IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2601.17843.html

Best Feasible Conditional Critical Values for a More Powerful Subvector Anderson-Rubin Test

Author

Listed:
  • Jesse Hoekstra
  • Frank Windmeijer

Abstract

For subvector inference in the linear instrumental variables model under homoskedasticity but allowing for weak instruments, Guggenberger, Kleibergen, and Mavroeidis (2019) (GKM) propose a conditional subvector Anderson and Rubin (1949) (AR) test that uses data-dependent critical values that adapt to the strength of the parameters not under test. This test has correct size and strictly higher power than the test that uses standard asymptotic chi-square critical values. The subvector AR test is the minimum eigenvalue of a data dependent matrix. The GKM critical value function conditions on the largest eigenvalue of this matrix. We consider instead the data dependent critical value function conditioning on the second-smallest eigenvalue, as this eigenvalue is the appropriate indicator for weak identification. We find that the data dependent critical value function of GKM also applies to this conditioning and show that this test has correct size and power strictly higher than the GKM test when the number of parameters not under test is larger than one. Our proposed procedure further applies to the subvector AR test statistic that is robust to an approximate kronecker product structure of conditional heteroskedasticity as proposed by Guggenberger, Kleibergen, and Mavroeidis (2024), carrying over its power advantage to this setting as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesse Hoekstra & Frank Windmeijer, 2026. "Best Feasible Conditional Critical Values for a More Powerful Subvector Anderson-Rubin Test," Papers 2601.17843, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2601.17843
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.17843
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
    2. Van de Sijpe, Nicolas & Windmeijer, Frank, 2023. "On the power of the conditional likelihood ratio and related tests for weak-instrument robust inference," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 82-104.
    3. Stock, James H & Wright, Jonathan H & Yogo, Motohiro, 2002. "A Survey of Weak Instruments and Weak Identification in Generalized Method of Moments," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(4), pages 518-529, October.
    4. Patrik Guggenberger & Frank Kleibergen & Sophocles Mavroeidis & Linchun Chen, 2012. "On the Asymptotic Sizes of Subset Anderson–Rubin and Lagrange Multiplier Tests in Linear Instrumental Variables Regression," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(6), pages 2649-2666, November.
    5. Patrik Guggenberger & Frank Kleibergen & Sophocles Mavroeidis, 2019. "A more powerful subvector Anderson Rubin test in linear instrumental variables regression," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(2), pages 487-526, May.
    6. Cragg, John G. & Donald, Stephen G., 1993. "Testing Identifiability and Specification in Instrumental Variable Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 222-240, April.
    7. Anderson, T W, 1977. "Asymptotic Expansions of the Distributions of Estimates in Simultaneous Equations for Alternative Parameter Sequences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(2), pages 509-518, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Mikusheva, 2013. "Survey on statistical inferences in weakly-identified instrumental variable models," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 29(1), pages 117-131.
    2. Vieira, Flávio & MacDonald, Ronald & Damasceno, Aderbal, 2012. "The role of institutions in cross-section income and panel data growth models: A deeper investigation on the weakness and proliferation of instruments," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 127-140.
    3. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin Sabro, 2012. "Specification Tests with Weak and Invalid Instruments," MPRA Paper 40185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Xu Cheng & Winston Wei Dou & Zhipeng Liao, 2022. "Macro‐Finance Decoupling: Robust Evaluations of Macro Asset Pricing Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(2), pages 685-713, March.
    5. Guilhem Bascle, 2008. "Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research," Post-Print hal-00576795, HAL.
    6. Tito Belchior Silva Moreira & Benjamin Miranda Tabak & Mario Jorge Mendonça & Adolfo Sachsida, 2016. "An Evaluation of the Non-Neutrality of Money," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, March.
    7. Gergely Ganics & Atsushi Inoue & Barbara Rossi, 2021. "Confidence Intervals for Bias and Size Distortion in IV and Local Projections-IV Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 307-324, January.
    8. William Hauk & Romain Wacziarg, 2009. "A Monte Carlo study of growth regressions," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 103-147, June.
    9. Hongbin Cai & Qiao Liu, 2009. "Competition and Corporate Tax Avoidance: Evidence from Chinese Industrial Firms," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 764-795, April.
    10. Wang, Wenjie, 2021. "Wild Bootstrap for Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments and Few Clusters," MPRA Paper 106227, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Christopher F Baum & Mark E. Schaffer & Steven Stillman, 2007. "Enhanced routines for instrumental variables/GMM estimation and testing," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 667, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 05 Sep 2007.
    12. Khalaf, Lynda & Urga, Giovanni, 2014. "Identification robust inference in cointegrating regressions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 182(2), pages 385-396.
    13. Lee, Angela Y. & Aaker, Jennifer L., 2006. "A Monte Carlo Study of Growth Regressions," Research Papers 1836r1, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    14. Faust, Jon & Wright, Jonathan H., 2008. "Efficient forecast tests for conditional policy forecasts," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 293-303, October.
    15. Krishna Chaitanya Vadlamannati & Arusha Cooray, 2015. "Do transparency initiatives work? Assessing the impact of the Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS) on data transparency," CAMA Working Papers 2015-24, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    16. Jean-Marie Dufour & Mohamed Taamouti, 2005. "Projection-Based Statistical Inference in Linear Structural Models with Possibly Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1351-1365, July.
    17. Pilařová, Tereza & Kandakov, Alexander, 2017. "The impact of remittances on school attendance: The evidence from the Republic of Moldova," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 11-16.
    18. Hauk, William R., 2017. "Endogeneity bias and growth regressions," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 143-161.
    19. Jorge Gonzalez Chapela, 2011. "Recreation, home production, and intertemporal substitution of female labor supply: evidence on the intensive margin," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 14(3), pages 532-548, July.
    20. Marcellino, Massimiliano & Kapetanios, George & Khalaf, Lynda, 2015. "Factor based identification-robust inference in IV regressions," CEPR Discussion Papers 10390, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2601.17843. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.