Linear Models and Summary
2026-07-20
An Ode to HaroldWhat sort of data do you work with that have multiple units observed over time?
Fortunately, the computer can sort of handle this but the structure has to be declared. Stata has ts and R has the tsibble structure that I will use among many others.
A matrix is a rectangular array of real numbers. If it has m rows and n columns, we say it is of dimension m\times n.
A = \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} a_{11} & a_{12} & \ldots & a_{1n} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} & \ldots & a_{2n} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ a_{m1} & a_{m2} & \ldots & a_{mn} \end{array} \right)
A vector (x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{n}) \in \mathbb{R}^{n} can be thought as as a matrix with n rows and one column or as a matrix with one row and n columns.
Periodicially, we will wish to make use of two types of vector products.
\mathbf{uv}^{\prime} = \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} u_{1}v_{1} & u_{1} v_{2} & \ldots & u_{1} v_{n} \\ u_{2}v_{1} & u_{2}v_{2} & \ldots & u_{2}v_{n} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ u_{m}v_{1} & u_{m}v_{2} & \ldots & u_{m} v_{n} \end{array} \right)
There are two primary methods for inverting matrices. The first is often referred to as Gauss-Jordan elimination and the second is known as Cramer’s rule. The former involves a series of elementary row operations undertaken on the matrix of interest and equally to I while the latter relies on a determinant and the adjoint of the matrix of interest.
Let A and B be square invertible matrices. It follows that:
For a matrix A, the following are equivalent: 1. A is invertible. 2. A is nonsingular. 3. For all y, Ax=y has a unique solution. 4. \det A \neq 0 and A is square.
Given a square matrix A and a vector \mathbf{x}, we can claim that - A is negative definite if, \forall x \neq 0,\; x^{T}Ax < 0 - A is positive definite if, \forall x \neq 0,\; x^{T}Ax > 0 - A is negative semi-definite if, \forall x \neq 0,\; x^{T}Ax \leq 0 - A is positive semi-definite if, \forall x \neq 0,\; x^{T}Ax \geq 0
Brief diversion on principal submatrices and (leading) principal minors toward a sufficient condition for characterizing definiteness.
NB: The trace of a square matrix is the sum of its diagonal elements.
We needed this to:
Random Variables: Real-valued function with domain: a sample space.
Mean (Expected Value): E[x] = \int_{x} x\; f(x)\; dx or E[x] = \sum_{x} x\; p(x)
Variance (Spread): V[x] = E(x^2) - [E(x)]^2
Covariance: E[xy] = E[(x_{i} - [E(x)])(y_{i} - [E(y)])]
Correlation: \rho = \frac{E[(x_{i} - [E(x)])(y_{i} - [E(y)])]}{\sigma_{x}\sigma_{y}} = \frac{Cov(XY)}{\sqrt{\sigma^{2}_{x}}\sqrt{\sigma^{2}_{y}}}
Variance of Linear Combination: \sum_{i}\sum_{j} a_{i}a_{j}Cov(X_{i}X_{j})
A random variable X has a (\mu \in \mathbb{R} and \sigma^{2} \in \mathbb{R}^{++}) if X has a continuous distribution for which the probability density function (p.d.f.) f(x|\mu,\sigma^2 ) is as follows (for finite x): f(x|\mu,\sigma^2 ) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^{2}}} \exp \left[ -\frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{x - \mu}{\sigma}\right)^{2}\right] - If X \sim N(\mu,\sigma^2), Let Y = aX + b (a \neq 0). Y \sim N(a\mu + b, a^{2}\sigma^{2}). - Z \sim N(0,1) allow the percentiles for any normal: Z = \frac{x - \mu}{\sigma}. - Sums of (independent) normals are normal. - Sums of affine transformations of (independent) normals are normal.
Let X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n be independent, identically distributed normal random variables with mean \mu and variance \sigma^2. With respect to \mu, \widehat{\mu}=\frac{\sum X_i}{n}, the sample mean is a complete sufficient statistic – it is informationally optimal to estimate \mu. \widehat{\sigma}^2=\frac{\sum \left(X_i-\bar{X}\right)^2}{n-1}, the sample variance, is an ancillary statistic – its distribution does not depend on \mu.
These statistics are independent (also can be proven by Cochran’s theorem). This property (that the sample mean and sample variance of the normal distribution are independent) characterizes the normal distribution; no other distribution has this property.
If a random variable X has a then the probability density function of X (given x > 0 is f(x) = \frac{1}{2^{\frac{n}{2}}\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}x^{(\frac{n}{2}) - 1}\exp\left(\frac{-x}{2}\right)
Two key properties: 1. If the random variables X_{1},\ldots,X_{k} are independent and if X_{i} has a \chi^2 distribution with n_{i} degrees of freedom, then \sum_{i=1}^{k} X_{i} has a \chi^{2} distribution with \sum_{i=1}^{k} n_{i} degrees of freedom.
2. If the random variables X_{1},\ldots,X_{k} are independent and, \forall i: X_{i} \sim N(0,1), then \sum_{i=1}^{k} X^{2}_{i} has a \chi^{2} distribution with k degrees of freedom.
Consider two independent random variables Y and Z, such that Y has a \chi^{2} distribution with n degrees of freedom and Z has a standard normal distribution. If we define X = \frac{Z}{\sqrt{\frac{Y}{n}}} then the distribution of X is called the t distribution with n degrees of freedom. The t has density (for finite x) f(x) = \frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{n+1}{2}\right)}{(n\pi)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Gamma\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)}\left(1 + \frac{x^{2}}{n}\right)^{\frac{-(n+1)}{2}}
Consider two independent random variables Y and W, such that Y has a \chi^{2} distribution with m degrees of freedom and W has a \chi^{2} distribution with n degrees of freedom, where m, n \in \mathbb{R}^{++}. We can define a new random variable X as follows: X = \frac{\frac{Y}{m}}{\frac{W}{n}} = \frac{nY}{mW} then the distribution of X is called an F distribution with m and n degrees of freedom.
This gets us through the background to this point. We will invoke parts of this as we go from here. We have matrices and ther inverses. We have some distributional results that link the normal, \chi^2, t, and F. We have a theorem regarding and the normal. This gives us the intuition for Gauss-Markov. Nevertheless, let’s begin the meat of it all: regression.
One of the features of the Ordinary Least Squares Estimator is the orthogonality (independence) of the estimation space and the error space.
Now we want to reexamine the minimization of the sum of squared errors in a matrix setting. We wish to minimize the inner product of \epsilon^{\prime}\epsilon. \epsilon^{\prime}\epsilon = (y - X\beta)^{\prime}(y - X\beta) = y^{\prime}y - y^{\prime}X\beta - \beta^{\prime}X^{\prime}y + \beta^{\prime}X^{\prime}X\beta
Take the derivative, set it equal to zero, and solve…. \frac{\partial \epsilon^{\prime}\epsilon}{\partial \beta} = -2X^{\prime}y + 2X^{\prime}X\beta = 0 X^{\prime}y = X^{\prime}X\beta
So we rearrange to obtain the solution in matrix form.
\hat{\beta}_{OLS} = (X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}y
Need nothing about the distribution other than the two moment defintions. It is for number three that this starts to matter and, in many ways, this is directly a reflection of Basu’s theorem.
With \hat{\beta}=(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}y, \mathbb{E}[\hat{\beta} - \beta] = 0 requires, \mathbb{E}[(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}y - \beta] = 0 We require an inverse already. Invoking the definition of y, we get \mathbb{E}[\mathbf{(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}}(\mathbf{X}\beta + \epsilon) - \beta] = 0 \mathbb{E}[\mathbf{(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}}\mathbf{X}\beta + \mathbf{(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}}\epsilon - \beta] = 0 Taking expectations and rearranging. \hat{\beta} - \beta = -\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}}\epsilon] If the latter multiple is zero, all is well.
\mathbb{E}[(\hat{\mathbf{\beta}} - \beta)(\hat{\mathbf{\beta}} - \beta)^{\prime}] can be derived as follows. \mathbb{E}[(\mathbf{(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}}\mathbf{X}\beta + \mathbf{(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}}\epsilon - \beta)(\mathbf{(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}}\mathbf{X}\beta + \mathbf{(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}}\epsilon - \beta)^{\prime}] \mathbb{E}[(\mathbf{I}\beta + \mathbf{(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}}\epsilon - \beta)(\mathbf{I}\beta + \mathbf{(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}}\epsilon - \beta)^{\prime}] Recognizing the zero part from before, we are left with the manageable,
\mathbb{E}[(\hat{\mathbf{\beta}} - \beta)(\hat{\mathbf{\beta}} - \beta)^{\prime}] \mathbb{E}[\mathbf{(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}X^{\prime}}\epsilon\epsilon^{\prime}\mathbf{X(X^{\prime}X)^{-1}}] Nifty. With nonstochastic \mathbf{X}, it’s the structure of \epsilon\epsilon^{\prime} and we know what that is. By assumption, we have \sigma^{2}\mathbf{I}. If stochastic, we need more steps to get to the same place.
Proving the Gauss-Markov theorem is not so instructive. From what we already have, we are restricted to linear estimators, we add or subtract something. So after computation, we get the OLS standard errors plus a positive semi-definite matrix. OLS always wins. From here, a natural place to go is corrections for non \mathbf{I}. We will do plenty of that. And we will eventually need Aitken.
Beyond this, lets take up two special matrices (that will be your favorite matrices):
Projection Matrix : \mathbf{X}(\mathbf{X}^{\prime}\mathbf{X})^{-1}\mathbf{X}^{\prime}
Residual Maker : \mathbf{I} - \mathbf{X}(\mathbf{X}^{\prime}\mathbf{X})^{-1}\mathbf{X}^{\prime}
which are both symmetric and idempotent (\mathbf{M}^{2}=\mathbf{M}).
