arxiv: v1 [math.st] 20 Jun 2017

Transcription

1 On the joint asymptotic istribution of the restricte arxiv: v1 [math.st] 20 Jun 2017 estimators in multivariate regression moel Sévérien Nkurunziza an Youzhi Yu Abstract The main Theorem of Jain et al.[jain, K., Singh, S., an Sharma, S. (2011), Restricte estimation in multivariate measurement error regression moel; JMVA, 102, 2, ] is establishe in its full generality. Namely, we erive the joint asymptotic normality of the unrestricte estimator (UE) an the restricte estimators of the matrix of the regression coefficients. The erive result hols uner the hypothesize restriction as well as uner the sequence of alternative restrictions. In aition, we establish Asymptotic Distributional Risk for the estimators an compare their relative performance. It is establishe that near the restriction, the restricte estimators (REs) perform better than the UE. But the REs perform worse than the unrestricte estimator when one moves far away from the restriction. Keywors: ADR; Asymptotic normality; Measurement error; Multivariate regression moel; Restricte estimator; Unrestricte estimator. 1 Introuction In this paper, we are intereste in an estimation problem in multivariate ultrastructural measurement error moel with more than one response variable. In particular, as in Jain et al. (2011), we consier the case where the regression coefficients may satisfy some linear restriction. It is practical to use such moels in the real worl if there is at least two University of Winsor, epartment of Mathematics an Statistics, 401 Sunset Avenue, Winsor, Ontario, N9B severien@uwinsor.ca University of Winsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Winsor, Ontario, N9B yu13e@uwinsor.ca

2 correlate response variables. For example, in the fiel of meical sciences (see Dolby, 1976), more than one boy inex is often recore an the interest is to relate these measurements to the amount of ifferent nutrients in the aily iet. Similarly, as escribe in Bertsch et al. (1974), in the air pollution stuies, the observe chemical elements containe in the pollute air are lea, thorium an Uranium etc. It is highly likely that the variables involve in the stuy may possess some measurement errors. Following Maria (1980), multivariate regression is applicable in a wie range of situations, such as Economics (see Meeusen, 1997) an Biology (see Mcarle, 1988). We also refer to Stevens (2012) for a iscussion about the importance of regression moels in eucation an social-sciences. In this paper, we erive the asymptotic properties of the unrestricte an the restricte estimators of the regression coefficients in the multivariate regression moels with measurement errors, when the coefficients satisfy some restrictions. To give a close reference, we quote Jain et al. (2011) who erive the unrestricte an three restricte estimators for the regression coefficients, an erive a theorem (see Jain et al., Theorem 4.1) which gives the marginal asymptotic istributions of the estimators uner the restriction. To summarize the contribution of this paper, we generalize Theorem 4.1 of Jain et al. (2011) in three ways. First, we erive the joint asymptotic istribution of the unrestricte estimator an any member of the class of the restricte estimators uner the restriction. Secon, we erive the joint asymptotic istribution of the unrestricte estimator an any member of the class of the restricte estimators uner the sequence of local alternative restrictions. Thir, we erive the joint asymptotic istribution between the UE an all three restricte estimators given in Jain et al. (2011), uner the restriction an uner the sequence of local alternative restrictions. In aition, we establish the Asymptotic Distributional Risk (ADR) for the UE an the ADR of any member of the class of restricte estimators. We also compare the relative performance of the propose estimators. In particular, we prove that in the neighborhoo of the restriction, the restricte estimators ominate the unrestricte estimator. We also prove that as one moves far away from the restriction, the unrestricte estimator ominates the restricte estimators. Finally, we generalize roposition A.10 an Corollary A.2 in Chen an Nkurunziza (2016). The rest of this paper is organize as follows. Section 2 outlines some preliminary results given in Jain et al. (2011). In Section 3, we present the main results of this paper. 2

