I had an email request about making `ivreg`

work with the `survey`

package. That’s `AER::ivreg`

, which does two-stage least-squares estimation with instrumental variables.

The steps are

- See if it accepts weights and does the right thing for point estimation
- If so, work out how to get the complex-survey variances
- Test to make sure it’s getting the right answer

In this case, the first step was fairly straightforward. The function accepts weights and passes them to `lm.wfit`

, so it will give the same point estimates as if they were sampling weights.

The second step is the technically generalisable one. My full code is here. The key parts for estimation using survey design information are

```
.data<-model.frame(design)
.data$.weights<-weights(design,"sampling")
model<- ivreg(formula, data=.data, weights=.weights)
```

which just calls `AER::ivreg`

to get the point estimates, and

```
U<-estfun(model)/weights(design,"sampling")
n<-NROW(U)
infl<- U%*%bread(model)/n
v<-vcov(svytotal(infl, design))
```

which computes the variances of the parameter estimates.

The variance code comes from the Secret Trick that makes the survey package work: any well-behaved^{1} estimator can approximated as the total of its influence functions. If we write \(\Delta_i\) for the influence function of observation \(i\) then
\[\tilde\theta-\theta = \sum_{i=1}^N \Delta_i + \textrm{small}.\]

In a probability sample with sampling weights \(w_i\), we will have
\[\hat\theta-\theta = \sum_{i\in\textrm{sample}} w_i\Delta_i + \textrm{small}.\]
We want the variance of the left-hand side of the equation. The right-hand side is just the variance of an estimated population total, which is a thing we know how to do.^{2}

In the case of `ivreg`

, since it was written by Achim Zeileis, it has convenient functions `estfun`

and `bread`

that are designed to work with the `sandwich`

package but that also make influence functions easy to compute.

The first line of the second code chunk looks a bit strange: we’re dividing by the weights. That’s because the `ivreg`

code puts the weights into the estimating function; we don’t want that because `svytotal`

also puts them in.

Alternatively, if you have a design using replicate weights (resampling), step 2 looks like

```
withReplicates(design,
function(.weights, .data){
.data$.pweights<-.weights
m<-ivreg(formula,data= .data, weights=.pweights)
coef(m)
})
```

which runs the `ivreg`

function for each set of replicate weights, extracts the coefficients, and computes the variance.

Step 3 is harder: ideally there would be a published analysis with downloadable data that I could check against. Also harder is working out how to adjust the various diagnostic tests. But the basic estimation is fairly straightforward.

You can’t handle non-regular estimators such as the lasso this way, since they don’t have influence functions that work this way. You also can’t handle mixed models, where the score function isn’t just a sum over observations. In addition to the purely technical problems (which are enough to be going on with) there’s the issue that both of these classes of model have a cost:complexity or bias:variance tradeoff, and it’s not obvious how to make this tradeoff scale the right way when you go from a population to a sample.