A score based approach to wild bootstrap inference
Abstract
We propose a generalization of the wild bootstrap of Wu (1986) and Liu (1988) based upon perturbing the scores of M-estimators. This "score bootstrap" procedure avoids recomputing the estimator in each bootstrap iteration, making it substantially less costly to compute than the conventional nonparametric bootstrap, particularly in complex nonlinear models. Despite this computational advantage, in the linear model, the score bootstrap studentized test statistic is equivalent to that of the conventional wild bootstrap up to order Op(n-1). We establish the consistency of the procedure for Wald and Lagrange Multiplier type tests and tests of moment restrictions for a wide class of M-estimators under clustering and potential misspecification. In an extensive series of Monte Carlo experiments, we find that the performance of the score bootstrap is comparable to competing approaches despite its computational savings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The validity of the 'cluster-robust' multiplier bootstrap procedure relies on the number of clusters being 'large.'
“provided that the number of cluster is 'large.'”
From Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods (2021) · cites this paper as Kline and Santos (2012)
Cites
Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811241 · Cited by 8,092 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods
Callaway, B., & Sant’Anna, P. H. C. (2021) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001 · Cited by 9,126 · see citing works
Fast and wild: Bootstrap inference in Stata using boottest
Roodman, D., Nielsen, M. Ø., MacKinnon, J. G., & Webb, M. D. (2019) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x19830877 · Cited by 1,007 · see citing works
Program evaluation and causal inference with high-dimensional data
Belloni, A., Chernozhukov, V., Fern�ndez-Val, I., & Hansen, C. (2017) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta12723 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
The impact of Covid-19 on student achievement: Evidence from a recent meta-analysis
Di Pietro, G. (2023) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100530 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
The Wild Bootstrap with a “Small” Number of “Large” Clusters
Canay, I. A., Santos, A., & Shaikh, A. M. (2021) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00887 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Self-citationJoint analysis of SNP and gene expression data in genetic association studies of complex diseases
Huang, Y.-T., VanderWeele, T. J., & Lin, X. (2014) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/13-aoas690 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kline, P., & Santos, A.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Econometric Methods
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2012-08-24
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-41
- ISSN
- 2156-6674 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2088869467
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 4.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Econometric Methods (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
- Keywords
- wild bootstrap, M-estimation, bootstrap inference, Wald test, score test, clustering, model misspecification, computational efficiency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review