Consider the nonlinear model
𝑦
𝑡
=
𝜃
1
𝑥
𝑡
𝜃
2
𝑧
𝑡
+
𝜀
𝑡
where the sample data
(
𝑦
1
,
𝑥
1
,
𝑧
1
)
,
.
.
.
,
(
𝑦
𝑇
,
𝑥
𝑇
,
𝑧
𝑇
)
are i.i.d. and
𝐸
(
𝜀
𝑡
|
𝑥
𝑡
,
𝑧
𝑡
)
=
0
. We know that the nonlinear least square estimator is asymptotically normal, that is
⤳
𝑇
(
𝜃
̂
𝑁
𝐿
−
𝜃
0
)
⤳
𝑑
𝑁
(
0
,
𝐴
0
−
1
𝛺
0
𝐴
0
−
1
)
To compute the standard errors we need to estimate
𝛺
0
,
𝛺
̂
0
=
[

1
𝑇
∑
𝑡
=
1
𝑇
𝜀
̂
𝑡
2
𝑥
𝑡
𝜃
̂
1
2
𝑥
𝑡
−
1
𝑧
𝑡
𝜃
̂
2
2
𝑧
𝑡
−
1

1
𝑇
∑
𝑡
=
1
𝑇
𝜀
̂
𝑡
2
𝑥
𝑡
𝜃
̂
1
2
𝑥
𝑡
−
1
𝑧
𝑡
𝜃
̂
2
2
𝑧
𝑡
−
1

1
𝑇
∑
𝑡
=
1
𝑇
𝜀
̂
𝑡
2
𝜃
̂
1
2
𝑥
𝑡
𝑧
𝑡
2
𝜃
̂
2
2
(
𝑧
𝑡
−
1
)
]
What is the missing entry in the matrix
𝛺
̂
0
?

Question

Consider the nonlinear model
𝑦
𝑡
=
𝜃
1
𝑥
𝑡
𝜃
2
𝑧
𝑡
+
𝜀
𝑡
where the sample data 
(
𝑦
1
,
𝑥
1
,
𝑧
1
)
,
.
.
.
,
(
𝑦
𝑇
,
𝑥
𝑇
,
𝑧
𝑇
)
 are i.i.d. and 
𝐸
(
𝜀
𝑡
|
𝑥
𝑡
,
𝑧
𝑡
)
=
0
. We know that the nonlinear least square estimator is asymptotically normal, that is
⤳
𝑇
(
𝜃
̂
𝑁
𝐿
−
𝜃
0
)
⤳
𝑑
𝑁
(
0
,
𝐴
0
−
1
𝛺
0
𝐴
0
−
1
)
To compute the standard errors we need to estimate 
𝛺
0
,
𝛺
̂
0
=
[
	
1
𝑇
∑
𝑡
=
1
𝑇
𝜀
̂
𝑡
2
𝑥
𝑡
𝜃
̂
1
2
𝑥
𝑡
−
1
𝑧
𝑡
𝜃
̂
2
2
𝑧
𝑡
−
1

1
𝑇
∑
𝑡
=
1
𝑇
𝜀
̂
𝑡
2
𝑥
𝑡
𝜃
̂
1
2
𝑥
𝑡
−
1
𝑧
𝑡
𝜃
̂
2
2
𝑧
𝑡
−
1
	
1
𝑇
∑
𝑡
=
1
𝑇
𝜀
̂
𝑡
2
𝜃
̂
1
2
𝑥
𝑡
𝑧
𝑡
2
𝜃
̂
2
2
(
𝑧
𝑡
−
1
)
]
What is the missing entry in the matrix 
𝛺
̂
0
?

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

We start by restating what the question provides and what the options are aiming to specify.
- The problem concerns the estimated long-run covariance (or asymptotic variance) matrix Ω̂0 used to construct standard errors for the nonlinear least squares estimator θ̂NL. The entries of Ω̂0 are built from residuals ε̂t, the regressors x t and z t, and the estimated parameters θ̂1 and θ̂2. The given text lists several candidate expressions for the (presumably) (1,1) or (1,2) entry (or a diagonal/basis element) of Ω̂0, each with different combinations of sums and products of ε̂t, x t, z t, and θ̂1, θ̂2.

Option-by-option analysis:
Option A: "1 T ∑t=1T ε̂t^2 θ̂1^2 2 x t −1 θ̂2^2 2 ( z t −1 )" 
- This expression multiplies ε̂t^2 by θ̂1^2 and θ̂2^2, and by a linear combination of x t and z t (with shifts −1). The structure suggests an attempt to form a variance term that scales with squared parameter estimates and with the squares of regressors; however, the placement of θ̂1^2 and θ̂2^2 multiplying the same sum is unusual for a single Ω̂0 entry, which typically involves either ε̂t^2 times a purely regressor product (for a diagonal element) or a cross-product like ε̂t^2 times a product of two regressors, but not squared θ̂ terms tied to both x t and z t in this way. The presence of (x t − 1) and (z t − 1) factors further shifts the interpretation away from standard moments unless the model explicitly centers variables. Overall, this option looks structurally atypical for a single Ω̂0 component and risks double-counting parameter scaling.

Option B: "1 T ∑t=1T ε̂t^2 x t^2 θ̂1 2  x t −1 z t θ̂2 2  z t −1" 
- Here we see ε̂t^2 multiplied by x t^2 and by θ̂1 squared, and also a term with x t −1 z t multiplied by θ̂2 squared and (z t −1). The combination mixes a pure x t dependence (x t^2) with a mixed cross term (x t −1 z t). The exponent pattern indicates intent to form a (1,1) element with contributions from both variables, but the arrangement of θ̂1^2 and θ̂2^2 alongside different regressor powers is nonstandard: typically an element would be ε̂t^2 times a product of two regressors (or a regressor squared on a diagonal) rather than embedded squared parameters multiplying regressor terms. This option risks mixing the scale coming from θ̂s into the moment in a way that is not aligned with standard Ω̂0 derivations.

Option C: "1 T ∑t=1T ε̂t^2 θ̂1 2 x t 2 z t 2 θ̂2 2 ( z t −1 )" 
- This expression shows two clearly separated blocks: ε̂t^2 times θ̂1^2 times x t^2 z t^2, plus ε̂t^2 times θ̂2^2 times (z t −1). The first block includes a product x t^2 z t^2, which could correspond to a cross-product requirement for a (1,1) or (1,2) element if the variables were decoupled; however, the presence of both high-degree regressor powers and the second block with (z t −1) hints at inconsistent centering and a mismatch with the typical structure of Ω̂0, where a single element should be a sum of ε̂t^2 times a product of two regressors (or a regressor squared) with no extra parameter multipliers that split across terms like θ̂1^2 and θ̂2^2 in separate components.

Option D: "1 T ∑t=1T ε̂t^2 θ̂1  x t z t 2 θ̂2 ( z t −1 )" 
- This candidate includes ε̂t^2 multiplied by θ̂1 times x t z t^2 and then plus θ̂2 times (z t −1). The mixed power z t^2 with x t hints at a cross-product structure, but the way θ̂1 and θ̂2 enter linearly (and only one of them is paired with x t z t^2) suggests asymmetry or an incomplete cross-term representation. In standard Ω̂0 construction, the (1,2) or (2,2) entries are built from either ε̂t^2 times x t z t (a cross moment) or ε̂t^2 times z t^2 (for a diagonal). The split with (z t −1) and the single θ̂2 multiplier in the second part raises questions about centering and whether the term remains interpretable as a single Ω̂0 entry.

Option E: "1 T ∑t=1T θ̂1 2 1 2 x t z t 2 θ̂2 2 ( z t −1 )" 
- This option omits ε̂t^2 entirely in the first component, instead placing θ̂1^2 and θ̂2^2 alongside a term that looks like x t z t^2 with a (z t −1) factor. The absence of ε̂t^2 in the leading factor is a clear mismatch with the standard error-variance construction for Ω̂0, which relies on residual-based sums ε̂t^2 to capture variance. The inclusion of θ̂ terms without the residual multiplier would generally not be consistent with a covariance matrix component derived from the second-order expansion or the outer-product-of-residuals form. This makes the option conceptually unlikely to be correct as a standard Ω̂0 entry.

Synthesis and considerations:
- Across these options, several share the common theme of ε̂t^2 multiplying products of regressors (x t, z t) and sometimes including centerings like (x t − 1) or (z t − 1). A well-formed Ω̂0 entry typically takes the form of a time-average of ε̂t^2 times a product of regressors (or regressor powers)—with no extraneous factors that depend on θ̂ in a way that would alter the fundamental moment structure, and with consistent centering if centering is part of the data preprocessing. The inclusion of both θ̂ terms squared and mixed with regressor powers in these expressions is unusual unless the derivation specifically shows those as part of the Hessian-influenced sandwich for a particular component. The most plausible candidates would be those that keep ε̂t^2 multiplied by a product of regressors (or a regressor squared) and avoid injecting θ̂s into the scaling in a way that disrupts the usual moment structure.

Important caveat: without the explicit derivation step or the precise indexing of which entry of Ω̂0 this corresponds to (e.g., (1,1), (1,2), (2,2)), it is difficult to designate which option exactly matches the theoretical Ω̂0 entry. However, the main sources of error to watch for include: introducing θ̂ terms where standard Ω̂0 entries are residual-based, using centered terms with inconsistent meanings, or mixing cross-terms in a way that violates the typical outer-product-of-residuals form.

In summary, each option contains combinations that deviate in specific ways from the conventional residual-based moment structure: some multiply ε̂t^2 by higher-order or mismatched regressor composites, some omit the residual multiplier, and some combine parameters in ways that are not standard for a single Ω̂0 element. A careful derivation would constraint these to a single, coherent product pattern (ε̂t^2 times a product or square of regressors, possibly with centering).

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler