We study linear subset regression in the context of the high-dimensional overall model $y = \vartheta +\theta ' z + \epsilon $ with univariate response y and a d-vector of random regressors z, independent of $\epsilon $. Here, “high-dimensional” means that the number d of available explanatory variables is much larger than the number n of observations. We consider simple linear submodels where y is regressed on a set of p regressors given by $x = M'z$, for some $d \times p$ matrix M of full rank $p < n$. The corresponding simple model, that is, $y=\alpha +\beta ' x + e$, is usually justified by imposing appropriate restrictions on the unknown parameter $\theta $ in the overall model; otherwise, this simple model can be grossly misspecified in the sense that relevant variables may have been omitted. In this paper, we establish asymptotic validity of the standard F-test on the surrogate parameter $\beta $, in an appropriate sense, even when the simple model is misspecified, that is, without any restrictions on $\theta $ whatsoever and without assuming Gaussian data.

In our paper published in vol. 22, no. 1, of Econometric Theory (2006, pp. 69–97) the proof of (22) in Lemma 3.1 is incorrect as given. The problem in the proof occurs after the first display on p. 93 where we attempted to deduce (22) from the already established relation (21). The argument given there is incorrect, because an existence-quantor was mistaken for an all-quantor. We show how the problem can be repaired. In the course of this, we also note a useful variant of another result in Lemma 3.1.

We consider the problem of estimating the unconditional distribution of a post-model-selection estimator. The notion of a post-model-selection estimator here refers to the combined procedure resulting from first selecting a model (e.g., by a model-selection criterion such as the Akaike information criterion [AIC] or by a hypothesis testing procedure) and then estimating the parameters in the selected model (e.g., by least squares or maximum likelihood), all based on the same data set. We show that it is impossible to estimate the unconditional distribution with reasonable accuracy even asymptotically. In particular, we show that no estimator for this distribution can be uniformly consistent (not even locally). This follows as a corollary to (local) minimax lower bounds on the performance of estimators for the distribution; performance is here measured by the probability that the estimation error exceeds a given threshold. These lower bounds are shown to approach ½ or even 1 in large samples, depending on the situation considered. Similar impossibility results are also obtained for the distribution of linear functions (e.g., predictors) of the post-model-selection estimator.The research of the first author was supported by the Max Kade Foundation and by the Austrian National Science Foundation (FWF), Grant no. P13868-MAT. A preliminary draft of the material in this paper was written in 1999.

Model selection procedures have become an integral part of almost any statistical or econometric analysis of data. Prominent examples include the selection of explanatory variables in (non)linear regression or lag-length selection in time series models. It is safe to say that these methods have become an integral part of the toolbox of modern data analysis. Moreover, research on model selection (or related procedures such as model averaging and shrinkage procedures) and its implications for statistical analysis has intensified in recent years. This is witnessed by the fact that it is difficult to pick up any recent issue of an econometrics or statistics journal and avoid encountering a paper where some form of model selection, or model averaging, or general shrinkage estimation is considered.

We consider the problem of estimating measures of precision of shrinkage-type estimators such as their risk or distribution. The notion of shrinkage-type estimators here refers to estimators such as the James–Stein estimator and Lasso-type estimators, in addition to “thresholding” estimators such as, e.g., Hodges' so-called superefficient estimator. Although the precision measures of such estimators typically can be estimated consistently, we show that they cannot be estimated uniformly consistently (even locally). This follows as a corollary to (locally) uniform lower bounds on the performance of estimators of the precision measures that we obtain in the paper. These lower bounds are typically quite large (e.g., they approach ½ or 1 depending on the situation considered). The analysis is based on some general lower risk bounds and related general results on the (non)existence of uniformly consistent estimators also obtained in the paper.A preliminary draft of the results in Section 3 of this paper was written in 1999.

Model selection has an important impact on subsequent inference. Ignoring the model selection step leads to invalid inference. We discuss some intricate aspects of data-driven model selection that do not seem to have been widely appreciated in the literature. We debunk some myths about model selection, in particular the myth that consistent model selection has no effect on subsequent inference asymptotically. We also discuss an “impossibility” result regarding the estimation of the finite-sample distribution of post-model-selection estimators.

In Pötscher (1991, Econometric Theory 7, 163–185) the asymptotic distribution of a post-model-selection estimator, both unconditional and conditional on selecting a correct model (minimal or not), has been derived. Limitations of these results are (i) that they do not provide information on the distribution of the post-model-selection estimator conditional on selecting an incorrect model and (ii) that the quality of this asymptotic approximation to the finite-sample distribution is not uniform with respect to the underlying parameters. In the present paper we first obtain the unconditional and also the conditional finite-sample distribution of the post-model-selection estimator, which turn out to be complicated and difficult to interpret. Second, we obtain approximations to the finite-sample distributions that are as simple and easy to interpret as the asymptotic distributions obtained in Pötscher (1991) but at the same time are close to the finite-sample distributions uniformly with respect to the underlying parameters. As a by-product, we also obtain the asymptotic distribution conditional on selecting an incorrect model.We thank the co-editor Richard Smith and the two referees for helpful comments on a previous version of this paper. Hannes Leeb's research was supported by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF), project P13868-MAT.

For a process with stationary first differences a necessary and sufficient condition for the variance of the process to be unbounded is given. An example shows that the variance of an integrated process—although unbounded—need not diverge to infinity. Sufficient conditions for the variance of an integrated process to diverge to infinity are provided.