### Archive

Archive for the ‘Statistics’ Category

## How to generate random numbers in Stata

Overview

I describe how to generate random numbers and discuss some features added in Stata 14. In particular, Stata 14 includes a new default random-number generator (RNG) called the Mersenne Twister (Matsumoto and Nishimura 1998), a new function that generates random integers, the ability to generate random numbers from an interval, and several new functions that generate random variates from nonuniform distributions.

Random numbers from the uniform distribution

In the example below, we use runiform() to create Read more…

Categories: Statistics Tags:

## Vector autoregression—simulation, estimation, and inference in Stata


Simulation

Let’s begin by simulating a bivariate VAR(2) process using the following specification,

$\begin{bmatrix} y_{1,t}\\ y_{2,t} \end{bmatrix} = \mub + {\bf A}_1 \begin{bmatrix} y_{1,t-1}\\ y_{2,t-1} \end{bmatrix} + {\bf A}_2 \begin{bmatrix} y_{1,t-2}\\ y_{2,t-2} \end{bmatrix} + \epsb_t$

where $$y_{1,t}$$ and $$y_{2,t}$$ are the observed series at time $$t$$, $$\mub$$ is a $$2 \times 1$$ vector of intercepts, $${\bf A}_1$$ and $${\bf A}_2$$ are $$2\times 2$$ parameter matrices, and $$\epsb_t$$ is a $$2\times 1$$ vector of innovations that is uncorrelated over time. I assume a $$N({\bf 0},\Sigmab)$$ distribution for the innovations $$\epsb_t$$, where $$\Sigmab$$ is a $$2\times 2$$ covariance matrix.

I set my sample size to 1,100 and Read more…

## Testing model specification and using the program version of gmm

This post was written jointly with Joerg Luedicke, Senior Social Scientist and Statistician, StataCorp.

The command gmm is used to estimate the parameters of a model using the generalized method of moments (GMM). GMM can be used to estimate the parameters of models that have more identification conditions than parameters, overidentified models. The specification of these models can be evaluated using Hansen’s J statistic (Hansen, 1982).

We use gmm to estimate the parameters of a Poisson model with an endogenous regressor. More instruments than regressors are available, so the model is overidentified. We then use estat overid to calculate Hansen’s J statistic and test the validity of the overidentification restrictions.

## Bayesian binary item response theory models using bayesmh

This post was written jointly with Yulia Marchenko, Executive Director of Statistics, StataCorp.

Overview

Item response theory (IRT) is used for modeling the relationship between the latent abilities of a group of subjects and the examination items used for measuring their abilities. Stata 14 introduced a suite of commands for fitting IRT models using maximum likelihood; see, for example, the blog post Spotlight on irt by Rafal Raciborski and the [IRT] Item Response Theory manual for more details. In this post, we demonstrate how to fit Bayesian binary IRT models by using the redefine() option introduced for the bayesmh command in Stata 14.1. We also use the likelihood option dbernoulli() available as of the update on 03 Mar 2016 for fitting Bernoulli distribution. If you are not familiar with the concepts and jargon of Bayesian statistics, you may want to watch the introductory videos on the Stata Youtube channel before proceeding.

We use the abridged version of the mathematics and science data from DeBoeck and Wilson (2004), masc1. The dataset includes 800 student responses to 9 test questions intended to measure mathematical ability.

The irt suite fits IRT models using data in the wide form – one observation per subject with items recorded in separate variables. To fit IRT models using bayesmh, we need data in the long form, where items are recorded as multiple observations per subject. We thus reshape the dataset in a long form: we have a single binary response variable, y, and two index variables, item and id, which identify the items and subjects, respectively. This allows us to Read more…

Categories: Statistics Tags:

## regress, probit, or logit?

In a previous post I illustrated that the probit model and the logit model produce statistically equivalent estimates of marginal effects. In this post, I compare the marginal effect estimates from a linear probability model (linear regression) with marginal effect estimates from probit and logit models.

My simulations show that when the true model is a probit or a logit, using a linear probability model can produce inconsistent estimates of the marginal effects of interest to researchers. The conclusions hinge on the probit or logit model being the true model.

Simulation results

For all simulations below, I use a sample size of 10,000 and 5,000 replications. The true data-generating processes (DGPs) are constructed using Read more…

Categories: Statistics Tags:

We often use probit and logit models to analyze binary outcomes. A case can be made that the logit model is easier to interpret than the probit model, but Stata’s margins command makes any estimator easy to interpret. Ultimately, estimates from both models produce similar results, and using one or the other is a matter of habit or preference.

I show that the estimates from a probit and logit model are similar for the computation of a set of effects that are of interest to researchers. I focus on the effects of changes in the covariates on the probability of a positive outcome for continuous and discrete covariates. I evaluate these effects on average and at the mean value of the covariates. In other words, I study the average marginal effects (AME), the average treatment effects (ATE), the marginal effects at the mean values of the covariates (MEM), and the treatment effects at the mean values of the covariates (TEM).

First, I present the results. Second, I discuss the code used for the simulations.

Results

In Table 1, I present the results of a simulation with 4,000 replications when the true data generating process (DGP) satisfies the assumptions of a probit model. I show the Read more…

Categories: Statistics Tags:

## Using mlexp to estimate endogenous treatment effects in a heteroskedastic probit model

I use features new to Stata 14.1 to estimate an average treatment effect (ATE) for a heteroskedastic probit model with an endogenous treatment. In 14.1, we added new prediction statistics after mlexp that margins can use to estimate an ATE.

I am building on a previous post in which I demonstrated how to use mlexp to estimate the parameters of a probit model with an endogenous treatment and used margins to estimate the ATE for the model Using mlexp to estimate endogenous treatment effects in a probit model. Currently, no official commands estimate the heteroskedastic probit model with an endogenous treatment, so in this post I show how mlexp can be used to extend the models estimated by Stata.

Heteroskedastic probit model

For binary outcome $$y_i$$ and regressors $${\bf x}_i$$, the probit model assumes

$y_i = {\bf 1}({\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta} + \epsilon_i > 0)$

The indicator function $${\bf 1}(\cdot)$$ outputs 1 when its input is true and outputs 0 otherwise. The error $$\epsilon_i$$ is standard normal.

Assuming that the error has constant variance may not always be wise. Suppose we are studying a certain business decision. Large firms, because they have the resources to take chances, may exhibit more variation in the factors that affect their decision than small firms.

In the heteroskedastic probit model, regressors $${\bf w}_i$$ determine the variance of $$\epsilon_i$$. Following Harvey (1976), we have

$\mbox{Var}\left(\epsilon_i\right) = \left\{\exp\left({\bf w}_i{\boldsymbol \gamma}\right)\right\}^2 \nonumber$

Heteroskedastic probit model with treatment

In this section, I review the potential-outcome framework used to define an ATE and extend it for the heteroskedastic probit model. For each treatment level, there is an outcome that we would observe if a person were to select that treatment level. When the outcome is binary and there are two treatment levels, we can specify how the potential outcomes $$y_{0i}$$ and $$y_{1i}$$ are generated from the regressors $${\bf x}_i$$ and the error terms $$\epsilon_{0i}$$ and $$\epsilon_{1i}$$:

$\begin{eqnarray*} y_{0i} &=& {\bf 1}({\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_0 + \epsilon_{0i} > 0) \cr y_{1i} &=& {\bf 1}({\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_1 + \epsilon_{1i} > 0) \end{eqnarray*}$

We assume a heteroskedastic probit model for the potential outcomes. The errors are normal with mean $$0$$ and conditional variance generated by regressors $${\bf w}_i$$. In this post, we assume equal variance of the potential outcome errors.

$\mbox{Var}\left(\epsilon_{0i}\right) = \mbox{Var}\left(\epsilon_{1i}\right) = \left\{\exp\left({\bf w}_i{\boldsymbol \gamma}\right)\right\}^2 \nonumber$

The heteroskedastic probit model for potential outcomes $$y_{0i}$$ and $$y_{1i}$$ with treatment $$t_i$$ assumes that we observe the outcome

$y_i = (1-t_i) y_{0i} + t_i y_{1i} \nonumber$

So we observe $$y_{1i}$$ under the treatment ($$t_{i}=1$$) and $$y_{0i}$$ when the treatment is withheld ($$t_{i}=0$$).

The treatment $$t_i$$ is determined by regressors $${\bf z}_i$$ and error $$u_i$$:

$t_i = {\bf 1}({\bf z}_i{\boldsymbol \psi} + u_i > 0) \nonumber$

The treatment error $$u_i$$ is normal with mean zero, and we allow its variance to be determined by another set of regressors $${\bf v}_i$$:

$\mbox{Var}\left(u_i\right) = \left\{\exp\left({\bf v}_i{\boldsymbol \alpha}\right)\right\}^2 \nonumber$

Heteroskedastic probit model with endogenous treatment

In the previous post, I described how to model endogeneity for the treatment $$t_i$$ by correlating the outcome errors $$\epsilon_{0i}$$ and $$\epsilon_{1i}$$ with the treatment error $$u_i$$. We use the same framework for modeling endogeneity here. The variance of the errors may change depending on the heteroskedasticity regressors $${\bf w}_i$$ and $${\bf v}_i$$, but their correlation remains constant. The errors $$\epsilon_{0i}$$, $$\epsilon_{1i}$$, and $$u_i$$ are trivariate normal with correlation

$\left[\begin{matrix} 1 & \rho_{01} & \rho_{t} \cr \rho_{01} & 1 & \rho_{t} \cr \rho_{t} & \rho_{t} & 1 \end{matrix}\right] \nonumber$

Now we have all the pieces we need to write the log likelihood of the heteroskedastic probit model with an endogenous treatment. The form of the likelihood is similar to what was given in the previous post. Now the inputs to the bivariate normal cumulative distribution function, $$\Phi_2$$, are standardized by dividing by the conditional standard deviations of the errors.

The log likelihood for observation $$i$$ is

$\begin{eqnarray*} \ln L_i = & & {\bf 1}(y_i =1 \mbox{ and } t_i = 1) \ln \Phi_2\left\{\frac{{\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_1}{\exp\left({\bf w}_i{\boldsymbol \gamma}\right)}, \frac{{\bf z}_i{\boldsymbol \psi}}{\exp\left({\bf v}_i{\boldsymbol \alpha}\right)},\rho_t\right\} + \cr & & {\bf 1}(y_i=0 \mbox{ and } t_i=1)\ln \Phi_2\left\{\frac{-{\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_1}{\exp\left({\bf w}_i{\boldsymbol \gamma}\right)}, \frac{{\bf z}_i{\boldsymbol \psi}}{\exp\left({\bf v}_i{\boldsymbol \alpha}\right)},-\rho_t\right\} + \cr & & {\bf 1}(y_i=1 \mbox{ and } t_i=0) \ln \Phi_2\left\{\frac{{\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_0}{\exp\left({\bf w}_i{\boldsymbol \gamma}\right)}, \frac{-{\bf z}_i{\boldsymbol \psi}}{\exp\left({\bf v}_i{\boldsymbol \alpha}\right)},-\rho_t\right\} + \cr & & {\bf 1}(y_i=0 \mbox{ and } t_i = 0)\ln \Phi_2\left\{\frac{-{\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_0}{\exp\left({\bf w}_i{\boldsymbol \gamma}\right)}, \frac{-{\bf z}_i{\boldsymbol \psi}}{\exp\left({\bf v}_i{\boldsymbol \alpha}\right)},\rho_t\right\} \end{eqnarray*}$

The data

We will simulate data from a heteroskedastic probit model with an endogenous treatment and then estimate the parameters of the model with mlexp. Then, we will use margins to estimate the ATE.

. set seed 323

. set obs 10000
number of observations (_N) was 0, now 10,000

. generate x = .8*rnormal() + 4

. generate b = rpoisson(1)

. generate z = rnormal()

. matrix cm = (1, .3,.7 \ .3, 1, .7 \ .7, .7, 1)

. drawnorm ey0 ey1 et, corr(cm)


We simulate a random sample of 10,000 observations. The treatment and outcome regressors are generated in a similar manner to their creation in the last post. As in the last post, we generate the errors with drawnorm to have correlation $$0.7$$.

. generate g = runiform()

. generate h = rnormal()

. quietly replace ey0 = ey0*exp(.5*g)

. quietly replace ey1 = ey1*exp(.5*g)

. quietly replace et = et*exp(.1*h)

. generate t = .5*x - .1*b + .5*z - 2.4 + et > 0

. generate y0 = .6*x - .8 + ey0 > 0

. generate y1 = .3*x - 1.3 + ey1 > 0

. generate y = (1-t)*y0 + t*y1


The uniform variable g is generated as a regressor for the outcome error variance, while h is a regressor for the treatment error variance. We scale the errors by using the variance regressors so that they are heteroskedastic, and then we generate the treatment and outcome indicators.

Estimating the model parameters

Now, we will use mlexp to estimate the parameters of the heteroskedastic probit model with an endogenous treatment. As in the previous post, we use the cond() function to calculate different values of the likelihood based on the different values of $$y$$ and $$t$$. We use the factor-variable operator ibn on $$t$$ in equation y to allow for a different intercept at each level of $$t$$. An interaction between $$t$$ and $$x$$ is also specified in equation y. This allows for a different coefficient on $$x$$ at each level of $$t$$.

. mlexp (ln(cond(t, ///
>         cond(y,binormal({y: i.t#c.x ibn.t}/exp({g:g}), ///
>             {t: x b z _cons}/exp({h:h}),{rho}), ///
>                 binormal(-{y:}/exp({g:}),{t:}/exp({h:}),-{rho})), ///
>         cond(y,binormal({y:}/exp({g:}),-{t:}/exp({h:}),-{rho}), ///
>                 binormal(-{y:}/exp({g:}),-{t:}/exp({h:}),{rho}) ///
>         )))), vce(robust)

initial:       log pseudolikelihood = -13862.944
alternative:   log pseudolikelihood = -16501.619
rescale:       log pseudolikelihood = -13858.877
rescale eq:    log pseudolikelihood = -11224.877
Iteration 0:   log pseudolikelihood = -11224.877  (not concave)
Iteration 1:   log pseudolikelihood = -10644.625
Iteration 2:   log pseudolikelihood = -10074.998
Iteration 3:   log pseudolikelihood = -9976.6027
Iteration 4:   log pseudolikelihood = -9973.0988
Iteration 5:   log pseudolikelihood = -9973.0913
Iteration 6:   log pseudolikelihood = -9973.0913

Maximum likelihood estimation

Log pseudolikelihood = -9973.0913               Number of obs     =     10,000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               Robust
|      Coef.   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
y            |
t#c.x |
0  |   .6178115   .0334521    18.47   0.000     .5522467    .6833764
1  |   .2732094   .0365742     7.47   0.000     .2015253    .3448936
|
t |
0  |  -.8403294   .1130197    -7.44   0.000    -1.061844   -.6188149
1  |  -1.215177   .1837483    -6.61   0.000    -1.575317   -.8550371
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
g            |
g |   .4993187   .0513297     9.73   0.000     .3987143    .5999232
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
t            |
x |   .4985802   .0183033    27.24   0.000     .4627065    .5344539
b |  -.1140255   .0132988    -8.57   0.000    -.1400908   -.0879603
z |   .4993995   .0150844    33.11   0.000     .4698347    .5289643
_cons |  -2.402772   .0780275   -30.79   0.000    -2.555703   -2.249841
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
h            |
h |   .1011185   .0199762     5.06   0.000     .0619658    .1402713
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
/rho |   .7036964   .0326734    21.54   0.000     .6396577    .7677351
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Our parameter estimates are close to their true values.

Estimating the ATE

The ATE of $$t$$ is the expected value of the difference between $$y_{1i}$$ and $$y_{0i}$$, the average difference between the potential outcomes. Using the law of iterated expectations, we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} E(y_{1i}-y_{0i})&=& E\left\{ E\left(y_{1i}-y_{0i}|{\bf x}_i,{\bf w}_i\right)\right\} \cr &=& E\left\lbrack\Phi\left\{\frac{{\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_1}{ \exp\left({\bf w}_i{\boldsymbol \gamma}\right)}\right\}- \Phi\left\{\frac{{\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_0}{ \exp\left({\bf w}_i{\boldsymbol \gamma}\right)}\right\}\right\rbrack \cr \end{eqnarray*}$

This can be estimated as a mean of predictions.

Now, we estimate the ATE by using margins. We specify the normal probability expression in the expression() option. We use the expression function xb() to get the linear predictions for the outcome equation and the outcome error variance equation. We can now predict these linear forms after mlexp in Stata 14.1. We specify r.t so that margins will take the difference of the expression under t=1 and t=0. We specify vce(unconditional) to obtain standard errors for the population ATE rather than the sample ATE; we specified vce(robust) for mlexp so that we could specify vce(unconditional) for margins. The contrast(nowald) option is specified to omit the Wald test for the difference.

. margins r.t, expression(normal(xb(y)/exp(xb(g)))) ///
>     vce(unconditional) contrast(nowald)

Contrasts of predictive margins

Expression   : normal(xb(y)/exp(xb(g)))

--------------------------------------------------------------
|            Unconditional
|   Contrast   Std. Err.     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+------------------------------------------------
t |
(1 vs 0)  |  -.4183043   .0202635     -.4580202   -.3785885
--------------------------------------------------------------


We estimate that the ATE of $$t$$ on $$y$$ is $$-0.42$$. So taking the treatment decreases the probability of a positive outcome by $$0.42$$ on average over the population.

We will compare this estimate to the average difference of $$y_{1}$$ and $$y_{0}$$ in the sample. We can do this because we simulated the data. In practice, only one potential outcome is observed for every observation, and this average difference cannot be computed.

. generate diff = y1 - y0

. sum diff

Variable |        Obs        Mean    Std. Dev.       Min        Max
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------
diff |     10,000      -.4164    .5506736         -1          1


In our sample, the average difference of $$y_{1}$$ and $$y_{0}$$ is also $$-0.42$$.

Conclusion

I have demonstrated how to estimate the parameters of a model that is not available in Stata: the heteroskedastic probit model with an endogenous treatment using mlexp. See [R] mlexp for more details about mlexp. I have also demonstrated how to use margins to estimate the ATE for the heteroskedastic probit model with an endogenous treatment. See [R] margins for more details about mlexp.

Reference

Harvey, A. C. 1976. Estimating regression models with multiplicative heteroscedasticity. Econometrica 44: 461-465.

Categories: Statistics Tags:

## Understanding the generalized method of moments (GMM): A simple example

$$\newcommand{\Eb}{{\bf E}}$$This post was written jointly with Enrique Pinzon, Senior Econometrician, StataCorp.

The generalized method of moments (GMM) is a method for constructing estimators, analogous to maximum likelihood (ML). GMM uses assumptions about specific moments of the random variables instead of assumptions about the entire distribution, which makes GMM more robust than ML, at the cost of some efficiency. The assumptions are called moment conditions.

GMM generalizes the method of moments (MM) by allowing the number of moment conditions to be greater than the number of parameters. Using these extra moment conditions makes GMM more efficient than MM. When there are more moment conditions than parameters, the estimator is said to be overidentified. GMM can efficiently combine the moment conditions when the estimator is overidentified.

We illustrate these points by estimating the mean of a $$\chi^2(1)$$ by MM, ML, a simple GMM estimator, and an efficient GMM estimator. This example builds on Efficiency comparisons by Monte Carlo simulation and is similar in spirit to the example in Wooldridge (2001).

GMM weights and efficiency

GMM builds on the ideas of expected values and sample averages. Moment conditions are expected values that specify the model parameters in terms of the true moments. The sample moment conditions are the sample equivalents to the moment conditions. GMM finds the parameter values that are closest to satisfying the sample moment conditions.

The mean of a $$\chi^2$$ random variable with $$d$$ degree of freedom is $$d$$, and its variance is $$2d$$. Two moment conditions for the mean are thus

$\begin{eqnarray*} \Eb\left[Y – d \right]&=& 0 \\ \Eb\left[(Y – d )^2 – 2d \right]&=& 0 \end{eqnarray*}$

The sample moment equivalents are

$\begin{eqnarray} 1/N\sum_{i=1}^N (y_i – \widehat{d} )&=& 0 \tag{1} \\ 1/N\sum_{i=1}^N\left[(y_i – \widehat{d} )^2 – 2\widehat{d}\right] &=& 0 \tag{2} \end{eqnarray}$

We could use either sample moment condition (1) or sample moment condition (2) to estimate $$d$$. In fact, below we use each one and show that (1) provides a much more efficient estimator.

When we use both (1) and (2), there are two sample moment conditions and only one parameter, so we cannot solve this system of equations. GMM finds the parameters that get as close as possible to solving weighted sample moment conditions.

Uniform weights and optimal weights are two ways of weighting the sample moment conditions. The uniform weights use an identity matrix to weight the moment conditions. The optimal weights use the inverse of the covariance matrix of the moment conditions.

We begin by drawing a sample of a size 500 and use gmm to estimate the parameters using sample moment condition (1), which we illustrate is the sample as the sample average.

. drop _all

. set obs 500
number of observations (_N) was 0, now 500

. set seed 12345

. generate double y = rchi2(1)

. gmm (y - {d})  , instruments( ) onestep

Step 1
Iteration 0:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  .82949186
Iteration 1:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  1.262e-32
Iteration 2:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  9.545e-35

note: model is exactly identified

GMM estimation

Number of parameters =   1
Number of moments    =   1
Initial weight matrix: Unadjusted                 Number of obs   =        500

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               Robust
|      Coef.   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
/d |   .9107644   .0548098    16.62   0.000     .8033392     1.01819
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instruments for equation 1: _cons

. mean y

Mean estimation                   Number of obs   =        500

--------------------------------------------------------------
|       Mean   Std. Err.     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+------------------------------------------------
y |   .9107644   .0548647      .8029702    1.018559
--------------------------------------------------------------


The sample moment condition is the product of an observation-level error function that is specified inside the parentheses and an instrument, which is a vector of ones in this case. The parameter $$d$$ is enclosed in curly braces {}. We specify the onestep option because the number of parameters is the same as the number of moment conditions, which is to say that the estimator is exactly identified. When it is, each sample moment condition can be solved exactly, and there are no efficiency gains in optimally weighting the moment conditions.

We now illustrate that we could use the sample moment condition obtained from the variance to estimate $$d$$.

. gmm ((y-{d})^2 - 2*{d})  , instruments( ) onestep

Step 1
Iteration 0:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  5.4361161
Iteration 1:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  .02909692
Iteration 2:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  .00004009
Iteration 3:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  5.714e-11
Iteration 4:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  1.172e-22

note: model is exactly identified

GMM estimation

Number of parameters =   1
Number of moments    =   1
Initial weight matrix: Unadjusted                 Number of obs   =        500

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               Robust
|      Coef.   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
/d |   .7620814   .1156756     6.59   0.000     .5353613    .9888015
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instruments for equation 1: _cons


While we cannot say anything definitive from only one draw, we note that this estimate is further from the truth and that the standard error is much larger than those based on the sample average.

Now, we use gmm to estimate the parameters using uniform weights.

. matrix I = I(2)

. gmm ( y - {d}) ( (y-{d})^2 - 2*{d})  , instruments( ) winitial(I) onestep

Step 1
Iteration 0:   GMM criterion Q(b) =   6.265608
Iteration 1:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  .05343812
Iteration 2:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  .01852592
Iteration 3:   GMM criterion Q(b) =   .0185221
Iteration 4:   GMM criterion Q(b) =   .0185221

GMM estimation

Number of parameters =   1
Number of moments    =   2
Initial weight matrix: user                       Number of obs   =        500

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               Robust
|      Coef.   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
/d |   .7864099   .1050692     7.48   0.000     .5804781    .9923418
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instruments for equation 1: _cons
Instruments for equation 2: _cons


The first set of parentheses specifies the first sample moment condition, and the second set of parentheses specifies the second sample moment condition. The options winitial(I) and onestep specify uniform weights.

Finally, we use gmm to estimate the parameters using two-step optimal weights. The weights are calculated using first-step consistent estimates.

. gmm ( y - {d}) ( (y-{d})^2 - 2*{d})  , instruments( ) winitial(I)

Step 1
Iteration 0:   GMM criterion Q(b) =   6.265608
Iteration 1:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  .05343812
Iteration 2:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  .01852592
Iteration 3:   GMM criterion Q(b) =   .0185221
Iteration 4:   GMM criterion Q(b) =   .0185221

Step 2
Iteration 0:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  .02888076
Iteration 1:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  .00547223
Iteration 2:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  .00546176
Iteration 3:   GMM criterion Q(b) =  .00546175

GMM estimation

Number of parameters =   1
Number of moments    =   2
Initial weight matrix: user                       Number of obs   =        500
GMM weight matrix:     Robust

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               Robust
|      Coef.   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
/d |   .9566219   .0493218    19.40   0.000     .8599529    1.053291
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instruments for equation 1: _cons
Instruments for equation 2: _cons


All four estimators are consistent. Below we run a Monte Carlo simulation to see their relative efficiencies. We are most interested in the efficiency gains afforded by optimal GMM. We include the sample average, the sample variance, and the ML estimator discussed in Efficiency comparisons by Monte Carlo simulation. Theory tells us that the optimally weighted GMM estimator should be more efficient than the sample average but less efficient than the ML estimator.

The code below for the Monte Carlo builds on Efficiency comparisons by Monte Carlo simulation, Maximum likelihood estimation by mlexp: A chi-squared example, and Monte Carlo simulations using Stata. Click gmmchi2sim.do to download this code.

. clear all
. set seed 12345
. matrix I = I(2)
. postfile sim  d_a d_v d_ml d_gmm d_gmme using efcomp, replace
. forvalues i = 1/2000 {
2.     quietly drop _all
3.     quietly set obs 500
4.     quietly generate double y = rchi2(1)
5.
.     quietly mean y
6.     local d_a         =  _b[y]
7.
.     quietly gmm ( (y-{d=d_a'})^2 - 2*{d}) , instruments( )  ///
8.     if e(converged)==1 {
9.             local d_v = _b[d:_cons]
10.     }
11.     else {
12.             local d_v = .
13.     }
14.
.     quietly mlexp (ln(chi2den({d=d_a'},y)))
15.     if e(converged)==1 {
16.             local d_ml  =  _b[d:_cons]
17.     }
18.     else {
19.             local d_ml  = .
20.     }
21.
.     quietly gmm ( y - {d=d_a'}) ( (y-{d})^2 - 2*{d}) , instruments( )  ///
>         winitial(I) onestep conv_maxiter(200)
22.     if e(converged)==1 {
23.             local d_gmm = _b[d:_cons]
24.     }
25.     else {
26.             local d_gmm = .
27.     }
28.
.     quietly gmm ( y - {d=d_a'}) ( (y-{d})^2 - 2*{d}) , instruments( )  ///
29.     if e(converged)==1 {
30.             local d_gmme = _b[d:_cons]
31.     }
32.     else {
33.             local d_gmme = .
34.     }
35.
.     post sim (d_a') (d_v') (d_ml') (d_gmm') (d_gmme')
36.
. }
. postclose sim
. use efcomp, clear
. summarize

Variable |        Obs        Mean    Std. Dev.       Min        Max
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------
d_a |      2,000     1.00017    .0625367   .7792076    1.22256
d_v |      1,996    1.003621    .1732559   .5623049   2.281469
d_ml |      2,000    1.002876    .0395273   .8701175   1.120148
d_gmm |      2,000    .9984172    .1415176   .5947328   1.589704
d_gmme |      2,000    1.006765    .0540633   .8224731   1.188156


The simulation results indicate that the ML estimator is the most efficient (d_ml, std. dev. 0.0395), followed by the efficient GMM estimator (d_gmme}, std. dev. 0.0541), followed by the sample average (d_a, std. dev. 0.0625), followed by the uniformly-weighted GMM estimator (d_gmm, std. dev. 0.1415), and finally followed by the sample-variance moment condition (d_v, std. dev. 0.1732).

The estimator based on the sample-variance moment condition does not converge for 4 of 2,000 draws; this is why there are only 1,996 observations on d_v when there are 2,000 observations for the other estimators. These convergence failures occurred even though we used the sample average as the starting value of the nonlinear solver.

For a better idea about the distributions of these estimators, we graph the densities of their estimates.

Figure 1: Densities of the estimators

The density plots illustrate the efficiency ranking that we found from the standard deviations of the estimates.

The uniformly weighted GMM estimator is less efficient than the sample average because it places the same weight on the sample average as on the much less efficient estimator based on the sample variance.

In each of the overidentified cases, the GMM estimator uses a weighted average of two sample moment conditions to estimate the mean. The first sample moment condition is the sample average. The second moment condition is the sample variance. As the Monte Carlo results showed, the sample variance provides a much less efficient estimator for the mean than the sample average.

The GMM estimator that places equal weights on the efficient and the inefficient estimator is much less efficient than a GMM estimator that places much less weight on the less efficient estimator.

We display the weight matrix from our optimal GMM estimator to see how the sample moments were weighted.

. quietly gmm ( y - {d}) ( (y-{d})^2 - 2*{d})  , instruments( ) winitial(I)

. matlist e(W), border(rows)

-------------------------------------
| 1         | 2
|     _cons |     _cons
-------------+-----------+-----------
1            |           |
_cons |  1.621476 |
-------------+-----------+-----------
2            |           |
_cons | -.2610053 |  .0707775
-------------------------------------


The diagonal elements show that the sample-mean moment condition receives more weight than the less efficient sample-variance moment condition.

Done and undone

We used a simple example to illustrate how GMM exploits having more equations than parameters to obtain a more efficient estimator. We also illustrated that optimally weighting the different moments provides important efficiency gains over an estimator that uniformly weights the moment conditions.

Our cursory introduction to GMM is best supplemented with a more formal treatment like the one in Cameron and Trivedi (2005) or Wooldridge (2010).

Graph code appendix

use efcomp
local N = _N
kdensity d_a,     n(N') generate(x_a    den_a)    nograph
kdensity d_v,     n(N') generate(x_v    den_v)    nograph
kdensity d_ml,    n(N') generate(x_ml   den_ml)   nograph
kdensity d_gmm,   n(N') generate(x_gmm  den_gmm)  nograph
kdensity d_gmme,  n(N') generate(x_gmme den_gmme) nograph
twoway (line den_a x_a,       lpattern(solid))        ///
(line den_v x_v,       lpattern(dash))         ///
(line den_ml x_ml,     lpattern(dot))          ///
(line den_gmm x_gmm,   lpattern(dash_dot))     ///
(line den_gmme x_gmme, lpattern(shordash))


References

Cameron, A. C., and P. K. Trivedi. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wooldridge, J. M. 2001. Applications of generalized method of moments estimation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(4): 87-100.

Wooldridge, J. M. 2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Categories: Statistics Tags:

## xtabond cheat sheet

Random-effects and fixed-effects panel-data models do not allow me to use observable information of previous periods in my model. They are static. Dynamic panel-data models use current and past information. For instance, I may model current health outcomes as a function of health outcomes in the past— a sensible modeling assumption— and of past observable and unobservable characteristics.

Today I will provide information that will help you interpret the estimation and postestimation results from Stata’s Arellano–Bond estimator xtabond, the most common linear dynamic panel-data estimator.

The instruments and the regressors

We have fictional data for 1,000 people from 1991 to 2000. The outcome of interest is income (income), and the explanatory variables are years of schooling (educ) and an indicator for marital status (married). Below, we fit an Arellano–Bond model using xtabond.

. xtabond income married educ, vce(robust)

Arellano-Bond dynamic panel-data estimation     Number of obs     =      8,000
Group variable: id                              Number of groups  =      1,000
Time variable: year
Obs per group:
min =          8
avg =          8
max =          8

Number of instruments =     39                  Wald chi2(3)      =    3113.63
Prob > chi2       =     0.0000
One-step results
(Std. Err. adjusted for clustering on id)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               Robust
income |      Coef.   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
income |
L1. |   .2008311   .0036375    55.21   0.000     .1937018    .2079604
|
married |   1.057667   .1006091    10.51   0.000     .8604764    1.254857
educ |    .057551   .0045863    12.55   0.000     .0485619      .06654
_cons |   .2645702   .0805474     3.28   0.001     .1067002    .4224403
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instruments for differenced equation
GMM-type: L(2/.).income
Standard: D.married D.educ
Instruments for level equation
Standard: _cons


A couple of elements in the output table are different from what one would expect. The output includes a coefficient for the lagged value of the dependent variable that we did not specify in the command. Why?

In the Arellano–Bond framework, the value of the dependent variable in the previous period is a predictor for the current value of the dependent variable. Stata includes the value of the dependent variable in the previous period for us. Another noteworthy aspect that appears in the table is the mention of 39 instruments in the header. This is followed by a footnote that refers to GMM and standard-type instruments. Here a bit of math will help us understand what is going on.

The relationship of interest is given by

$\begin{equation*} y_{it} = x_{it}’\beta_1 + y_{i(t-1)}\beta_2 + \alpha_i + \varepsilon_{it} \end{equation*}$

In the equation above, $$y_{it}$$ is the outcome of interest for individual $$i$$ at time $$t$$, $$x_{it}$$ are a set of regressors that may include past values, $$y_{i(t-1)}$$ is the value of the outcome in the previous period, $$\alpha_i$$ is a time-invariant unobservable, and $$\varepsilon_{it}$$ is a time-varying unobservable.

As in the fixed-effects framework, we assume the time-invariant unobserved component is related to the regressors. When unobservables and observables are correlated, we have an endogeneity problem that yields inconsistent parameter estimates if we use a conventional linear panel-data estimator. One solution is taking first-differences of the relationship of interest. However, the strategy of taking first-differences does not work. Why?

$\begin{eqnarray*} \Delta y_{it} &=& \Delta x_{it}’\beta_1 + \Delta y_{i(t-1)} + \Delta \varepsilon_{it} \\ E\left( \Delta y_{i(t-1)} \Delta \varepsilon_{it} \right) &\neq & 0 \end{eqnarray*}$

In the first equation above, we got rid of $$\alpha_i$$, which is correlated with our regressors, but we generated a new endogeneity problem. The second equation above illustrates one of our regressors is related to our unobservables. The solution is instrumental variables. Which instrumental variables? Arellano–Bond suggest the second lags of the dependent variable and all the feasible lags thereafter. This generates the set of moment conditions defined by

$\begin{eqnarray*} E\left( \Delta y_{i(t-2)} \Delta \varepsilon_{it} \right) &=& 0 \\ E\left( \Delta y_{i(t-3)} \Delta \varepsilon_{it} \right) &=& 0 \\ \ldots & & \\ E\left( \Delta y_{i(t-j)} \Delta \varepsilon_{it} \right) &=& 0 \end{eqnarray*}$

In our example, we have 10 time periods, which yield the following set of instruments:

$\begin{eqnarray*} t&=10& \quad y_{t-8}, y_{t-7}, y_{t-6}, y_{t-5}, y_{t-4}, y_{t-3}, y_{t-2}, y_{t-1} \\ t&=9& \quad y_{t-7}, y_{t-6}, y_{t-5}, y_{t-4}, y_{t-3}, y_{t-2}, y_{t-1} \\ t&=8& \quad y_{t-6}, y_{t-5}, y_{t-4}, y_{t-3}, y_{t-2}, y_{t-1} \\ t& = 7& \quad y_{t-5}, y_{t-4}, y_{t-3}, y_{t-2}, y_{t-1} \\ t&= 6& \quad y_{t-4}, y_{t-3}, y_{t-2}, y_{t-1} \\ t&= 5& \quad y_{t-3}, y_{t-2}, y_{t-1} \\ t&= 4& \quad y_{t-2}, y_{t-1} \\ t&=3& \quad y_{t-1} \end{eqnarray*}$

This gives us 36 instruments which are what the table calls GMM-type instruments. GMM has been explored in the blog post Estimating parameters by maximum likelihood and method of moments using mlexp and gmm and we will talk about it in a later post. The other three instruments are given by the first difference of the regressors educ and married and the constant. This is no different from two-stage least squares, where we include the exogenous variables as part of our instrument list.

Testing for serial correlation

The key for the instrument set in Arellano–Bond to work is that

$E\left( \Delta y_{i(t-j)} \Delta \varepsilon_{it} \right) = 0 \quad j \geq 2$

We can test these conditions in Stata using estat abond. In essence, the differenced unobserved time-invariant component should be unrelated to the second lag of the dependent variable and the lags thereafter. If this is not the case, we are back to the initial problem, endogeneity. Again, a bit of math will help us understand what is going on.

All is well if

$\Delta \varepsilon_{it} = \Delta \nu_{it}$

The unobservable is serially correlated of order 1 but not serially correlated of orders 2 or beyond.

But we are in trouble if

$\Delta \varepsilon_{it} = \Delta \nu_{it} + \Delta \nu_{i(t-1)}$

The second lag of the dependent variable will be related to the differenced time-varying component $$\Delta \varepsilon_{it}$$. Another way of saying this is that the differenced time-varying unobserved component is serially correlated with an order greater than 1.

estat abond provides a test for the serial correlation structure. For the example above,

. estat abond

Arellano-Bond test for zero autocorrelation in first-differenced errors
+-----------------------+
|Order |  z     Prob > z|
|------+----------------|
|   1  |-22.975  0.0000 |
|   2  |-.36763  0.7132 |
+-----------------------+
H0: no autocorrelation


We reject no autocorrelation of order 1 and cannot reject no autocorrelation of order 2. There is evidence that the Arellano–Bond model assumptions are satisfied. If this were not the case, we would have to look for different instruments. Essentially, we would have to fit a different dynamic model. This is what the xtdpd command allows us to do, but it is beyond the scope of this post.

Parting words

Dynamic panel-data models provide a useful research framework. In this post, I touched on the interpretation of a couple of results from estimation and postestimation from xtabond that will help you understand your output.

Categories: Statistics Tags:

## Using mlexp to estimate endogenous treatment effects in a probit model

I use features new to Stata 14.1 to estimate an average treatment effect (ATE) for a probit model with an endogenous treatment. In 14.1, we added new prediction statistics after mlexp that margins can use to estimate an ATE.

I am building on a previous post in which I demonstrated how to use mlexp to estimate the parameters of a probit model with sample selection. Our results match those obtained with biprobit; see [R] biprobit for more details. In a future post, I use these techniques to estimate treatment-effect parameters not yet available from another Stata command.

Probit model with treatment

In this section, I describe the potential-outcome framework used to define an ATE. For each treatment level, there is an outcome that we would observe if a person were to select that treatment level. When the outcome is binary and there are two treatment levels, we can specify how the potential outcomes $$y_{0i}$$ and $$y_{1i}$$ are generated from the regressors $${\bf x}_i$$ and the error terms $$\epsilon_{0i}$$ and $$\epsilon_{1i}$$:

$\begin{eqnarray*} y_{0i} &=& {\bf 1}({\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_0 + \epsilon_{0i} > 0) \cr y_{1i} &=& {\bf 1}({\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_1 + \epsilon_{1i} > 0) \end{eqnarray*}$

(Assuming that each error is standard normal, this gives us a bivariate probit model.) The indicator function $${\bf 1}(\cdot)$$ outputs 1 when its input is true and 0 otherwise.

The probit model for potential outcomes $$y_{0i}$$ and $$y_{1i}$$ with treatment $$t_i$$ assumes that we observe the outcome

$y_i = (1-t_i) y_{0i} + t_i y_{1i} \nonumber$

So we observe $$y_{1i}$$ under the treatment ($$t_{i}=1$$) and $$y_{0i}$$ when the treatment is withheld ($$t_{i}=0$$).

The treatment $$t_i$$ is determined by regressors $${\bf z}_i$$ and standard normal error $$u_i$$:

$t_i = {\bf 1}({\bf z}_i{\boldsymbol \psi} + u_i > 0) \nonumber$

Probit model with endogenous treatment

We could estimate the parameters $${\boldsymbol \beta}_0$$ and $${\boldsymbol \beta}_1$$ using a probit regression on $$y_i$$ if $$t_i$$ was not related to the unobserved errors $$\epsilon_{0i}$$ and $$\epsilon_{1i}$$. This may not always be the case. Suppose we modeled whether parents send their children to private school and used private tutoring for the child as a treatment. Unobserved factors that influence private school enrollment may be correlated with the unobserved factors that influence whether private tutoring is given. The treatment would be correlated with the unobserved errors of the outcome.

We can treat $$t_i$$ as endogenous by allowing $$\epsilon_{0i}$$ and $$\epsilon_{1i}$$ to be correlated with $$u_i$$. In this post, we will assume that these correlations are the same. Formally, $$\epsilon_{0i}$$, $$\epsilon_{1i}$$, and $$u_i$$ are trivariate normal with covariance:

$\left[\begin{matrix} 1 & \rho_{01} & \rho_{t} \cr \rho_{01} & 1 & \rho_{t} \cr \rho_{t} & \rho_{t} & 1 \end{matrix}\right] \nonumber$

The correlation $$\rho_{01}$$ cannot be identified because we never observe both $$y_{0i}$$ and $$y_{1i}$$. However, identification of $$\rho_{01}$$ is not necessary to estimate the other parameters, because we will observe the covariates and outcome in observations from each treatment group.

The log-likelihood for observation $$i$$ is

$\begin{eqnarray*} \ln L_i = & & {\bf 1}(y_i =1 \mbox{ and } t_i = 1) \ln \Phi_2({\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_1, {\bf z}_i{\boldsymbol \gamma},\rho_t) + \cr & & {\bf 1}(y_i=0 \mbox{ and } t_i=1)\ln \Phi_2(-{\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_1, {\bf z}_i{\boldsymbol \gamma},-\rho_t) + \cr & & {\bf 1}(y_i=1 \mbox{ and } t_i=0) \ln \Phi_2({\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_0, -{\bf z}_i{\boldsymbol \gamma},-\rho_t) + \cr & & {\bf 1}(y_i=0 \mbox{ and } t_i = 0)\ln \Phi_2(-{\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_0, -{\bf z}_i{\boldsymbol \gamma},\rho_t) \end{eqnarray*}$

where $$\Phi_2$$ is the bivariate normal cumulative distribution function.

This model is a variation of the bivariate probit model. For a good introduction to the bivariate probit model, see Pindyck and Rubinfeld (1998).

The data

We will simulate data from a probit model with an endogenous treatment and then estimate the parameters of the model using mlexp. Then, we will use margins to estimate the ATE. We simulate a random sample of 10,000 observations.

. set seed 3211

. set obs 10000
number of observations (_N) was 0, now 10,000

. gen x = rnormal() + 4

. gen b = rpoisson(1)

. gen z = rnormal()


First, we generate the regressors. The variable $$x$$ has a normal distribution with a mean of 4 and variance of 1. It is used as a regressor for the outcome and treatment. The variable $$b$$ has a Poisson distribution with a mean of 1 and will be used as a treatment regressor. A standard normal variable $$z$$ is also used as a treatment regressor.

. matrix cm = (1, .3,.7 \ .3, 1, .7 \ .7, .7, 1)

. drawnorm ey0 ey1 et, corr(cm)

. gen t = .5*x - .1*b + .4*z - 2.4 + et > 0

. gen y0 = .6*x - .8 + ey0 > 0

. gen y1 = .3*x - 1.2 + ey1 > 0

. gen y = (1-t)*y0 + t*y1


Next, we draw the unobserved errors. The potential outcome and treatment errors will have correlation $$.7$$. We generate the errors using the drawnorm command. Finally, the outcome and treatment indicators are created.

Estimating the model parameters

Now, we will use mlexp to estimate the parameters of the probit model with an endogenous treatment. As in the previous post, we use the cond() function to calculate different values of the likelihood based on the different values of $$y$$ and $$t$$. We use the factor variable operator ibn on $$t$$ in equation y to allow for a different intercept at each level of $$t$$. An interaction between $$t$$ and $$x$$ is also specified in equation y. This allows for a different coefficient on $$x$$ at each level of $$t$$. We also specify vce(robust) so that we can use vce(unconditional) when we use margins later.

. mlexp (ln(cond(t,cond(y,binormal({y: i.t#c.x ibn.t},            ///
>                                  {t: x b z _cons}, {rho}),      ///
>                         binormal(-{y:},{t:}, -{rho})),          ///
>                  cond(y,binormal({y:},-{t:},-{rho}),            ///
>                         binormal(-{y:},-{t:},{rho})))))         ///
>         , vce(robust)

initial:       log pseudolikelihood = -13862.944
alternative:   log pseudolikelihood = -15511.071
rescale:       log pseudolikelihood = -13818.369
rescale eq:    log pseudolikelihood = -10510.488
Iteration 0:   log pseudolikelihood = -10510.488  (not concave)
Iteration 1:   log pseudolikelihood = -10004.946
Iteration 2:   log pseudolikelihood = -9487.4032
Iteration 3:   log pseudolikelihood = -9286.0118
Iteration 4:   log pseudolikelihood =  -9183.901
Iteration 5:   log pseudolikelihood = -9181.9207
Iteration 6:   log pseudolikelihood = -9172.0256
Iteration 7:   log pseudolikelihood = -9170.8198
Iteration 8:   log pseudolikelihood = -9170.7994
Iteration 9:   log pseudolikelihood = -9170.7994

Maximum likelihood estimation

Log pseudolikelihood = -9170.7994               Number of obs     =     10,000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               Robust
|      Coef.   Std. Err.      z    P>|z|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
y            |
t#c.x |
0  |   .5829362   .0223326    26.10   0.000     .5391651    .6267073
1  |   .2745585   .0259477    10.58   0.000     .2237021     .325415
|
t |
0  |  -.7423227   .0788659    -9.41   0.000     -.896897   -.5877483
1  |  -1.088765   .1488922    -7.31   0.000    -1.380589   -.7969419
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
t            |
x |   .4900691   .0148391    33.03   0.000     .4609851    .5191532
b |  -.1086717   .0132481    -8.20   0.000    -.1346375   -.0827059
z |   .4135792   .0150112    27.55   0.000     .3841579    .4430006
_cons |  -2.354418   .0640056   -36.78   0.000    -2.479867   -2.228969
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
/rho |   .7146737   .0377255    18.94   0.000     .6407331    .7886143
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Our parameter estimates are close to their true values.

Estimating the ATE

The ATE of $$t$$ is the expected value of the difference between $$y_{1i}$$ and $$y_{0i}$$, the average difference between the potential outcomes. Using the law of iterated expectations, we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} E(y_{1i}-y_{0i}) &=& E\{E(y_{1i}-y_{0i}|{\bf x}_i)\} \cr &=& E\{\Phi({\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_1)- \Phi({\bf x}_i{\boldsymbol \beta}_0)\} \end{eqnarray*}$

This can be estimated as a predictive margin.

Now, we estimate the ATE using margins. We specify the normal probability expression in the expression() option. The xb() term refers to the linear prediction of the first equation, which we can now predict in Stata 14.1. We specify r.t so that margins will take the difference of the expression under $$t=1$$ and $$t=0$$. We specify vce(unconditional) to obtain standard errors for the population ATE rather than the sample ATE. The contrast(nowald) option is specified to omit the Wald test for the difference.

. margins r.t, expression(normal(xb())) vce(unconditional) contrast(nowald)

Contrasts of predictive margins

Expression   : normal(xb())

--------------------------------------------------------------
|            Unconditional
|   Contrast   Std. Err.     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+------------------------------------------------
t |
(1 vs 0)  |  -.4112345   .0248909     -.4600197   -.3624493
--------------------------------------------------------------


We estimate that the ATE of $$t$$ on $$y$$ is $$-.41$$. So taking the treatment decreases the probability of a positive outcome by $$.41$$ on average over the population.

We will compare this estimate to the sample difference of $$y_{1}$$ and $$y_{0}$$.

. gen diff = y1 - y0

. sum diff

Variable |        Obs        Mean    Std. Dev.       Min        Max
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------
diff |     10,000      -.4132    .5303715         -1          1


In our sample, the average difference of $$y_{1}$$ and $$y_{0}$$ is also $$-.41$$.

Conclusion

I have demonstrated how to estimate the parameters of a model with a complex likelihood function: the probit model with an endogenous treatment using mlexp. See [R] mlexp for more details about mlexp. I have also demonstrated how to use margins to estimate the ATE for the probit model with an endogenous treatment. See [R] margins for more details about margins.

Reference

Pindyck, R. S., and D. L. Rubinfeld. 1998. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Categories: Statistics Tags: