in the instrumental variables regression model. Review of Economics and Statistics 86, 418–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleibergen, F. (2005) Testing parameters in GMM without assuming that they are identified. Econometrica 73, 1103–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleibergen, F. (2007) Generalizing weak instrument robust IV statistics towards multiple parameters, unrestricted covariance matrices and identification statistics. Journal of Econometrics 139, 181–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleibergen, F. & Paap, R. (2006) Generalized reduced rank tests using the singular value decomposition. Journal of Econometrics 133, 97–126.Google Scholar
McCloskey, A. (2011) Bonferroni-based size-correction for nonstandard testing problems. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, Brown University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikusheva, A. (2010) Robust confidence sets in the presence of weak instruments. Journal of Econometrics 157, 236–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montiel Olea, J.L. (2013) Admissible, Similar Tests: A characterization. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, New York University.Google Scholar
Moreira, M.J. (2003) A conditional likelihood ratio test for structural models. Econometrica 71, 1027–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreira, M.J. (2009) Tests with correct size when instruments can be arbitrarily weak. Journal of Econometrics 152, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreira, H. & Moreira, M.J. (2013) Contributions to the theory of similar tests. Unpublished manuscript, FGV/EPGE, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Google Scholar
Newey, W.K. & West, K. (1987a) A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica 55, 703–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newey, W.K. & West, K. (1987b) Hypothesis testing with efficient method of moments estimation. International Economic Review 28, 777–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newey, W.K. & Windmeijer, F. (2009) Generalized method of moments with many weak moment conditions. Econometrica 77, 687–719.Google Scholar
Otsu, T. (2006) Generalized empirical likelihood inference for nonlinear and time series models under weak identification. Econometric Theory 22, 513–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. (1989) Partially identified econometric models. Econometric Theory 5, 181–240.Google Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. (2016) Inference in near-singular regression. Essays in Honor of Aman Ullah, Advances in Econometrics 36, 461–486.Google Scholar
Robin, J.-M. & Smith, R.J. (2000) Tests of rank. Econometric Theory 16, 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargan, J.D. (1959) The estimation of relationships with autocorrelated residuals by the use of instrumental variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 21, 91–105.Google Scholar
Sargan, J.D. (1983) Identification and lack of identification. Econometrica 51, 1605–1633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.J. (2007) Weak instruments and empirical likelihood: A discussion of the papers by D.W.K. Andrews and J.H. Stock and Y. Kitamura. In Blundell, R., Newey, W.K., & Persson, T. (eds.), Advances in Economics and Econometrics, Theory and Applications: Ninth World Congress of the Econometric Society, chapter 8, vol. III, Econometric Society Monograph Series, ESM 43, pp. 238–260, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Staiger, D. & Stock, J.H. (1997) Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 65, 557–586.Google Scholar
Stock, J.H. & Wright, J.H. (2000) GMM with weak identification. Econometrica 68, 1055–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Andrews and Guggenberger supplementary material

Andrews and Guggenberger supplementary material 1

Download Andrews and Guggenberger supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 589.7 KB