M \mathbf{M} = \mathbf{I} - \mathbf{X(X^\prime X)^{-1}X^\prime} \mathbf{My} = (\mathbf{I} - \mathbf{X(X^\prime X)^{-1}X^\prime})\mathbf{y} \mathbf{My} = \mathbf{Iy} - \mathbf{X\underbrace{(X^\prime X)^{-1}X^\prime \mathbf{y}}_{\hat{\beta}}} \mathbf{My} = \mathbf{y} - \mathbf{X\hat{\beta}} \mathbf{My} = \hat{\epsilon}
P
\mathbf{P} = \mathbf{I - M} \mathbf{P} = \mathbf{I - (I - X(X^\prime X)^{-1}X^\prime}) \mathbf{P} = \mathbf{X(X^\prime X)^{-1}X^\prime} \mathbf{Py} = \mathbf{X\underbrace{(X^\prime X)^{-1}X^\prime\mathbf{y}}_{\hat{\beta}}} \mathbf{Py} = \mathbf{X\hat{\beta}} \mathbf{Py} = \hat{\mathbf{y}}
y = X\beta + \epsilon
y = X\beta + \epsilon
The latter F test appears in standard regression output and the probability compares a model with only a constant to the model you have estimated with H_0: Constant only. \ \ If we just like F better than t, it happens that (t_{\nu})^2 \sim F_{1,\nu}, but t has the advantage of being (potentially) one-sided.
In forming confidence intervals, one must account for metrics. t is defined by a standard deviation metric and the standard deviation remains in a common metric with the parameter \hat{\beta}. Variance represents a squared metric in terms of the units measured by \hat{\beta}. As a result, we will form confidence intervals from standard deviations instead of variances.
Prediction intervals: A future response: \hat{y}_{0} \pm t^{(\frac{\alpha}{2})}_{n-p}\hat{\sigma}\sqrt{1 + x^{\prime}_{0}(\mathbf{X^{\prime}X})^{-1}x_{0}}
A mean response: \hat{y}_{0} \pm t^{(\frac{\alpha}{2})}_{n-p}\hat{\sigma}\sqrt{x^{\prime}_{0}(\mathbf{X^{\prime}X})^{-1}x_{0}}
Suppose that a correct specification is \mathbf{y} = \mathbf{X_{1}\beta_{1}} + \mathbf{X_{2}\beta_{2}} + \mathbf{\epsilon} where \mathbf{X_{1}} consists of k_{1} columns and \mathbf{X_{2}} consists of k_{2} columns. Regress just \mathbf{X_{1}} on \mathbf{y} without including \mathbf{X_{2}}, we can characterize \mathbf{b_{1}}, \mathbf{b_{1}} = (\mathbf{X_{1}^{\prime}X_{1}})^{-1}\mathbf{X_{1}y} \rightarrow (\mathbf{X_{1}^{\prime}X_{1}})^{-1}\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{1}}[\mathbf{X_{1}\beta} + \mathbf{X_{2}\beta_{2}} + \mathbf{\epsilon}] = (\mathbf{X_{1}^{\prime}X_{1}})^{-1}\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{1}}\mathbf{X_{1}\beta} + (\mathbf{X_{1}^{\prime}X_{1}})^{-1}\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{1}}\mathbf{X_{2}\beta_{2}} + (\mathbf{X_{1}^{\prime}X_{1}})^{-1}\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{1}}\mathbf{\epsilon} = \mathbf{\beta_{1}} + (\mathbf{X_{1}^{\prime}X_{1}})^{-1}\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{1}}\mathbf{X_{2}\beta_{2}} + (\mathbf{X_{1}^{\prime}X_{1}})^{-1}\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{1}}\mathbf{\epsilon} Two elements worthy of consideration.
1. If \mathbf{\beta_{2}}=0 everything is fine, assuming the standard assumptions hold. The reason: we have not really misspecified the model. 2. Also, if the standard assumptions hold and \mathbf{X_{1}^{\prime}X_{2}}=0 then the second term also vanishes (even though \mathbf{\beta_{2}}\neq 0). If, on the other hand, neither of these conditions hold, but we estimate the regression in any case, the estimate of \mathbf{b_{1}} will be biased by a factor of (defining \mathbf{P}= (\mathbf{X_{1}^{\prime}X_{1}})^{-1}\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{1}}\mathbf{X_{2}})
\mathbf{P}_{X_{1}X_{2}}\mathbf{\beta_{2}} What is \mathbf{P}_{X_{1}X_{2}}?
In specifying a regression model, we assume that its assumptions apply equally well to all the observations in our sample. They may not. Fortunately, we can test claims of structural stability using techniques that we already have encountered. H_0 : Structural stability.
Now we can move on to considering the properties of the residuals and there conformity with assumptions we have made about their properties.
(sum , detail) JB = \frac{n}{6}\left(S^{2} + \frac{(K-3)^{2}}{4} \right)Two types of models, in general 1. Nested models 2. Nonnested models
In layman’s terms, nested models arise when one model is a special case of the other. For example, \mathbf{y} = \mathbf{\beta_{0}} + \mathbf{X_{1}\beta_{1}} + \mathbf{\epsilon} is nested in \mathbf{y} = \mathbf{\beta_{0}} + \mathbf{X_{1}\beta_{1}} + \mathbf{X_{2}\beta_{2}} + \mathbf{\epsilon} using the restriction that \mathbf{\beta_{2}} = 0. If models are nested, usual techniques can be used. If not, we must turn to alternative tools. Technically, there is probably an intermediate class that would be appropriately named overlapping. Practically, overlapping have some nested elements and some nonnested elements. Almost always, we will need the nonnested tools for these.
Consider i \in N units observed at t \in T points in time. The normal cross-sectional data structure will use variables as columns and i as rows. Panel data then adds the complication of a third dimension, t. If we were to take this third dimension and transform the array to two dimensions, we would end up with an (N \times T) by K matrix of covariates and (for a single outcome) an NT vector.
Panel data contain time-series observations for N individuals across T periods, yielding two dimensions: subscript i (cross-section) and subscript t (time). A cross-section is a panel with T=1; a time series is a panel with N=1.
Growth in studies listing “panel data” (Social Sciences Citation Index):
| 1986 | 2003 | 2004 |
|---|---|---|
| 29 | 580 | 687 |
Three factors drive this explosion:
Collection is costly, yet panels are now widely accessible.
United States — NLS (National Longitudinal Surveys, mid-1960s onward; 5 cohorts; thousands of variables on employment, health, education) and PSID (Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 1968–present; ~6,000 families, 15,000 individuals, 5,000+ variables).
Europe — National surveys (Netherlands SEP, German GSOEP, British BHPS) plus, since 1994, the coordinated European Community Household Panel (ECHP) covering health, housing and income across member states.
Developing countries — Kenya Primary School Deworming Project (75 schools, 30,000+ pupils, 1998–2001); World Bank–sponsored annual survey of 200 Chinese township and village enterprises (1984–1990).
By blending inter-individual differences and intra-individual dynamics, panels outperform pure cross-sections or time series on three fronts:
(i) More accurate inference — more degrees of freedom and less multicollinearity → more efficient estimates
(ii) Greater capacity to model human behaviour
(iii) Computational/inferential simplifications
Ben-Porath (1973) puzzle. A cross-section shows 50% of married women participate in the labour force. Two models fit equally:
| Model | Implication |
|---|---|
| Homogeneous — each woman has a 50% annual chance | High turnover; ~2-year average job |
| Heterogeneous — 50% always work, 50% never work | Zero turnover; status perfectly predicts future |
A single cross-section cannot tell them apart. Panel data can, because individual histories reveal whether women switch in and out.
Three-Strikes Law — Difference-in-Differences (DiD). Comparing California crime rates before/after the law confounds the law’s effect with changing unemployment. Comparing CA vs. Oregon confounds state-specific differences. DiD takes both differences:
(y_{CA,\text{after}} - y_{CA,\text{before}}) - (y_{OR,\text{after}} - y_{OR,\text{before}})
“This difference-in-difference method can work only if panel data are available.”
(ii.b) Controlling omitted variables — MaCurdy (1981) labour supply. Log(hours) depends on log(wage) and log(marginal utility of initial wealth). Wealth is unobserved and correlated with wages → cross-section OLS is biased. But wealth is time-invariant for a given worker. First-differencing eliminates it:
\Delta y_{it} = \beta\,\Delta x_{it} + \Delta u_{it}
Hours growth now depends only on wage growth. No instrument needed — the panel structure does the work.
(ii.c) Uncovering dynamics — Pakes & Griliches (1984). In a distributed-lag model y_t = \sum_\tau \beta_\tau x_{t-\tau} + u_t, time-series data force arbitrary constraints (Koyck, Almon) because lagged x’s are highly collinear. Cross-sectional variation across the N units breaks this collinearity, allowing unrestricted estimation of the full lag structure.
“Economic behavior is inherently dynamic.” — Nerlove (2002)
(ii.d) More accurate individual predictions. When behaviour is similar conditional on observables, pooling across individuals improves individual-level forecasts — especially when an individual’s own history is short. Applications include Ontario electricity demand and Canadian long-distance telephone usage (Hsiao et al., 1989, 1993).
(ii.e) Micro-foundations for aggregate analysis. Macroeconomists routinely assume a representative agent. If micro units are heterogeneous, this causes three problems:
Panels are ideal for testing homogeneity vs. heterogeneity — a question the representative-agent assumption simply assumes away.
(iii.a) Nonstationary time series. With unit roots, OLS/MLE distributions are no longer normal (Dickey–Fuller 1979/81). When cross-sectional units are independent, the CLT applies across i: panel estimators remain asymptotically normal and Wald statistics remain \chi^2, enabling valid panel unit-root tests (Levin–Lin–Chu 2002; Im–Pesaran–Shin 2003).
(iii.b) Measurement errors. Errors-in-variables can make a model underidentified in cross-section or time series. Panel data allow multiple transformations of the same data; each induces a different, predictable shift in the estimator, enabling identification otherwise impossible (Griliches & Hausman 1986; Biorn 1992).
(iii.c) Dynamic Tobit. Dynamic censored models require integrating over unobserved y^*_{i,t-1} — computationally infeasible with many missing values. Panel data permit restricting to observations where y_{i,t-1} is observed, so f(y_{it}\mid y_{i,t-1}) reduces to the simple error density. No high-dimensional integration needed (Arellano, Bover & Labeaga 1999).
Standard inference assumes a common density f(y\mid\tilde{x};\tilde{\theta}) for all i and t. With panels this is typically wrong. Ignoring individual-specific effects \alpha_i in a pooled regression:
y_{it} = \alpha_i + \tilde{\beta}'\tilde{x}_{it} + u_{it}
yields estimates that can be biased in any direction (Figures 1–3 in Hsiao 2005 show how pooled OLS can even reverse the sign of the true slope).
The solution is to decompose the unknown heterogeneity \tilde{\gamma}_{it} into:
| Component | Varies across i? | Varies over t? | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| \alpha_i | Yes | No | ability, gender, firm management |
| \lambda_t | No | Yes | prices, interest rates, macro shocks |
| \delta_{it} | Yes | Yes | firm profits, sales, capital stock |
Goal: Treat \tilde{\gamma}_{it} as incidental parameters and make valid inference on the structural parameters \tilde{\beta} after controlling for them.
Random Effects (RE): Treat \alpha_i as a random variable, integrate it out. Pro: Parameter count stays fixed as N\to\infty. Con: Requires correct specification of f(\alpha_i\mid\tilde{x}_i); misspecification biases inference; may require T-dimensional integration.
Fixed Effects (FE): Treat \alpha_i as unknown constants. Pro: No distributional assumption needed. Con: With large N, small T, imprecisely estimated \alpha_i contaminate inference on \tilde{\beta} — the incidental parameters problem.
Eliminating incidental parameters:
The cost: These nonlinear methods impose severe sample restrictions. In one welfare-recipient study (Hsiao et al. 2005), fewer than 10% of individuals met the eligibility conditions.
Devising simple, efficient nonlinear panel FE estimators remains an open challenge.
“Panel data are not a panacea. The power of panel data depends critically on the compatibility of the assumptions of the statistical tools with the data generating process.”
Why panels? They uniquely enable: DiD causal inference, first-differencing out unobservables, unrestricted lag estimation, improved individual forecasts, micro-foundations for macro, and solutions to nonstationarity and measurement error.
Four questions every analyst should ask (Hsiao’s closing checklist):
| Concept | Takeaway |
|---|---|
| Omitted time-invariant variables | First-difference or within-demean |
| State dependence vs. heterogeneity | Only panel histories can distinguish them |
| Representative agent | Testable — and often rejected — with panel data |
| FE nonlinear models | Identified in theory; restrictive in practice |
When researchers apply conventional statistical inference to convenience samples, they are making substantial empirical commitments about how the social world operates — commitments that are rarely examined and often false.
Note
Random sampling has a precise technical meaning: units drawn independently, each with equal probability. Achieving this in practice is extremely costly and rarely done.
| Strategy | What it assumes | Key problem |
|---|---|---|
| Treat data as a population | No inference needed; describe what is in front of you | Severely limits generalisation |
| Assume a real population, “as-if” random sample | The convenience sample behaves like a random draw from a real population | Independence and constant probabilities almost certainly violated |
| Assume an imaginary population | The data are a random sample from a population that “could have been produced by social processes” | The population has no empirical existence; the sampling mechanism is fictional |
Shelter example: Current residents treated as a random sample from all shelters in the area over the past year.
Problems with this move:
“At the risk of the obvious, inferences to imaginary populations are also imaginary.”
Example: Racial discrimination in probation citations
The hidden assumption: a race-neutral citation process would be equivalent to random sampling from the pool of probationers.
But in practice:
If independence were the rule, criminal justice researchers would have little to study.
Markov chain simulation (n = 100 cases):
| Estimated SE | True SE | Bias | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simple (1-step Markov) | 0.038 | 0.058 | ~50% too small |
| Complex (4-step Markov) | 0.038 | 0.062 | ~60% too small |
The 4-step chain has first-order serial correlation of only 0.12 — nearly impossible to detect without a priori knowledge.
Even very large samples may not save the day if the dependence structure is complex or evolving.
The textbook OLS setup assumes disturbances \varepsilon_i:
The problem:
The standard setup: y_t = \mu_t + \varepsilon_t with \varepsilon_t i.i.d.
“Clearly, the game has not changed except for additional layers of technical complexity.”
Meta-analysis combines effect-size estimates across studies. Its core assumptions:
Each assumption fails:
Constant effect size assumption (\eta_1 = \eta_2 = \cdots = \eta_k = \eta):
Random-effects extension:
Publication bias:
Important
“Our recommendation is simple: just say no.”
The suggested alternative is equally simple: read the papers, think about them, and summarise them.
“If you can’t sort the papers into meaningful categories, neither can the meta-analysts.”
Meta-analysis can give approximately valid results only when:
Even with a randomised experiment (1,000 subjects, 500 to treatment):
To satisfy (A–C) approximately, you need: - A very large pool of subjects - Randomly draw a small fraction into treatment and control separately - Treatment adds a constant to all responses
“Few experiments satisfy these conditions.”
| Recommendation | Rationale |
|---|---|
| Use probability sampling whenever possible | The only method that truly justifies inferential arithmetic |
| Do not assume convenience samples are random | Assumptions do not create representativeness; decades of survey research demonstrate this |
| Avoid post hoc statistical adjustments for dependence | Adjustments require their own restrictive assumptions and distance the researcher from the data |
| Conduct sensitivity analyses | Use partial knowledge of the data-generation mechanism to test robustness — but fictional sensitivity analyses yield fictional results |
| Replicate | Real replication answers the question “what would happen if the study were repeated?” |
| Just say no to meta-analysis | Read and synthesise the primary literature instead |
Cross-validation:
Actual replication:
“It is probably impossible to predict the changes attendant on replication without doing replications.”
Statistical inference with convenience samples is risky. Bias is expected; independence is almost certainly violated.
P-values and standard errors from conventional formulas can be grossly misleading when independence fails — typically they will be too small, generating spurious significance.
Assumptions are not technicalities. They are empirical commitments about how the social world operates. Using the formulas means accepting those commitments.
No amount of statistical maneuvering substitutes for understanding the data-generation process.
Statistical issues and substantive issues overlap. Methods cannot be separated from theory and context.
Convenience sample
│
▼
Researcher applies conventional inference
(standard errors, t-tests, p-values)
│
Implicitly assumes:
✗ Independence of observations
✗ Constant selection probabilities
✗ Random sampling (from a real OR imaginary population)
│
▼
These are EMPIRICAL claims about social processes
— not technical defaults —
and they are almost always false.
│
▼
Result: p-values and standard errors
are unreliable guides to uncertainty
| Theme | Berk & Freedman’s position |
|---|---|
| Convenience samples | Almost never equivalent to random samples |
| Standard errors from i.i.d. formulas | Typically underestimated due to dependence |
| Imaginary populations | Circular and untestable; to be avoided |
| Regression / SEM / time series | Same assumptions, more hidden layers |
| Meta-analysis | Assumptions are untenable; prefer narrative review |
| Randomised experiments | Satisfy assumptions only under special conditions |
| Best practice | Probability sampling, replication, honest sensitivity analysis |
Given two-dimensional data, how should we break it down? The most common method is unit-averages; we break each unit’s time series on each element into deviations from their own mean. This is called the within transform. The between portion represents deviations between the unit’s mean and the overall mean. Stationarity considerations are generically implicit. We will break this up later.
xt commandsIn Stata’s language, xt is the way that one naturally refers to CSTS/TSCS data. Consider NT observations on some random variable y_{it} where i \in N and t \in T. The TSCS/CSTS commands almost always have this prefix.
xtset: Declaring xt dataxtdes: Describing xt data structurextsum: Summarizing xt dataxttab: Summarizing categorical xt data.xttrans: Transition matrix for xt data.| skim_type | skim_variable | n_missing | complete_rate | numeric.mean | numeric.sd | numeric.p0 | numeric.p25 | numeric.p50 | numeric.p75 | numeric.p100 | numeric.hist |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| numeric | IDORIGIN | 0 | 1.0000000 | 446.7178771 | 243.1931782 | 2.00 | 290.000 | 435.000 | 640.00 | 990.00 | ▆▇▇▆▂ |
| numeric | YEAR | 0 | 1.0000000 | 1984.5000000 | 5.1889328 | 1976.00 | 1980.000 | 1984.500 | 1989.00 | 1993.00 | ▇▆▇▆▇ |
| numeric | AI | 1061 | 0.6707014 | 2.7533549 | 1.0752989 | 1.00 | 2.000 | 3.000 | 3.00 | 5.00 | ▃▇▇▃▂ |
| numeric | SD | 587 | 0.8178150 | 2.2406072 | 1.1303528 | 1.00 | 1.000 | 2.000 | 3.00 | 5.00 | ▇▇▆▂▁ |
| numeric | POLRT | 382 | 0.8814401 | 3.8095070 | 2.2230297 | 1.00 | 2.000 | 3.000 | 6.00 | 7.00 | ▇▂▂▁▇ |
| numeric | MIL2 | 382 | 0.8814401 | 0.2725352 | 0.4453421 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ▇▁▁▁▃ |
| numeric | LEFT | 393 | 0.8780261 | 0.1763874 | 0.3812168 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 1.00 | ▇▁▁▁▂ |
| numeric | BRIT | 290 | 0.9099938 | 0.3553888 | 0.4787126 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ▇▁▁▁▅ |
| numeric | PCGNP | 443 | 0.8625078 | 3591.6509536 | 5698.3554010 | 52.00 | 390.000 | 1112.000 | 3510.00 | 36670.00 | ▇▁▁▁▁ |
| numeric | AINEW | 468 | 0.8547486 | 2.4433551 | 1.1558005 | 1.00 | 1.000 | 2.000 | 3.00 | 5.00 | ▇▇▇▃▂ |
| numeric | SDNEW | 468 | 0.8547486 | 2.2618010 | 1.1365604 | 1.00 | 1.000 | 2.000 | 3.00 | 5.00 | ▇▇▆▂▁ |
| numeric | IDGURR | 0 | 1.0000000 | 455.7709497 | 246.5201369 | 2.00 | 290.000 | 450.000 | 663.00 | 990.00 | ▆▇▇▇▃ |
| numeric | AILAG | 644 | 0.8001241 | 2.4499612 | 1.1479673 | 1.00 | 1.000 | 2.000 | 3.00 | 5.00 | ▇▇▇▃▂ |
| numeric | SDLAG | 644 | 0.8001241 | 2.2470908 | 1.1156632 | 1.00 | 1.000 | 2.000 | 3.00 | 5.00 | ▇▇▆▂▁ |
| numeric | PERCHPCG | 618 | 0.8081937 | 4.6138441 | 13.2208934 | -95.50 | -2.545 | 4.615 | 11.76 | 128.57 | ▁▂▇▁▁ |
| numeric | PERCHPOP | 293 | 0.9090627 | 2.1928815 | 4.0424128 | -48.45 | 0.910 | 2.220 | 2.94 | 126.01 | ▁▇▁▁▁ |
| numeric | LPOP | 115 | 0.9643079 | 15.4819279 | 1.8633316 | 11.00 | 14.510 | 15.590 | 16.64 | 20.89 | ▂▃▇▃▁ |
| numeric | PCGTHOU | 443 | 0.8625078 | 3.5916985 | 5.6983334 | 0.05 | 0.390 | 1.110 | 3.51 | 36.67 | ▇▁▁▁▁ |
| numeric | DEMOC3 | 793 | 0.7538796 | 3.6817620 | 4.3577178 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 9.00 | 10.00 | ▇▁▁▂▃ |
| numeric | CWARCOW | 407 | 0.8736809 | 0.0920071 | 0.2890873 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 1.00 | ▇▁▁▁▁ |
| numeric | IWARCOW2 | 380 | 0.8820608 | 0.0862069 | 0.2807187 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 1.00 | ▇▁▁▁▁ |
library(tidyverse)
library(plm)
source(url("https://raw.githubusercontent.com/robertwwalker/DADMStuff/master/xtsum/xtsum.R"))
# Be careful with the ID variable, the safest is to make it factor; this can go wildly wrong
xtsum(IDORIGIN~., data=HR.Data) %>% kable() %>% scroll_box(width="80%", height="50%")| O.mean | O.sd | O.min | O.max | O.SumSQ | O.N | B.mean | B.sd | B.min | B.max | B.Units | B.t.bar | W.sd | W.min | W.max | W.SumSQ | Within.Ovr.Ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAR | 1984.5 | 5.189 | 1976 | 1993 | 86725.5 | 3222 | 1984.5 | 0 | 1984.5 | 1984.5 | 179 | 18 | 5.189 | -8.5 | 8.5 | 86725.5 | 1 |
