[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"David Roodman (DRoodman@cgdev.org)" <DRoodman@CGDEV.ORG> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: bug in ivtobit |

Date |
Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:37:37 -0400 |

I just discovered a bug in ivtobit. In "mle" estimation (the default) it always effectively assumes the censoring cut-off is 0. I think this does not happen in "twostep" estimation. Short-term fix: before regressing, subtract the censoring level from your dependent variable so that the effective censoring level becomes 0. Stata has confirmed the bug (below). --David -----Original Message----- From: bpp@stata.com [mailto:bpp@stata.com] On Behalf Of Stata Technical Support Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 3:48 PM To: David Roodman (DRoodman@cgdev.org) Subject: Re: serious bug in ivtobit? Dear David, You are absolutely correct; the likelihood function assumes that the censoring point is always zero. The last two lines of the likelihood evaluator should be qui replace `lnf' = `lnf' + ln(1 - norm((`w'-$IVT_ll) / `s')) /// if $ML_y1 <= $IVT_ll qui replace `lnf' = `lnf' + ln(norm((`w'-$IVT_ul)/`s')) /// if $ML_y1 >= $IVT_ul When I make those changes, subtracting 10 from the censored value results in identical results except for the constant term, which decreases by 10. Simulation results also show that this change is necessary. We will issue a revised version of the command in the next adofile update. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. ********************************************************************** ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ /__ / ____/ / ____/ Brian P. Poi, Ph.D. ___/ / /___/ / /___/ Senior Economist StataCorp LP 4905 Lakeway Drive College Station, TX 77845 tech-support@stata.com ********************************************************************** You wrote: -----Begin Original Message----- It looks to me like there is a serious bug in ivtobit, at least for the case of mle estimation with one instrumented variable. I believe the bug does not affect two-step estimation, and I haven't checked the code for mle with multiple instrumented variables. The problem I think I see is that the lnf program (ivtob_1_lf) is written assuming that the censoring value is always 0. The censoring value itself (equivalently, the value of $ML_y2 for censored observations) never enters the likelihood calculation in these lines: qui replace `lnf' =3D `lnf' + ln(1 - norm(`w' / `s')) /// if $ML_y1 <=3D $IVT_ll qui replace `lnf' =3D `lnf' + ln(norm(`w'/`s')) if $ML_y1 >=3D = $IVT_ul An example is below, it is based on the example in -help ivtobit-. I simply run that example, then subtract 10 from the censored variable and rerun. It seems to me that the results should not change, except for the constant term, but they do. Please tell me if I am right or wrong about this! --David * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**st: Memory problems when creating a spatial weight matrix***From:*"Lina Jonsson" <lina.jonsson@vti.se>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: System Limit on -recode-** - Next by Date:
**st: solving for unobserved hetereogeneity with two simultaneous equations** - Previous by thread:
**st: Postestimation test for multionomial logit** - Next by thread:
**st: Memory problems when creating a spatial weight matrix** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |