Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2404.11324

Weighted-Average Least Squares for Negative Binomial Regression

Abstract

Model averaging methods have become an increasingly popular tool for improving predictions and dealing with model uncertainty, especially in Bayesian settings. Recently, frequentist model averaging methods such as information theoretic and least squares model averaging have emerged. This work focuses on the issue of covariate uncertainty where managing the computational resources is key: The model space grows exponentially with the number of covariates such that averaged models must often be approximated. Weighted-average least squares (WALS), first introduced for (generalized) linear models in the econometric literature, combines Bayesian and frequentist aspects and additionally employs a semiorthogonal transformation of the regressors to reduce the computational burden. This paper extends WALS for generalized linear models to the negative binomial (NB) regression model for overdispersed count data. A simulation experiment and an empirical application using data on doctor visits were conducted to compare the predictive power of WALS for NB regression to traditional estimators. The results show that WALS for NB improves on the maximum likelihood estimator in sparse situations and is competitive with lasso while being computationally more efficient.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kevin Huynh. 2024-04-17. Weighted-Average Least Squares for Negative Binomial Regression. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11324

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Evidence Aggregation for Treatment Choice

Consider a planner who has limited knowledge of the policy's causal impact on a certain local population of interest due to a lack of data, but does have access to the publicized intervention studies performed for similar policies on different populations. How should the planner make use of and aggregate this existing evidence to make her policy decision? Following Manski (2020; Towards Credible Patient-Centered Meta-Analysis, \textit{Epidemiology}), we formulate the planner's problem as a statistical decision problem with a social welfare objective, and solve for an optimal aggregation rule under the minimax-regret criterion. We investigate the analytical properties, computational feasibility, and welfare regret performance of this rule. We apply the minimax regret decision rule to decide whether to enact an active labor market policy based on 14 randomized control trial studies.

econ.EM

Beta-Sorted Portfolios

Beta-sorted portfolios---portfolios comprised of assets with similar covariation with selected risk factors---are a popular tool in empirical finance to analyze models of (conditional) expected returns. Despite their widespread use, little is known of their econometric properties in contrast to comparable procedures such as two-pass regressions. We formally investigate the properties of beta-sorted portfolio returns by casting the procedure as a two-step nonparametric estimator with a nonparametric first step and a beta-adaptive portfolio construction. Our framework rationalizes the well-known estimation algorithm with precise economic and statistical assumptions on the general data-generating process. We provide conditions which ensure valid estimation and inference allowing for a range of hypotheses of interest in financial applications. We show that the rate of convergence of the estimator changes depending on the value of beta. We demonstrate that valid inference depends critically on the object of interest and discuss drawbacks of the widely used Fama-MacBeth variance estimator. To address these limitations, we propose a new variance estimator. We demonstrate the usefulness of our theoretical results in two empirical applications, including one in which we introduce a novel risk factor that captures the business credit cycle and show that it predicts both the cross-sectional and time-series behavior of U.S. stock returns.

econ.EM

Difference-in-Differences with Unpoolable Data

Difference-in-differences (DID) is commonly used to estimate treatment effects but is infeasible in settings where data are unpoolable due to privacy concerns or legal restrictions on data sharing, particularly across jurisdictions. In this study, we identify and relax the assumption of data poolability in DID estimation. We propose an innovative approach to estimate DID with unpoolable data (UN-DID) which can accommodate covariates, multiple groups, and staggered adoption. Through analytical proofs and Monte Carlo simulations, we show that UN-DID and conventional DID estimates of the average treatment effect and standard errors are equal and unbiased in settings without covariates. With covariates, both methods produce estimates that are unbiased, equivalent, and converge to the true value. The estimates differ slightly but the statistical inference and substantive conclusions remain the same. Two empirical examples with real-world data further underscore UN-DID's utility. The UN-DID method allows the estimation of cross-jurisdictional treatment effects with unpoolable data, enabling better counterfactuals to be used and new research questions to be answered.

econ.EM