3
$\begingroup$

The frisch-waugh-lovell theorem uses the following line in the proof:

$\hat\beta_2 = (X_2' M_{1}X_2)^{-1}X_2'M_{1}y$

How do we know

$(X_2' M_{1}X_2)^{-1}$

is invertible?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive-definite_matrix $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 24, 2017 at 15:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you know anything specific about $M_1$? Because that isn't invertible in general. $\endgroup$
    – Sycorax
    Commented Mar 24, 2017 at 15:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You don't know it's invertible--but you don't invert it in the first place. That's just a notation for solving a set of linear equations. Equivalently, think of it as a generalized inverse. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Mar 24, 2017 at 15:43
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber I would really appreciate it if you could have a look at my attempt at a proof below. Thank you. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 24, 2017 at 17:15

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

I think that we can show that the matrix is invertible if the full regressor matrix has full column rank, but please check my proof.

We are looking at a regression with $k_1+k_2$ regressors (counting a possible constant term) having a sample of size $n\geq k_1+k_2$. We asuume that the full regressor matrix $X = [X_1:X_2]$ has full-column rank equal to $k_1+k_2$. This means that $X_1$ has column rank $k_1$ and $X_2$ has column rank $k_2$.

Let $M_1 = I_{n} - P_1,\,\, P_1 = X_1(X_1'X_1)^{-1}X_1'$, the residual maker and orthogonal projection matrices respectively, symmetric and idempotent both. We want to show that the $n \times k_2$ matrix $M_1X_2$ has full column rank $k_2$, so that its Grammian matrix $[(M_1X_2)'(M_1X_2)] = X_2'M_1X_2$ is invertible.

Assume that $M_1X_2 = W$ has not full column rank. This means that at least two columns of $W=M_1X_2$ are linearly dependent, say columns $w_1 = x_{21}- P_1x_{21}$ and $w_2= x_{22} - P_1x_{22}$.
If they are linearly dependent it means that for some real scalar $a$ we have

$$w_1 = aw_2 \implies x_{21}- P_1x_{21}= ax_{22} - P_1ax_{22}$$

$$\implies x_{21}- ax_{22} = P_1(x_{21} - ax_{22})$$

So if $w_1$ and $w_2$ are linearly dependent, we have obtained that the Projection matrix $P_1$ must act as the identity matrix on the column vector $x_{21}- ax_{22}$. But in order to do so, this column vector must be included in the column space of $X_1$.

But this implies that some linear combination of the regressors in $X_1$ equals the linear combination $x_{21}- ax_{22}$ of the regressors in $X_2$... which in turn implies that the full regressor matrix $X$ has not full column rank, and so $X'X$ is not invertible to begin with.

So what I think I have proved is the following:

If the full regressor matrix $X$ has full column rank, then the matrix $M_1X_2$ as defined above has also full column rank.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 I believe you, because this theorem is an immediate consequence of an easily proven generalization to arbitrary partitions of the set of explanatory variables. (I describe this generalization geometrically at stats.stackexchange.com/a/113207/919 and algebraically, in terms that look similar to yours, at stats.stackexchange.com/a/46508/919.) $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Mar 24, 2017 at 18:22
  • $\begingroup$ I think it should be "But in order to do so, this column vector must be in the column space of $X_1$" instead of "But in order to do so, this column vector must be inlcuded in the regressors used to form $P_1$". $\endgroup$
    – statmerkur
    Commented Jan 10, 2023 at 10:46
  • $\begingroup$ @statmerkur Thanks for the suggestion, I elaborated on it. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 11, 2023 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ +1 Though, I think there is no need to state that "and so $X′X$ is not invertible to begin with." since this was not used anywhere else in your proof. $\endgroup$
    – statmerkur
    Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 8:49
  • $\begingroup$ @statmerkur Indeed, but it is needed in order for the reader to understand that invertibility of these two matrices goes together, so if we have a "regular" linear regression least-squares estimation, FWL is also available without further worries. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 14, 2023 at 14:33
2
$\begingroup$

With $P_1 = X_1\left(X_1^\top X_1\right)^{-1}X_1^\top$ and $M_1 = I - P_1$, $X = \begin{pmatrix} X_1 & X_2\end{pmatrix}$ can be written as $$ X = \left(M_1 + P_1 \right)\begin{pmatrix} X_1 & X_2\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} X_1 & M_1X_2+P_1X_2\end{pmatrix}. $$ Now, assuming that $X$ has full column rank means $$ Xv = 0 \implies v = 0 $$ or, with $v = \left(v_1^\top, v_2^\top\right)^\top$, $$ X_1v_1 + \left(M_1X_2 + P_1X_2\right)v_2=0 \implies v_1=v_2 = 0 $$ or $$ X_1\left(v_1 + \left(X_1^\top X_1\right)^{-1}X_1^\top X_2v_2\right) + M_1X_2v_2 = 0 \implies v_1=v_2 = 0, $$ i.e., the columns of $\begin{pmatrix} X_1 & M_1X_2\end{pmatrix}$ are linearly independent.
A fortiori, $M_1X_2$ has full column rank, implying that $\left(M_1X_2\right)^\top M_1X_2 = X_2^\top M_1 X_2$ is positive-definite, thus invertible.

$\endgroup$

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.