| AI | 2.753 | 1.075 | 1 | 5 | 2497.538 | 2161 | 2.498 | 0.989 | 1 | 5 | 173 | 12.491 | 0.631 | -2.375 | 2.5625 | 860.822 | 0.345 |
| SD | 2.241 | 1.13 | 1 | 5 | 3365.455 | 2635 | 2.241 | 1.004 | 1 | 5 | 178 | 14.803 | 0.624 | -2.666667 | 3.0625 | 1025.695 | 0.305 |
| POLRT | 3.81 | 2.223 | 1 | 7 | 14029.94 | 2840 | 3.78 | 1.99 | 1 | 7 | 179 | 15.866 | 0.925 | -4 | 4.777778 | 2428.552 | 0.173 |
| MIL2 | 0.273 | 0.445 | 0 | 1 | 563.058 | 2840 | 0.24 | 0.377 | 0 | 1 | 179 | 15.866 | 0.216 | -0.9444444 | 0.8888889 | 132.778 | 0.236 |
| LEFT | 0.176 | 0.381 | 0 | 1 | 410.983 | 2829 | 0.157 | 0.334 | 0 | 1 | 179 | 15.804 | 0.157 | -0.8888889 | 0.8888889 | 69.611 | 0.169 |
| BRIT | 0.355 | 0.479 | 0 | 1 | 671.685 | 2932 | 0.335 | 0.473 | 0 | 1 | 179 | 16.38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PCGNP | 3591.651 | 5698.355 | 52 | 36670 | 90205144379 | 2779 | 3449.178 | 5049.297 | 112.2222 | 22653.89 | 173 | 16.064 | 2278.412 | -12303.33 | 16961.67 | 14421042273 | 0.16 |
| AINEW | 2.443 | 1.156 | 1 | 5 | 3677.663 | 2754 | 2.379 | 1.012 | 1 | 5 | 178 | 15.472 | 0.622 | -2.388889 | 2.944444 | 1064.102 | 0.289 |
| SDNEW | 2.262 | 1.137 | 1 | 5 | 3556.241 | 2754 | 2.253 | 1.006 | 1 | 5 | 178 | 15.472 | 0.631 | -2.588235 | 3 | 1096.442 | 0.308 |
| IDGURR | 455.771 | 246.52 | 2 | 990 | 195747185 | 3222 | 455.771 | 247.173 | 2 | 990 | 179 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| AILAG | 2.45 | 1.148 | 1 | 5 | 3396.045 | 2578 | 2.402 | 1.039 | 1 | 5 | 177 | 14.565 | 0.609 | -2.411765 | 3 | 955.37 | 0.281 |
| SDLAG | 2.247 | 1.116 | 1 | 5 | 3207.603 | 2578 | 2.236 | 0.991 | 1 | 5 | 177 | 14.565 | 0.608 | -2.5 | 3.058824 | 952.174 | 0.297 |
| PERCHPCG | 4.614 | 13.221 | -95.5 | 128.57 | 454983.6 | 2604 | 3.325 | 6.893 | -36.21333 | 15.03765 | 168 | 15.5 | 12.393 | -92.50235 | 114.8882 | 399763 | 0.879 |
| PERCHPOP | 2.193 | 4.042 | -48.45 | 126.01 | 47846.75 | 2929 | 2.842 | 9.443 | -2.126471 | 126.01 | 176 | 16.642 | 3.018 | -48.12235 | 80.69765 | 26663.59 | 0.557 |
| LPOP | 15.482 | 1.863 | 11 | 20.89 | 10784.05 | 3107 | 15.488 | 1.844 | 11.09056 | 20.76889 | 177 | 17.554 | 0.129 | -0.7288889 | 0.7311111 | 51.883 | 0.005 |
| PCGTHOU | 3.592 | 5.698 | 0.05 | 36.67 | 90204.45 | 2779 | 3.449 | 5.049 | 0.1122222 | 22.65389 | 173 | 16.064 | 2.278 | -12.30333 | 16.96167 | 14420.95 | 0.16 |
| DEMOC3 | 3.682 | 4.358 | 0 | 10 | 46107 | 2429 | 3.774 | 3.96 | 0 | 10 | 155 | 15.671 | 1.726 | -7.277778 | 7.941176 | 7229.815 | 0.157 |
| CWARCOW | 0.092 | 0.289 | 0 | 1 | 235.17 | 2815 | 0.095 | 0.245 | 0 | 1 | 179 | 15.726 | 0.175 | -0.8888889 | 0.9444444 | 85.693 | 0.364 |
| IWARCOW2 | 0.086 | 0.281 | 0 | 1 | 223.879 | 2842 | 0.092 | 0.227 | 0 | 1 | 179 | 15.877 | 0.19 | -0.8888889 | 0.9444444 | 102.992 | 0.46 |
In R, this is an essential group_by calculation in the tidyverse. The within data is the overall data with group means subtracted.
# A tibble: 18 × 4
# Groups: IDORIGIN [1]
IDORIGIN YEAR DEMOC3 DEMOC.Centered
<dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
1 42 1976 1 -5.11
2 42 1977 1 -5.11
3 42 1978 6 -0.111
4 42 1979 6 -0.111
5 42 1980 6 -0.111
6 42 1981 6 -0.111
7 42 1982 7 0.889
8 42 1983 7 0.889
9 42 1984 7 0.889
10 42 1985 7 0.889
11 42 1986 7 0.889
12 42 1987 7 0.889
13 42 1988 7 0.889
14 42 1989 7 0.889
15 42 1990 7 0.889
16 42 1991 7 0.889
17 42 1992 7 0.889
18 42 1993 7 0.889
Big picture: Models for Single Time Series
ESSSSDA-26: Introduction and Summary