0
$\begingroup$

You come up with a great idea of an estimator for $\beta_1$ in the SLR model which satisfies SLR.1 to SLR.4:$$y_i=\beta_0+\beta_1x_i+u_i$$ Given a sample $\left\{(x_i,y_i),i=1,2,3,\dots,n\right\}$, you connect the first sample observation to the second sample observation and compute the slope of the line: $\frac{y_2-y_1}{x_2-x_1}$. Then you connect the first sample observation to the third sample observation and compute the slope of the line: $\frac{y_3-y_2}{x_3-x_1}$. Repeat the same procedure to the rest of the observations in the sample and you estimate $\beta_1$ as the average of all $n-1$ slopes. In terms of a formula, your estimator is: $\tilde\beta_1=\frac1{n-1}\sum_{i=2}^n\left(\frac{y_i-y_1}{x_i-x_1}\right)$.

  1. Is $\tilde\beta_1$ a linear estimator? i.e. can you express $\tilde\beta_1$ in the format of $\sum_{i=1}^nw_iy_i$ where all $w_i$ are functions of $x$ only. Clearly write down the $w_i$ in your answer.

  2. Is $\tilde\beta_1$ an unbiased estimator conditional on a set of sample values of the independent variable $X=\left\{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n\right\}$? i.e. Is $E(\tilde\beta_1|X)=\beta_1$?

I am stuck with part 2. specifically. I am not sure how to find the expected value of $\tilde\beta_1$. I thought it might be just using the given $\tilde\beta_1$ formula and the sample of observations. I need some pointers on what I should think about while answering this question.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Please type your question as text, do not just post a photograph or screenshot (see here). When you retype the question, add the self-study tag & read its wiki. Then tell us what you understand thus far, what you've tried & where you're stuck. We'll provide hints to help you get unstuck. Please make these changes as just posting your homework & hoping someone will do it for you is grounds for closing. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 6:13

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

First note that by definition, $y_i - y_1 = \beta_1(x_i-x_1) + u_i - u_1$, hence $$\frac{y_i-y_1}{x_i-x_1} = \beta_1 + \frac{u_i-u_1}{x_i-x_1} $$ By applying the "pull-out property" of conditional expectation, we have $$\mathbb E\left[\frac{u_i-u_1}{x_i-x_1}\Big|\ X\right] =\frac{1}{x_i-x_1}\mathbb E\big[u_i-u_1\mid X\big] = 0 $$ Where the last inequality follows from assuming that the $u_i$ have zero mean given $X$.

We can finally put it all together by applying the linearity of expectation : $$\begin{align*}\mathbb E\left[\tilde\beta_1 \big|\ X\right] &:= \mathbb E\left[\frac1{n-1}\sum_{i=2}^n\left(\frac{y_i-y_1}{x_i-x_1}\right) \Big|\ X\right]\\ &= \frac1{n-1}\sum_{i=2}^n\mathbb E\left[\left(\beta_1 + \frac{u_i-u_1}{x_i-x_1} \right) \Big|\ X\right]\\ &= \frac1{n-1}\sum_{i=2}^n \beta_1 = \beta_1 \end{align*} $$

And we conclude that $\tilde\beta_1$ is indeed a consistent estimator of $\beta_1$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ thanks so much. I've not heard of the "pull-out" property before, could you please explain it a bit further - why do we take out (x_i - x1)? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ And also why b0 was taken out of the calculations - is it because it is constant? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ Generally speaking, the pull out property tells you that if $Y$ and $Z$ are two random variables, $\mathcal F$ a $\sigma$-algebra and $Y$ is $\mathcal F$ measurable then $$\mathbb E[YZ\mid\mathcal F] = Y\mathbb E[Z\mid \mathcal F] $$ The idea being that if $Y$ is $\mathcal F$-measurable then, given $\mathcal F$, $Y$ is "constant" and can thus be taken out of the expectation. Here I applied it with $Y :=\frac{1}{x_i-x_1}$, $Z:=u_i-u_1$ and $\mathcal F := \sigma (X) \equiv \sigma(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 14:41
  • $\begingroup$ Nothing special about $\beta_0$, it's simply that we have $y_1 = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x_1 + u_1$ and $y_i :=\beta_0 +\beta_1 x_i + u_i$ hence when we take the difference $y_i - y_1$ the $\beta_0$ cancel each other $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ thanks again. I've also not heard of F-measurable, could you please explain that too? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 3, 2023 at 2:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.