Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-zv2rg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-05T09:11:05.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LASSO-TYPE GMM ESTIMATOR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2009

Mehmet Caner
Mehmet Caner*
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University
*
*Address correspondence to Mehmet Caner, Department of Economics, 4168 Nelson Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA; e-mail: mcaner@ncsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator–type (Lasso-type) generalized method of moments (GMM) estimator. This Lasso-type estimator is formed by the GMM objective function with the addition of a penalty term. The exponent of the penalty term in the regular Lasso estimator is equal to one. However, the exponent of the penalty term in the Lasso-type estimator is less than one in the analysis here. The magnitude of the exponent is reduced to avoid the asymptotic bias. This estimator selects the correct model and estimates it simultaneously. In other words, this method estimates the redundant parameters as zero in the large samples and provides the standard GMM limit distribution for the estimates of the nonzero parameters in the model. The asymptotic theory for our estimator is nonstandard. We conduct a simulation study that shows that the Lasso-type GMM correctly selects the true model much more often than the Bayesian information Criterion (BIC) and another model selection procedure based on the GMM objective function.

Information

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Econometric Theory , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 270 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, D.W.K. (1994) Empirical process methods in econometrics. In Engle, R.F. & McFadden, D.L. (eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 4, pp. 2247–2294. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K & Lu, B. (2001) Consistent model and moment selection procedures for GMM estimation with application to dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics 101, 123–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breiman, L. (1996) Heuristics of instability and stabilization in model selection. Annals of Statistics 24, 2350–2383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caner, M. (2006) A Pretest and Higher Order Expansions in GMM with Nearly-Weak Instruments. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, J.C. & Phillips, P.C.B. (1999) Model selection in partially nonstationary vector autoregressive processes with reduced rank structure. Journal of Econometrics 91, 227–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoho, D.L. & Johnstone, I.M. (1994) Ideal spatial adaptation by wavelet shrinkage. Biometrika 81, 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, J. & Li, R. (2001) Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96, 1348–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, J. & Li, R. (2002) Variable selection for Cox's proportional hazards model and frailty model. Annals of Statistics 30, 74–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, I.E. & Friedman, J.H. (1993) A statistical view of some chemometrics regression tools. Technometrics 35, 109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, J. & Kuersteiner, G. (2002) Discontinuities of weak instrument limiting distributions. Economics Letters 75, 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeb, H. & Pötscher, B.M. (2006) Performance limits for estimators of the risk distribution of shrinkage-type estimators, and some general lower risk-bound results. Econometric Theory 22, 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabaila, P. (1995) The effect of model selection on confidence regions and prediction regions. Econometric Theory 11, 537–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleibergen, F. (2005) Testing in parameters in GMM without assuming they are identified. Econometrica 73, 1103–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, K. (2007) Shrinkage Estimation for Nearly-Singular Designs. Working paper, Department of Statistics, University of Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, K. & Fu, W. (2000) Asymptotics for Lasso-type estimators. Annals of Statistics 28, 1356–1378.Google Scholar
Newey, W.K. & McFadden, D. (1994) Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing. In Engle, R.F. & McFadden, D.L. (eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 4, pp. 2111–2245. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Newey, W.K. & Powell, J.L. (2003) Instrumental variable estimation of nonparametric models. Econometrica 71, 1565–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pötscher, B.M. (1991) Effects of model selection on inference. Econometric Theory 7, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pötscher, B.M. & Novak, A.J. (1994) The Distribution of Estimators after Model Selection: Large and Small Sample Results. Manuscript, Institute for Statistics, Operations Research and Computer Science, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Smith, R.J. (1992) Non-nested tests for competing models estimated by generalized method of moments. Econometrica 60, 973–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, J.H. & Wright, J.H. (2000) GMM with weak identification. Econometrica 68, 1055–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tibshirani, R.J. (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via Lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 58, 267–288.Google Scholar
Van der Vaart, A.W. & Wellner, J.A. (1996) Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar