Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-10T19:55:10.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASYMPTOTICS OF DIAGONAL ELEMENTS OF PROJECTION MATRICES UNDER MANY INSTRUMENTS/REGRESSORS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

Stanislav Anatolyev  and
Pavel Yaskov
Stanislav Anatolyev*
Affiliation:
CERGE-EI, Czech Republic and New Economic School, Russia
Pavel Yaskov
Affiliation:
Steklov Mathematical Institute of RAS and NUST ‘MISIS’
*
*Address correspondence to Stanislav Anatolyev, CERGE-EI, Politických vězňů 7, 11121 Prague 1, Czech Republic; e-mail: [email protected].
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article sheds light on the asymptotic behavior of diagonal elements of projection matrices associated with instruments or regressors under many instrument/regressor asymptotics. When the diagonal elements do not exhibit variation asymptotically, certain results in the many instrument/regressor literature lead to elegant solutions and conclusions. We establish conditions when this happens, provide relevant examples, and analyze instrument designs, for which this property does or does not hold.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Econometric Theory , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , June 2017 , pp. 717 - 738
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Footnotes

We would like to thank the editor Peter Phillips and co-editor Victor Chernozhukov for their quick and professional handling of the manuscript, as well as a diligent referee who provided very useful comments. The second author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Russian Science Foundation via grant 14-21-00162.

References

REFERENCES

Abutaliev, A. & Anatolyev, S. (2013) Asymptotic variance under many instruments: numerical computations. Economics Letters 118(2), 272–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamczak, R., Latala, R., Litvak, A.E., Oleszkiewicz, K., Pajor, A., & Tomczak-Jaegermann, N. (2014) A short proof of Paouris’ inequality. Canadian Mathematical Bulletin 57, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anatolyev, S. (2012) Inference in regression models with many regressors. Journal of Econometrics 170(2), 368–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anatolyev, S. (2013) Instrumental variables estimation and inference in the presence of many exogenous regressors. Econometrics Journal 16(1), 27–72.Google Scholar
Anatolyev, S. & Gospodinov, N. (2011) Specification testing in models with many instruments. Econometric Theory 27, 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, J. & Krueger, A. (1991) Does compulsory school attendance affect schooling and earnings? Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 979–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T.W., Kunimoto, N., & Matsushita, Y. (2010) On the asymptotic optimality of the LIML estimator with possibly many instruments. Journal of Econometrics 157, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T.W., Kunimoto, N., & Matsushita, Y. (2011) On finite sample properties of alternative estimators of coefficients in a structural equation with many instruments. Journal of Econometrics 165, 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagnoli, M. & Bergstrom, T. (2005) Log-concave probability and its applications. Economic Theory 26, 445–469.Google Scholar
Bai, Z. & Silverstein, J. (2010) Spectral analysis of large dimensional random matrices, 2nd edition. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekker, P.A. (1994) Alternative approximations to the distributions of instrumental variable estimators. Econometrica 62, 657–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekker, P.A. & Crudu, F. (2015) Jackknife instrumental variable estimation with heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics 185(2), 332–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekker, P.A. & van der Ploeg, J. (2005) Instrumental variable estimation based on grouped data. Statistica Neerlandica 59, 239–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borell, C. (1975) Convex set functions in d-space. Periodica Mathematica Hungarica 6(2), 111–136.Google Scholar
Calhoun, G. (2012) Hypothesis testing in linear regression when k / n is large. Journal of Econometrics 165(2), 368–382.Google Scholar
Davidson, R. & MacKinnon, J.G. (2006) The case against JIVE. Journal of Applied Econometrics 21(6), 827–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, J. & Inoue, A. (2002) A Monte Carlo comparison of various asymptotic approximations to the distribution of instrumental variables estimators. Econometric Reviews 21, 309–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, C., Hausman, J., & Newey, W.K. (2008) Estimation with many instrumental variables. Journal of Business & Economics Statistics 26, 398–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, J.A., Newey, W.K., Woutersen, T., Chao, J.C., & Swanson, N.R. (2012) Instrumental variable estimation with heteroskedasticity and many instruments. Quantitative Economics 3, 211–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolesár, M. (2015) Minimum distance approach to inference with many instruments. manuscript. Princeton University.Google Scholar
Kunimoto, N. (2012) An optimal modification of the LIML estimation for many instruments and persistent heteroscedasticity. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 64(5), 881–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledoux, M. (2001) The concentration of measure phenomenon. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 89. American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Lee, Y. & Okui, R. (2012) Hahn–Hausman test as a specification test. Journal of Econometrics 167(1), 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meurant, G. (1992) A review on the inverse of symmetric tridiagonal and block tridiagonal matrices. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 13(3), 707–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastur, L. & Shcherbina, M. (2011) Eigenvalue Distribution of Large Random Matrices. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 171. American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saumard, A. & Wellner, J.A. (2014) Log-concavity and strong log-concavity: A review. Statistics Surveys 8, 45–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherman, J. & Morrison, W.J. (1950) Adjustment of an inverse matrix corresponding to a change in one element of a given matrix. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21, 124–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hasselt, M. (2010) Many instruments asymptotic approximations under nonnormal error distributions. Econometric Theory 26, 633–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W. & Kaffo, M. (2016) Bootstrap inference for instrumental variable models with many weak instruments. Journal of Econometrics 192(1), 231–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaskov, P.A. (2014) Lower bounds on the smallest eigenvalue of a sample covariance matrix. Electronic Communications in Probability 19, article 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaskov, P.A. (2016) Controlling the least eigenvalue of a random Gram matrix. Linear Algebra and its Applications 504, 108–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar