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

From |
"Stas Kolenikov" <skolenik@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: RE: IV and quantile regression |

Date |
Wed, 6 Aug 2008 23:42:59 -0500 |

The problem is not coming up with the code that does this (which is 6 lines of code if my mental programming is OK: two lines for -program- and -end-, one line to estimate the first stage, one line to predict something out of it, one line to run the second stage, and one line to embed this into the -bootstrap- procedure). The problem is with the very approach. Those are not "limitations", those are inconcistencies of the estimates, not just the standard errors -- what you will get out of those 6 lines will likely have nothing to do with the true values of the coefficients. First, the generic instrumental variables estimators are based on a very specific assumption that instruments and errors are uncorrelated. This idea is in fact fits very well into the whole geometry of least squares as projections. You get the estimating equations of the form sum over i of (y_i - x_i beta) * z_i = 0 which you can solve and get the neat matrix expressions for 2SLS IV estimators. That the resulting expressions have a two-stage interpretation is a happy coincidence of the above mentioned geometry, and generalizes to no other case. How can you think about the instrumental variables condition for the quantile regressions? Well probably you would say, the instruments and errors are independent (which is quite a bit stronger assumptions than being uncorrelated). Hence, their functions are independent as well. But how can you use that in your estimating equations? Even for the original quantile regression problem, you have something quite nasty: for the quantile of level r, sum over i of [ - r + indicator of the event {y_i - x_i beta < 0} ] = 0 (if my algebra is not failing me). Is there a way to stick instruments in there? If you put z_i inside (to produce something like { (y_i-x_i beta)z_i < 0}, you do not have iid terms in the curly brackets any more. Even if you had homoskedastic residuals (which the linear regression IV did not need, by the way), the variances will be sigma times z_i^2. In any occasion, you cannot say much about those probabilities on which estimation is based. Things kinda fall apart. That's why Austin said that there is no particulary good way of going about that. Dismissing his comments is not cool! There's indeed been some work on quantile regressions with endogeneous variables, but as far as I can recall it, you need panel data to conduct your estimation, and it is based on entirely different notions of identifiability of your effects through some unwieldy conditional distributions. I never had an opportunity to figure this out better... meaning, I did not really have any data where I had an urgent need to apply it (luckily :)). It might be in Koenker's recent book on quantile regression. And I think I attended a talk by Andrew Chesher on this. Those are the minimal suggestions to look up. Second, I would have some doubts with the bootstrap even in absence of endogeneity, as the estimator you are bootstrapping is not smooth. The bootstrap method says, "Look, here are two distribution functions close to one another: the underlying unknown one in population, and the sample distribution. May be the results of computing some statistic will be close to those two distributions?" You are putting your hopes on this "maybe" part, but those hopes are not justified when your estimator deals with jumps (as in case of the quantile regression estimator). If things happen in jumps, there is no guarantee your bootstrap distribution won't hop away from the underlying one you are interested in. For the results of sampling from those two distributions to be close, you need your estimator to change smoothly as you go from one distribution to the other. Quantiles are standard counterexamples where the simple version of the bootstrap does not work. What you need to do is to resample m << n (m much less than n) observations, and scale your distribution using m rather than n in appropriate places. If you had the asymptotic normality of the kind "sqrt(n) (hat beta - beta_0) converges to N(0,some variance)", then you need to scale your resampled distribution of by sqrt(n/m). Stata may or may not take care of that -- I would expect it does, but that needs to be verified with [R] bootstrap probably. I might be wrong on this second part though. What I vaguely remember being discussed regarding the quantile regression models and the lack of smoothness is that it sorta disappears in high dimensions with many regressors. There are some geometric considerations of how this distance to origin function looks in different dimensions. It is V-shaped in single dimension, but it starts looking U-shaped in higher dimensions. So it might or might not bite -- but again, it needs to be checked with appropriate statistical and econometric literature. On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Matteo Cominetta <m.p.cominetta@sussex.ac.uk> wrote: > Dear Austin, > I'm well aware of the limitations of the approach proposed by Sachin > (i.e. inconsistent estimates of the coefficients' s.e.). > I got in touch with Stata's technical support and they suggested to run > the 1st stage manually, obtain the fitted values and then bootstrap the > (quantile regression) 2nd stage with the fitted values. They also sent > me some examples, which I'm studying at the moment. > I'll forward them and all the material shortly. > > > Matteo > > > Quoting Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com>: > >> Matteo Cominetta and >> Sachin Chintawar <sachintalks@gmail.com>: >> >> Usually this naive approach (sticking in a predicted value for the >> endog var) gives biased and inconsistent estimates (e.g. when >> applied >> to -probit- or -poisson- or -glm- or what have you). I believe that >> some work has been done on an IV version of quantile regression, but >> there is no Stata command that I know of, and there is no consensus >> in >> the literature that I am familiar with on how it should be >> implemented. So I don't think it is possible in Stata as of today, >> but >> I would be happy to be proved wrong. >> >> On 8/5/08, Sachin Chintawar <sachintalks@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi >> > Though I did not find a command for a two stage quantile >> regression, One way >> > to go through this problem is to run your first stage regression >> and use the >> > predicted values of the first stage in the second stage quantile >> regression. >> > I hope this helps. More comments on using such a technique would be >> useful. >> > >> > >> > Sachin Chintawar >> > Research Assistant >> > Dept. of Agricultural Economics >> > Louisiana State University >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu >> > [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Matteo >> Cominetta >> > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:34 PM >> > To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu >> > Subject: st: IV and quantile regression >> > >> > Dear All, >> > I need to estimate a quantile regression model in which some >> > (continuous) regressors are endogenous. Is there a Stata command >> to >> > perform a 2SLS procedure in which the second stage is a quantile >> > regression? >> > I couldn't find it. >> > Thanks! >> > >> > Matteo Cominetta >> > Sussex University >> * -- Stas Kolenikov, also found at http://stas.kolenikov.name Small print: I use this email account for mailing lists only. * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: RE: IV and quantile regression***From:*Sachin Chintawar <sachintalks@gmail.com>

**Re: st: RE: IV and quantile regression***From:*"Austin Nichols" <austinnichols@gmail.com>

**Re: st: RE: IV and quantile regression***From:*Matteo Cominetta <m.p.cominetta@sussex.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Using foreach and two local macros** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Using foreach and two local macros** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: RE: IV and quantile regression** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: Implementing Censored Quantile Regression** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |