Showing 1–11 of 11 results for author: Wooldridge, J

Covariate Balancing and the Equivalence of Weighting and Doubly Robust Estimators of Average Treatment Effects

Authors: Tymon Słoczyński, S. Derya Uysal, Jeffrey M. Wooldridge

Abstract: We show that when the propensity score is estimated using a suitable covariate balancing procedure, the commonly used inverse probability weighting (IPW) estimator, augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) with linear conditional mean, and inverse probability weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) with linear conditional mean are all numerically the same for estimating the average treatment… ▽ More We show that when the propensity score is estimated using a suitable covariate balancing procedure, the commonly used inverse probability weighting (IPW) estimator, augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) with linear conditional mean, and inverse probability weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) with linear conditional mean are all numerically the same for estimating the average treatment effect (ATE) or the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT). Further, suitably chosen covariate balancing weights are automatically normalized, which means that normalized and unnormalized versions of IPW and AIPW are identical. For estimating the ATE, the weights that achieve the algebraic equivalence of IPW, AIPW, and IPWRA are based on propensity scores estimated using the inverse probability tilting (IPT) method of Graham, Pinto and Egel (2012). For the ATT, the weights are obtained using the covariate balancing propensity score (CBPS) method developed in Imai and Ratkovic (2014). These equivalences also make covariate balancing methods attractive when the treatment is confounded and one is interested in the local average treatment effect. △ Less

Submitted 27 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Another Look at the Linear Probability Model and Nonlinear Index Models

Authors: Kaicheng Chen, Robert S. Martin, Jeffrey M. Wooldridge

Abstract: We reassess the use of linear models to approximate response probabilities of binary outcomes, focusing on average partial effects (APE). We confirm that linear projection parameters coincide with APEs in certain scenarios. Through simulations, we identify other cases where OLS does or does not approximate APEs and find that having large fraction of fitted values in [0, 1] is neither necessary nor… ▽ More We reassess the use of linear models to approximate response probabilities of binary outcomes, focusing on average partial effects (APE). We confirm that linear projection parameters coincide with APEs in certain scenarios. Through simulations, we identify other cases where OLS does or does not approximate APEs and find that having large fraction of fitted values in [0, 1] is neither necessary nor sufficient. We also show nonlinear least squares estimation of the ramp model is consistent and asymptotically normal and is equivalent to using OLS on an iteratively trimmed sample to reduce bias. Our findings offer practical guidance for empirical research. △ Less

Submitted 17 October, 2023; v1 submitted 29 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

What Estimators Are Unbiased For Linear Models?

Authors: Lihua Lei, Jeffrey Wooldridge

Abstract: The recent thought-provoking paper by Hansen [2022, Econometrica] proved that the Gauss-Markov theorem continues to hold without the requirement that competing estimators are linear in the vector of outcomes. Despite the elegant proof, it was shown by the authors and other researchers that the main result in the earlier version of Hansen's paper does not extend the classic Gauss-Markov theorem bec… ▽ More The recent thought-provoking paper by Hansen [2022, Econometrica] proved that the Gauss-Markov theorem continues to hold without the requirement that competing estimators are linear in the vector of outcomes. Despite the elegant proof, it was shown by the authors and other researchers that the main result in the earlier version of Hansen's paper does not extend the classic Gauss-Markov theorem because no nonlinear unbiased estimator exists under his conditions. To address the issue, Hansen [2022] added statements in the latest version with new conditions under which nonlinear unbiased estimators exist. Motivated by the lively discussion, we study a fundamental problem: what estimators are unbiased for a given class of linear models? We first review a line of highly relevant work dating back to the 1960s, which, unfortunately, have not drawn enough attention. Then, we introduce notation that allows us to restate and unify results from earlier work and Hansen [2022]. The new framework also allows us to highlight differences among previous conclusions. Lastly, we establish new representation theorems for unbiased estimators under different restrictions on the linear model, allowing the coefficients and covariance matrix to take only a finite number of values, the higher moments of the estimator and the dependent variable to exist, and the error distribution to be discrete, absolutely continuous, or dominated by another probability measure. Our results substantially generalize the claims of parallel commentaries on Hansen [2022] and a remarkable result by Koopmann [1982]. △ Less

Submitted 29 December, 2022; originally announced December 2022.

Comments: 27 pages

A Design-Based Approach to Spatial Correlation

Authors: Ruonan Xu, Jeffrey M. Wooldridge

Abstract: When observing spatial data, what standard errors should we report? With the finite population framework, we identify three channels of spatial correlation: sampling scheme, assignment design, and model specification. The Eicker-Huber-White standard error, the cluster-robust standard error, and the spatial heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent standard error are compared under differen… ▽ More When observing spatial data, what standard errors should we report? With the finite population framework, we identify three channels of spatial correlation: sampling scheme, assignment design, and model specification. The Eicker-Huber-White standard error, the cluster-robust standard error, and the spatial heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent standard error are compared under different combinations of the three channels. Then, we provide guidelines for whether standard errors should be adjusted for spatial correlation for both linear and nonlinear estimators. As it turns out, the answer to this question also depends on the magnitude of the sampling probability. △ Less

Submitted 25 November, 2022; originally announced November 2022.

Doubly Robust Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects Using Inverse Probability Weighted Regression Adjustment

Authors: Tymon Słoczyński, S. Derya Uysal, Jeffrey M. Wooldridge

Abstract: We revisit the problem of estimating the local average treatment effect (LATE) and the local average treatment effect on the treated (LATT) when control variables are available, either to render the instrumental variable (IV) suitably exogenous or to improve precision. Unlike previous approaches, our doubly robust (DR) estimation procedures use quasi-likelihood methods weighted by the inverse of t… ▽ More We revisit the problem of estimating the local average treatment effect (LATE) and the local average treatment effect on the treated (LATT) when control variables are available, either to render the instrumental variable (IV) suitably exogenous or to improve precision. Unlike previous approaches, our doubly robust (DR) estimation procedures use quasi-likelihood methods weighted by the inverse of the IV propensity score - so-called inverse probability weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) estimators. By properly choosing models for the propensity score and outcome models, fitted values are ensured to be in the logical range determined by the response variable, producing DR estimators of LATE and LATT with appealing small sample properties. Inference is relatively straightforward both analytically and using the nonparametric bootstrap. Our DR LATE and DR LATT estimators work well in simulations. We also propose a DR version of the Hausman test that can be used to assess the unconfoundedness assumption through a comparison of different estimates of the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) under one-sided noncompliance. Unlike the usual test that compares OLS and IV estimates, this procedure is robust to treatment effect heterogeneity. △ Less

Submitted 14 November, 2022; v1 submitted 2 August, 2022; originally announced August 2022.

Abadie's Kappa and Weighting Estimators of the Local Average Treatment Effect

Authors: Tymon Słoczyński, S. Derya Uysal, Jeffrey M. Wooldridge

Abstract: Recent research has demonstrated the importance of flexibly controlling for covariates in instrumental variables estimation. In this paper we study the finite sample and asymptotic properties of various weighting estimators of the local average treatment effect (LATE), motivated by Abadie's (2003) kappa theorem and offering the requisite flexibility relative to standard practice. We argue that two… ▽ More Recent research has demonstrated the importance of flexibly controlling for covariates in instrumental variables estimation. In this paper we study the finite sample and asymptotic properties of various weighting estimators of the local average treatment effect (LATE), motivated by Abadie's (2003) kappa theorem and offering the requisite flexibility relative to standard practice. We argue that two of the estimators under consideration, which are weight normalized, are generally preferable. Several other estimators, which are unnormalized, do not satisfy the properties of scale invariance with respect to the natural logarithm and translation invariance, thereby exhibiting sensitivity to the units of measurement when estimating the LATE in logs and the centering of the outcome variable more generally. We also demonstrate that, when noncompliance is one sided, certain weighting estimators have the advantage of being based on a denominator that is strictly greater than zero by construction. This is the case for only one of the two normalized estimators, and we recommend this estimator for wider use. We illustrate our findings with a simulation study and three empirical applications, which clearly document the sensitivity of unnormalized estimators to how the outcome variable is coded. We implement the proposed estimators in the Stata package kappalate. △ Less

Submitted 28 February, 2024; v1 submitted 15 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Simple Alternatives to the Common Correlated Effects Model

Authors: Nicholas L. Brown, Peter Schmidt, Jeffrey M. Wooldridge

Abstract: We study estimation of factor models in a fixed-T panel data setting and significantly relax the common correlated effects (CCE) assumptions pioneered by Pesaran (2006) and used in dozens of papers since. In the simplest case, we model the unobserved factors as functions of the cross-sectional averages of the explanatory variables and show that this is implied by Pesaran's assumptions when the num… ▽ More We study estimation of factor models in a fixed-T panel data setting and significantly relax the common correlated effects (CCE) assumptions pioneered by Pesaran (2006) and used in dozens of papers since. In the simplest case, we model the unobserved factors as functions of the cross-sectional averages of the explanatory variables and show that this is implied by Pesaran's assumptions when the number of factors does not exceed the number of explanatory variables. Our approach allows discrete explanatory variables and flexible functional forms in the covariates. Plus, it extends to a framework that easily incorporates general functions of cross-sectional moments, in addition to heterogeneous intercepts and time trends. Our proposed estimators include Pesaran's pooled correlated common effects (CCEP) estimator as a special case. We also show that in the presence of heterogeneous slopes our estimator is consistent under assumptions much weaker than those previously used. We derive the fixed-T asymptotic normality of a general estimator and show how to adjust for estimation of the population moments in the factor loading equation. △ Less

Submitted 2 December, 2021; originally announced December 2021.

Robust and Efficient Estimation of Potential Outcome Means under Random Assignment

Authors: Akanksha Negi, Jeffrey M. Wooldridge

Abstract: We study efficiency improvements in randomized experiments for estimating a vector of potential outcome means using regression adjustment (RA) when there are more than two treatment levels. We show that linear RA which estimates separate slopes for each assignment level is never worse, asymptotically, than using the subsample averages. We also show that separate RA improves over pooled RA except i… ▽ More We study efficiency improvements in randomized experiments for estimating a vector of potential outcome means using regression adjustment (RA) when there are more than two treatment levels. We show that linear RA which estimates separate slopes for each assignment level is never worse, asymptotically, than using the subsample averages. We also show that separate RA improves over pooled RA except in the obvious case where slope parameters in the linear projections are identical across the different assignment levels. We further characterize the class of nonlinear RA methods that preserve consistency of the potential outcome means despite arbitrary misspecification of the conditional mean functions. Finally, we apply these regression adjustment techniques to efficiently estimate the lower bound mean willingness to pay for an oil spill prevention program in California. △ Less

Submitted 8 August, 2024; v1 submitted 5 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Using generalized estimating equations to estimate nonlinear models with spatial data

Authors: Cuicui Lu, Weining Wang, Jeffrey M. Wooldridge

Abstract: In this paper, we study estimation of nonlinear models with cross sectional data using two-step generalized estimating equations (GEE) in the quasi-maximum likelihood estimation (QMLE) framework. In the interest of improving efficiency, we propose a grouping estimator to account for the potential spatial correlation in the underlying innovations. We use a Poisson model and a Negative Binomial II m… ▽ More In this paper, we study estimation of nonlinear models with cross sectional data using two-step generalized estimating equations (GEE) in the quasi-maximum likelihood estimation (QMLE) framework. In the interest of improving efficiency, we propose a grouping estimator to account for the potential spatial correlation in the underlying innovations. We use a Poisson model and a Negative Binomial II model for count data and a Probit model for binary response data to demonstrate the GEE procedure. Under mild weak dependency assumptions, results on estimation consistency and asymptotic normality are provided. Monte Carlo simulations show efficiency gain of our approach in comparison of different estimation methods for count data and binary response data. Finally we apply the GEE approach to study the determinants of the inflow foreign direct investment (FDI) to China. △ Less

Submitted 13 October, 2018; originally announced October 2018.

When Should You Adjust Standard Errors for Clustering?

Authors: Alberto Abadie, Susan Athey, Guido Imbens, Jeffrey Wooldridge

Abstract: In empirical work it is common to estimate parameters of models and report associated standard errors that account for "clustering" of units, where clusters are defined by factors such as geography. Clustering adjustments are typically motivated by the concern that unobserved components of outcomes for units within clusters are correlated. However, this motivation does not provide guidance about q… ▽ More In empirical work it is common to estimate parameters of models and report associated standard errors that account for "clustering" of units, where clusters are defined by factors such as geography. Clustering adjustments are typically motivated by the concern that unobserved components of outcomes for units within clusters are correlated. However, this motivation does not provide guidance about questions such as: (i) Why should we adjust standard errors for clustering in some situations but not others? How can we justify the common practice of clustering in observational studies but not randomized experiments, or clustering by state but not by gender? (ii) Why is conventional clustering a potentially conservative "all-or-nothing" adjustment, and are there alternative methods that respond to data and are less conservative? (iii) In what settings does the choice of whether and how to cluster make a difference? We address these questions using a framework of sampling and design inference. We argue that clustering can be needed to address sampling issues if sampling follows a two stage process where in the first stage, a subset of clusters are sampled from a population of clusters, and in the second stage, units are sampled from the sampled clusters. Then, clustered standard errors account for the existence of clusters in the population that we do not see in the sample. Clustering can be needed to account for design issues if treatment assignment is correlated with membership in a cluster. We propose new variance estimators to deal with intermediate settings where conventional cluster standard errors are unnecessarily conservative and robust standard errors are too small. △ Less

Submitted 19 September, 2022; v1 submitted 8 October, 2017; originally announced October 2017.

Sampling-based vs. Design-based Uncertainty in Regression Analysis

Authors: Alberto Abadie, Susan Athey, Guido W. Imbens, Jeffrey M. Wooldridge

Abstract: Consider a researcher estimating the parameters of a regression function based on data for all 50 states in the United States or on data for all visits to a website. What is the interpretation of the estimated parameters and the standard errors? In practice, researchers typically assume that the sample is randomly drawn from a large population of interest and report standard errors that are design… ▽ More Consider a researcher estimating the parameters of a regression function based on data for all 50 states in the United States or on data for all visits to a website. What is the interpretation of the estimated parameters and the standard errors? In practice, researchers typically assume that the sample is randomly drawn from a large population of interest and report standard errors that are designed to capture sampling variation. This is common even in applications where it is difficult to articulate what that population of interest is, and how it differs from the sample. In this article, we explore an alternative approach to inference, which is partly design-based. In a design-based setting, the values of some of the regressors can be manipulated, perhaps through a policy intervention. Design-based uncertainty emanates from lack of knowledge about the values that the regression outcome would have taken under alternative interventions. We derive standard errors that account for design-based uncertainty instead of, or in addition to, sampling-based uncertainty. We show that our standard errors in general are smaller than the usual infinite-population sampling-based standard errors and provide conditions under which they coincide. △ Less

Submitted 21 June, 2019; v1 submitted 6 June, 2017; originally announced June 2017.