3 More specifically, in Subsection 3.1, we establish the joint asymptotic istribution between the unrestricte estimator (UE) an any member of the restricte estimators uner the restriction. In Subsection 3.2, we erive the joint asymptotic istributions between all estimators uner the sequence of the local alternative restrictions. In Subsection 3.3, we erive ADR for the UE an restricte estimators an in Subsection 3.4, we analyse the relative performance of the UE an the restricte estimators. Finally, Section 4 gives some the concluing remark of this paper, an for the convenience of the reaer, some technical results are given in the appenix. 2 Moel Specifications an preliminary results In this section, we escribe the multivariate regression moel with measurement error as well as the assumptions use in orer to establish the results of this paper. Following Jain et al. (2011), we consier the multivariate regression moel given by Z = DB +E, where Z is a n q matrix, D is a n p matrix, B is p q matrix of the regression coefficients an E is a n q matrix of error terms. We assume that Z is observable but D is not observable an can be observe only through X with aitional measurement error as X = D +, where X an are n p-ranom matrices. Further, we suppose that D = M +Ψ, where M is a n p-matrix of fixe components an Ψ is a n p-matrix of ranom components. We also suppose that some prior information about the regression coefficient B is available. In particular, for known matrices R 1,R 2 an θ, we suppose that R 1 BR 2 = θ, (2.1) where R 1 is r 1 p matrix, R 2 is a q r 2 matrix an θ is r 1 r 2 matrix. For the interpretation of the restriction in (2.1), R 1 imposes a linear restriction on the parameters of 3

4 iniviual equations while R 2 imposes a linear restriction across equations. For more etails about the interpretation of this restriction, we refer for example to Izenman (2008), Jain et al. (2011) an the references therein. To introuce some notations, letz (i) = [z 1i,z 2i,...,z ni ], let E (i) = [ǫ i1,ǫ i2,...ǫ iq ], let Z = [Z (1),Z (2),...,Z (q) ], E = [E (1),E (2),...,E (n) ]. Further, let = [ (1), (2),..., (n) ] an let (j) = [δ j1,δ j2,...,δ jp ] for j = 1,2,...,n, let M = [M (1),M (2),...,M (n) ] with M (j) = [M j1,m (j2),...,m (jp) ], an let Ψ (j) = [ψ j1,ψ j2,...,ψ jp ], j = 1,2,...,n. We also let I p to stan for the p-imensional ientity matrix. The following assumptions are mae in orer to erive the propose estimators an their asymptotic properties. Note that these conitions are similar to that in Jain et al. (2011). Assumption 1. (A 1 ) Elements of vector E (i) = [ǫ 1i,ǫ 21,...,ǫ ni ] are inepenent with mean 0, variance σǫ 2, thir moment γ 1ǫσǫ 3 an fourth moment (γ 2ǫ +3)σǫ 4; (A 2 ) δ ij are inepenent an ientically istribute ranom variables with mean 0, variance σ 2 δ, thir moment γ 1δ σ 3 δ an fourth moment (γ 2δ +3)σ 4 δ ; (A 3 ) Ψ ij are inepenent an ientically istribute ranom variables with mean 0, variance σ 2 Ψ, thir moment γ 1Ψ σ 3 Ψ an fourth moment (γ 2Ψ +3)σ 4 Ψ ; (A 4 ),Ψ, an E are mutually inepenent; (A 5 ) M (n) σ M as n an σ M is finite; (A 6 ) Rank(X)=p, Rank(R 1 )=r 1 an Rank(R 2 )=r Estimation methos In this subsection, we outline some results given in Jain et al. (2011) which are use to erive the main results of this paper. Namely, we present the unrestricte estimator (UE) an three restricte estimators (REs) of the regression coefficients. By using the class of objective functions given in Jain et al. (2011), we also present a class of the restricte estimators which inclues the three REs. For more etails about the content of this subsection, we refer to Jain et al. (2011). 4

5 2.1.1 The unrestricte estimator As in Jain et al. (2011), one consiers first the following objective function G 1 = tr((z XB) (Z XB)), which leas to the least squares estimators (LSE) ˆB = (X X) 1 X Z. (2.2) Uner parts (A 1 ) (A 5 ) of Assumption 1, one can verify that ˆB converges in probability to KB B, where K = Σ 1( Σ σ 2 δ I p) with Σ = σm σ M +σ2 ψ I p +σ 2 δ I p, an thus, ˆB is not a consistent estimator. Because of that, as in Jain et al. (2011), one replaces ˆB by ˆB 1 = K 1 X ˆB, (2.3) where K X = Σ 1 X Σ D with Σ X = n 1 M M + σ 2 ψ I p + σ 2 δ I p, Σ D = n 1 M M + σ 2 ψ I p. Further, as in Jain et al. (2011), one can verify that Σ X p Σ, an Σ D p Σ σ2 δ I p where Σ = [σ M σ M +σ2 ψ I p +σ δ 2 I p ]. As given in Jain et al. (2011), note that the estimator ˆB1 can be obtaine irectly by minimizing the objective function Ĝ 2 = G 1 tr[b (nσ X )(I p K X )B]. (2.4) For more etails, we refer to Jain et al. (2011). In the quote paper, the authors prove that B 1 is a consistent estimator for B. They also erive the following theorem which gives the asymptotic istribution of n( ˆB 1 B). To introuce some notations, let K X = (Σ X Σ D )Σ 1 X, H = 2X n 1 X n2σ 1 X, h = n 1 2(X [E B]) + n2σ 1 2 δ B, Λ = lim E{[vec(h )+vec(b K X H)][vec(h )+vec(b K X H)] } an let 0 be a zero-matrix. The existence of this matrix is establishe in Jain et al. (2011). Theorem 2.1. Suppose that Assumptions (A 1 )-(A 6 ) hol hol, we have n 1 2( ˆB 1 B) η 1 N p q (0,A 1 ΛA 1 ), where A 1 = (ΣK) 1 I q. The proof is similar to that given in Jain et al. (2011, see the proof of Theorem 4.1) A class of restricte estimators In this subsection, we present a class of estimators of B which are consistent an satisfy the restriction in (2.1). As commonly the case in constraine estimation, this is obtaine by 5

6 minimizing a certain objective function subject to the constraint. In particular, since the objective function Ĝ2 given in (2.4) leas to a consistent estimator, the RE can be obtaine by minimizing Ĝ2 subject to the constraint R 1 BR 2 = θ. The following proposition shows that the above objective function can be seen as a member of a certain class of objective functions. For more etails, we refer to Jain et al. (2011). roposition 2.1. We have Ĝ 2 = tr(z Z)+tr[( ˆB 1 B) (X X)K X ( ˆB 1 B)]. The proof follows irectly from algebraic computations. From roposition 2.1, as in Jain et al. (2011) one consiers below a more general class of objective functions. To this en, let p p enote the set of all observable p p-symmetric an positive efinite matrices an let {Ĝ3 (ˆΣ) = tr(( ˆB 1 B) ˆΣ( ˆB1 B)) : ˆΣ p p }. (2.5) Thus, Ĝ 2 is a member of this class with ˆΣ = (X X)K X. Other members of objective functions correspon to the cases where ˆΣ = S = X X an ˆΣ = ni p. For further etails about the objective function in (2.5), we refer to Jain et al. (2011). From the above class of objective function, one obtains a class of restricte estimators { B(ˆΣ) : ˆΣ p p } which satisfies the constraint R 1 BR 2 = θ. Namely, by using the Lagrangian metho, we get B(ˆΣ) = ˆB 1 (ˆΣ) 1 R 1 ] 1 ( ) [R 1 (ˆΣ) 1 R 1 R 1 ˆB1 R 2 θ (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2, (2.6) where ˆΣ is a known symmetric an positive efinite matrix. In particular, from (2.6), by replacing ˆΣ by (X X)K X, X X an ni p, respectively, one gets ˆB 2 = ˆB 1 (X XK X ) 1 R 1[R 1 (X XK X ) 1 R 1] 1 (R 1 ˆB1 R 2 θ)(r 2R 2 ) 1 R 2, (2.7) ˆB 3 = ˆB [ ] 1 ( ) 1 (X X) 1 R 1 R 1 (X X) 1 R 1 R 1 ˆB1 R 2 θ (R 2R 2 ) 1 R 2, (2.8) ˆB 4 = ˆB ( ) 1 ( ) 1 R 1 R 1 R 1 R 1 ˆB1 R 2 θ (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2. (2.9) Note that the estimators ˆB 2, ˆB3 an ˆB 4 are erive in Jain et al. (2011). Here, their erivation is given for the paper to be self-containe. 6

7 3 Main results In this section, we erive the joint asymptotic istribution of all estimators, uner the restriction as well as uner the sequence of local alternative restrictions. In particular, we generalize Theorem 4.1 in Jain et al. (2011) which gives the marginal asymptotic istributions uner the restriction. 3.1 Asymptotic properties uner the restriction In this subsection, we erive the joint asymptotic normality of the UE an any member of the restricte estimators, uner the restriction. We suppose that the weighting matrix ˆΣ satisfies the following assumption. Assumption 2. ˆΣ is such that 1 n ˆΣ Q 0 where Q 0 is nonranom an positive efinite matrix. Note that the matrices X XK X, X X an ni p satisfy Assumption 2 with the matrix Q 0 equals to ΣK, Σ an I p respectively. To set up some notations, let A 1 = (ΣK) 1 I q, let A 2 (Q 0 ) = A 1 (Q 0 ) 1 R 1 (R 1(Q 0 ) 1 R 1 ) 1 R 1 (ΣK) 1 R 2 (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2, Σ 11 = A 1 ΛA 1, Σ 22 (Q 0 ) = A 2 (Q 0 )ΛA 2(Q 0 ), Σ 21 (Q 0 ) = Σ 12(Q 0 ), (3.1) Σ 12 (Q 0 ) = A 1 ΛA 2(Q 0 ). ( Theorem 3.1. If Assumptions 1-2 hol an R 1 BR 2 = θ, we have ( ), )) n 1 1 ( 2 ˆB1 B n 2 ( B(ˆΣ) B η 1, ζ ) where η 1 N 2p q 0, Σ 11 Σ 12 (Q 0 ), (3.2) ζ 0 Σ 21 (Q 0 ) Σ 22 (Q 0 ) where Σ 11, Σ 12 (Q 0 ), Σ 21 (Q 0 ) an Σ 22 (Q 0 ) are efine in (3.1). The proof of this theorem is given in the Appenix. The above theorem generalizes Theorem 4.1 in Jain et al. (2011) in two ways. First, the estimator ˆB(ˆΣ) encloses as special cases the restricte estimators ˆB 2, ˆB3 an ˆB 4. Secon, the above result gives the joint asymptotic istribution between the UE an any member of the class of restricte 7

8 estimators; from which the marginal asymptotic istribution follows irectly. Inee, if Q 0 is taken as KΣ, Σ an I p, respectively, the above result gives the asymptotic istribution ( ) ( ) ( ) of n 1/2 ˆB2 B, n 1/2 ˆB3 B, an n 1/2 ˆB4 B given in Jain et al. (2011). Below, we give another generalization of the limiting istributions given in Jain et al. (2011). In particular, we establish the joint asymptotic normality between the estimators ˆB 1, ˆB2, ˆB3 an ˆB 4, uner the sequence of local alternative restrictions. On the top of this result, as intermeiate step, we also generalize roposition A.10 an Corollary A.2 in Chen an Nkurunziza (2016). 3.2 Asymptotic results uner local alternative In this subsection, we present the asymptotic properties of the UE an the restricte estimators uner the following sequence of local alternative restrictions R 1 BR 2 = θ + θ 0 n, n = 1,2,... (3.3) where θ 0 is fixe with θ 0 <. Note that if θ 0 = 0 in (3.3), then (3.3) becomes (2.1). Thus, the results establishe uner (3.3) generalize the results given in Jain et al. (2011), which are establishe uner (2.1). Theorem 3.2. Suppose that ( Assumptions 1 an 2 hol along with the sequence of local ( ), ) ) alternative in (3.3), then n 1 ( 2 ˆB1 B ( B(ˆΣ) B η 1, η ) where η 1 N 2p q 0, Σ 11 Σ 12 (Q 0 ), (3.4) η µ(q 0 ) Σ 21 (Q 0 ) Σ 22 (Q 0 ) where µ(q 0 ) = Q 1 0 R 1 (R 1Q 1 0 R 1 ) 1 θ 0 (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2,, Σ 11, Σ 12 (Q 0 ), Σ 21 (Q 0 ) an Σ 12 (Q 0 ) are efine as in Theorem 3.1. The proof of this theorem is given in the Appenix. By using the similar techniques, we establish the joint istribution of the UE an the restricte estimators given in (2.7), (2.8) 8

9 an (2.9). To introuce some notations, let A 2 = A 1 (ΣK) 1 R 1 (R 1(ΣK) 1 R 1 ) 1 R 1 (ΣK) 1 R 2 (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2, A 3 = A 1 (Σ) 1 R 1 (R 1(Σ) 1 R 1 ) 1 R 1 (ΣK) 1 R 2 (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2, A 4 = A 1 R 1(R 1 R 1) 1 R 1 (ΣK) 1 R 2 (R 2R 2 ) 1 R 2, Σ ij = A i ΛA j,i = 1,2,3,4,j = 1,2,3,4, µ 2 = (ΣK) 1 R 1 (R 1(ΣK) 1 R 1 ) 1 θ 0 (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2, µ 3 = Σ 1 R 1 (R 1Σ 1 R 1 ) 1 θ 0 (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2,µ 4 = R 1 (R 1R 1 ) 1 θ 0 (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2. ( Theorem 3.3. If Assumption 1 hols along with (3.3), we have ( ), ( ) n 1 1, ( ) 1, ( ) ) 1 2 ˆB1 B n 2 ˆB2 B n 2 ˆB3 B n 2 ˆB4 B η where η = η 1 η 2 η 3 η 4 N 4p q 0 Σ 11 Σ 12 Σ 13 Σ 14 Σ, 21 Σ 22 Σ 23 Σ 24. (3.5) Σ 31 Σ 32 Σ 33 Σ 34 Σ 41 Σ 32 Σ 43 Σ 44 µ 2 µ 3 µ 4 The proof of this theorem is given in the Appenix. Since the sequence of local alternative inclues as a special case the restriction, one euces the following corollary. Corollary ( 3.1. If Assumption 1 hols an R 1 BR 2 = θ, we have (, (, (, ( ) ) n 1 2 ˆB1 B) ˆB2 B) ˆB3 B) ˆB4 B (η 1, ζ 2, ζ 3, ζ 4 ) where η 1 ζ 2 ζ 3 ζ 4 0 Σ 11 Σ 12 Σ 13 Σ 14 0 Σ N 4p q, 21 Σ 22 Σ 23 Σ 24. (3.6) 0 Σ 31 Σ 32 Σ 33 Σ 34 0 Σ 41 Σ 32 Σ 43 Σ 44 The proof follows irectly from Theorem 3.3 by taking θ 0 = Asymptotic Distributional Risk Asymptotic Distributional Risk (ADR) is one of the important statistical tools to compare ifferent estimators. In this subsection, we erive ADR of the UE an that of any member of the propose class of the restricte estimators, i.e. ADR of ˆB1 an B(ˆΣ). Recall that, 9

10 if n(ˆθ θ) U, where ˆθ, θ an U are matrices. The ADR is efine as ADR(ˆθ,θ;W) = E[tr(U WU)], where W is a weighting matrix. For more etails about the ADR, we refer for example to Saleh (2006), Chen an Nkurunziza (2015, 2016) an references therein. To introuce some notations, let C 3 (Q 0 ) = Q 1 0 R 1 (R 1Q 1 0 R 1 ) 1, C 4 = (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2, J 1(Q 0 ) = C 3 (Q 0 )R 1 Q 1 0 an J = R 2 C 4. Theorem 3.4. Suppose that the conitions of Theorem 3.2 hol, then ADR( ˆB 1,B;W) = tr((w I q )(A 1 ΛA 1)), ADR( B(ˆΣ),B,W) = ADR( ˆB 1,B,W) f 1 (Q 0 )+(vec(θ 0 )) F 1 (Q 0 )vec(θ 0 ), with f 1 (Q 0 ) = tr(((j 1 (Q 0)W J) I pq )vec(((σk) 1 I q ))(vec(λ)) ) an F 1 (Q 0 ) = C 3 (Q 0)WC 3 (Q 0 ) (R 2 R 2) 1. The proof of this theorem follows from Theorem 3.1. For the convenience of the reaer, it is also outline in the Appenix. 3.4 Risk Analysis In this section, we compare ADR( B(ˆΣ),B,W) an ADR( ˆB 1,B;W) in orer to evaluate the relative performance of B(ˆΣ) an ˆB 1. To simply some notations, for a given symmetric matrix A, let ch min (A) an ch max (A) be, respectively, the smallest an largest eigenvalues of A. Theorem 3.5. Suppose that the conitions of Theorem 3.4 hol. If θ 0 2 f 1 (Q 0 ) < ch max (F 1 (Q 0 )), then ADR( B(ˆΣ),B,W) ADR( ˆB 1,B;W). If θ 0 2 f 1 (Q 0 ) > ch min (F 1 (Q 0 )), then ADR( B(ˆΣ),B,W) > ADR( ˆB 1,B;W). The proof of this theorem is given in the Appenix. Remark 3.1. Since ADR( B(ˆΣ),B,W) an ADR( ˆB 1,B;W) are positive real numbers, ADR( B(ˆΣ),B,W) ADR( ˆB 1,B;W) iff ADR( ˆB 1,B;W) / ADR( B(ˆΣ),B,W) 1. This ratio is known as the mean squares relative efficiency (RE). In presenting the simulation results, we compare the estimators by using the RE. 10

11 4 Concluing Remarks In this paper, we stuy the asymptotic properties of the UE an the restricte estimators of the regression coefficients of multivariate regression moel with measurement errors, when the coefficients may satisfy some restrictions. In comparison with the finings in literature, we generalize roposition A.10 an Corollary A.2 in Chen an Nkurunziza (2016). Further, we generalize Theorem 4.1 of Jain et al. (2011) in three ways. First, we erive the joint asymptotic istribution between the UE an any member of the class of the restricte estimators uner the restriction. Recall that, in the quote paper, only the marginal asymptotic normality is erive uner the restriction. Secon, we erive the joint asymptotic normality between the UE an any member of the class of the restricte estimators uner the sequence of local alternative restrictions. Thir, we establish the joint asymptotic istribution between the UE an the three restricte estimators, given in Jain et al. (2011), uner the restriction an uner the sequence of local alternative restrictions. Further, we establish the ADR of the UE an the ADR of any member of the class of restricte estimators uner the sequence of local alternative restrictions. We also stuy the risk analysis an establish that the restricte estimators perform better than the unrestricte estimator in the neighborhoo of the restriction. Acknowlegement The authors woul like to acknowlege the financial support receive from the Natural Sciences an Engineering Research Council of Canaa (NSERC). A Some technical results In this appenix, we give technical results an proofs which are unerlying the establishe results. The following lemma is useful in establishing the asymptotic istributions. Lemma A.1. Let Y be a p q ranom matrix an Y N p q (O,Λ), with Λ a pq pq matrix. For j = 1,2,...,m, let κ j an α j be p p nonranom matrices, let ι j an β j be q q-nonranom matrices, an let j be p q-nonranom matrices. Then 11

12 κ 1 Y ι 1 +α 1 Y β κ 2 Y ι 2 +α 2 Y β N mq p 1 2., A 11 A 12 A 1m A 21 A 22 A 2m.., where κ m Y ι m +α m Y β m + m A ji = (A ij ),i,j = 1,2,...,m, an m A m1 A m2 A mm A ij = (κ i ι i)λ(κ j ι j )+(κ i ι i)λ(α j β j )+(α i β i)λ(α j β j ) +(α i β i )Λ(α j β j). roof. We have κ 1 Y ι 1 +α 1 Y β κ 1 ι 1 +α 1 β 1 vec( 1) κ vec 2 Y ι 2 +α 2 Y β κ = 2 ι 2 +α 2 β 2 vec( 2) vec(y )+... κ m Y ι m +α m Y β m + m κ m ι m +α m β m vec( m) then the rest of the proof follows from the properties of normal ranom vectors along with some algebraic computations, this completes the proof. Note that this result is more general than Corollary A.2 in Chen an Nkurunziza (2016). By using this lemma, we establish the following lemma, which is more general than roposition A.10 an Corollary A.2 in Chen an Nkurunziza (2016).The establishe lemma is particularly useful in eriving the joint asymptotic normality between ˆB 1, ˆB2, ˆB 3 an ˆB 4. Lemma A.2. For j = 1,2,...,m, let {κ jn } n=1, {ι jn} n=1 {α jn} n=1,{β jn} n=1, { jn} n=1, be sequences of ranom matrices such that κ jn β jn κ j, ι jn ι j, α jn α j, β j, jn j, where, for j = 1,2,...,m, κ j, α j, ι j an β j, j, are nonranom matrices as efine in Lemma A.1. If a sequence of p q ranom matrices {Y n } n=1 is such that Y n Y N p q(0,λ), where Λ is a pq pq matrix. We have κ 1n Y n ι 1n +α 1n Y n β 1n + 1n κ 2n Y n ι 2n +α 2n Y n β 2n + 2n. U N mq p(, A) κ mn Y n ι mn +α mn Y n β mn + mn 12

13 1 A 11 A 12 A 1m 2 A with =, A = 21 A 22 A 2m,... m A m1 A m2 A mm where A ij, i = 1,2,...,m;j = 1,2,...,m are as efine in Lemma A.1. roof. We have vec(κ 1n Y n ι 1n +α 1n Y n β 1n + 1n ) κ 1n ι 1n +α 1n β 1n vec(κ 2n Y n ι 2n +α 2n Y n β 2n + 2n ) κ = 2n ι 2n +α 2n β 2n vec(y n ).. vec(κ mn Y n ι mn +α mn Y n β mn + mn ) κ mn ι mn +α mn β mn vec( 1n ) vec( 2n ) +,. vec( mn ) where vec(y n ) an vec(y ) N pq(0,λ), κ 1n ι 1n +α 1n β 1n κ 2n ι 2n +α 2n β 2n. vec( 1n ) vec( 2n ). vec( mn ) κ 1 ι 1 +α 1 β 1 κ 2 ι 2 +α 2 β 2. vec( 1) vec( 2),. vec( m). κ mn ι mn +α mn β mn κ m ι m +α m β m Then, by using Slutsky s theorem, we have κ 1n Y n ι 1n +α 1n Y n β 1n + 1n κ 1 Y ι 1 +α 1 Y β κ vec 2n Y n ι 2n +α 2n Y n β 2n + 2n. κ 2 Y ι 2 +α 2 Y β κ mn Y n ι mn +α mn Y n β mn + mn κ m Y ι m +α m Y β m + m an then 13

14 κ 1n Y n ι 1n +α 1n Y n β 1n + 1n κ 1 Y ι 1 +α 1 Y β κ 2n Y n ι 2n +α 2n Y n β 2n + 2n κ 2 Y ι 2 +α 2 Y β κ mn Y n ι mn +α mn Y n β mn + mn κ m Y ι m +α m Y β m + m Then, the proof follows irectly from Lemma A.1. U. From this lemma, we establish the following corollary. Corollary A.1. Suppose that the conitions Lemma A.2 hol. We have (Y n,(y n +α 2n Y n β 2n + 2n ) ) (Y,(Y +α 2 Y β 2 + 2) ), with Y N 2q p 0 2, V 11 V 12 Y +α 2 Y β V 21 V 22 where V 11 = Λ; V 12 = Λ+Λ(α 2 β 2); V 21 = (V 12 ) ; V 22 = (I pq +α 2 β 2 )Λ(I pq +α 2 β 2). The proof follows irectly from Lemma A.2 by taking m = 2, κ jn = I p, ι jn = I q, α 1n = 0, β 1n = 0 an 1n = 0. roof of Theorem 3.2. We have ( ˆB(ˆΣ) B) = ( ˆB 1 B)+(ˆΣ) 1 R 1[R 1 (ˆΣ) 1 R 1] 1 (θ R 1 ˆB1 R 2 )(R 2R 2 ) 1 R 2 = ( ˆB ( ) 1 B) G 2n (W 0 )R 1 ˆB1 B R 2 n +G 2n (W 0 )(θ R 1 B 1 R 2 ) n. with G 2n (W 0 ) = (ˆΣ) 1 R 1 [R 1(ˆΣ) 1 R 1 ] 1 an n = (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2. Then, since R 1 BR 2 = θ +θ 0 / n, this last relation gives ) n ( ˆB(ˆΣ) B) = n 2 ( ˆB1 B) G 2n (W 0 )R 1 (n 1 2 ( ˆB1 B) R 2 n G 2n (W 0 )θ 0 n. Hence, n( ˆB1 B) n( ˆB(ˆΣ) B) = n2( 1 ˆB 1 B) n2( 1 ˆB 1 B) G 2n (W 0 )R 1 (n 1 2( ˆB ) 1 B) R 2 n + 0 G 2n (W 0 )θ 0 n. 14

15 Note that G 2n G 2(Q 0 ) an n, with G 2(Q 0 ) = (Q 0 ) 1 R 1 (R 1(Q 0 ) 1 R 1 ) 1 an = (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2. Further, let α = G 2(Q 0 )R 1, let β = R 2 an let = G 2 (Q 0 )θ 0. By using Corollary A.1, we have n( ˆB1 B) Y n( ˆB(ˆΣ) B) Y +αy β + N 2q p 0, Σ 11 Σ 12 (Q 0 ), µ(q 0 ) Σ 21 (Q 0 ) Σ 22 (Q 0 ) this completes the proof. roof of Theorem 3.1. The proof follows from Theorem 3.2 by taking µ(q 0 ) = 0. roof of Theorem 3.3. From (2.7), (2.8) an (2.9), we have n2( 1 ˆB 2 B) = n 1 2( ˆB 1 B) n2g 1 2n R 1 ( ˆB 1 B)R 2 n +n 1 2G 2n (θ R 1 BR 2 ) n n 1 2( ˆB 3 B) = n2( 1 ˆB 1 B)+n2G 1 3n (θ R 1 ˆB1 R 2 ) n n 1 2 ( ˆB4 B) = n 1 2 ( ˆB1 B) n 1 2 G4n R 1 ( ˆB 1 B)R 2 n +n 1 2 G4n (θ R 1 BR 2 ) n. with G 2n = (SK X ) 1 R 1 [R 1(SK X ) 1 R 1 ] 1, S = X X, G 3n = S 1 R 1 [R 1S 1 R 1 ] 1, G 4n = R 1 [R 1R 1 ] 1, n = (R 2 R 2) 1 R 2. Then, since R 1BR 2 = θ +θ 0 / n, we have n 1 2( ˆB 2 B) = n 1 2( ˆB 1 B) n 1 2G 2n R 1 ( ˆB 1 B)R 2 n +G 2n θ 0 n n 1 2 ( ˆB3 B) = n 1 2 ( ˆB1 B) n 1 2 G3n R 1 ( ˆB 1 B)R 2 n +G 3n θ 0 n. n 1 2( ˆB 4 B) = n 1 2( ˆB 1 B) n 1 2G 4n R 1 ( ˆB 1 B)R 2 n +G 4n θ 0 n. Therefore, n2( 1 ˆB 1 B) n2( 1 ˆB 2 B) n2( 1 ˆB 3 B) n2( 1 ˆB 4 B) = n 1 2( ˆB 1 B) n 1 2( ˆB 1 B) G 2n R 1 (n2( 1 ˆB ) 1 B) R 2 n +G 2n θ 0 n n 1 2( ˆB 1 B) G 3n R 1 (n2( 1 ˆB ) 1 B) R 2 n +G 3n θ 0 n n 1 2( ˆB 1 B) G 4n R 1 (n2( 1 ˆB ) 1 B) R 2 n +G 4n θ 0 n, with n 1 2( ˆB 1 B) G 2n η 1 N p q (O,Σ 11 ), G 2 = (ΣK) 1 R 1 (R 1(ΣK) 1 R 1 ) 1, G 3n G 4n G 4 = R 1 (R 1R 1 ) 1, n Lemma A.2, we get the statement of the proposition. = (R 2 R 2) 1 R G 3 = Σ 1 R 1 (R 1Σ 1 R 1 ) 1, Therefore, by using

16 roof of Theorem 3.4. The first statement follows from Theorem 3.2. Further, we have, ( ) ADR B(ˆΣ),B,W = tr [ (W I q )E [ vec(η )(vec(η )) ]] = tr((w I q )(Σ 22 (Q 0 )))+tr ( µ (Q 0 )Wµ(Q 0 ) ). This gives ADR( B(ˆΣ),B,W) = ADR( ˆB 1,B;W) tr((w I q )(A 1 Λ(J 1 (Q 0) J)) tr((w I q )((J 1 (Q 0 ) J)ΛA 1 )+tr((w I q)((j 1 (Q 0 ) J)Λ(J 1 (Q 0) J))) +tr((c 4 C 4) (C 3(Q 0 )WC 3 (Q 0 ))vec(θ 0 )(vec(θ 0 )) ). Further, one can verify that vec(j 1 (Q 0 ) J) = vec((σk) 1 I q ). Then, the rest of the proof follows from some algebraic computations. roof of Theorem 3.5. From Theorem 3.4, we have ADR( B(ˆΣ),B,W) = ADR( ˆB 1,B,W) f 1 (Q 0 )+(vec(θ 0 )) F 1 (Q 0 )vec(θ 0 ). (A.1) Note that f 1 (Q 0 ) 0 an obviously, if f 1 (Q 0 ) = 0, ADR( B(ˆΣ),B;W) >ADR( ˆB 1,B,W) provie that (vec(θ 0 )) F 1 (Q 0 )vec(θ 0 ) > 0. Thus, we only consier the case where f 1 (Q 0 ) > 0. From (A.1), ADR( B(ˆΣ),B;W) >ADR( ˆB 1,B,W) if an only if f 1 (Q 0 )+(vec(θ 0 )) F 1 (Q 0 )vec(θ 0 ) > 0. If f 1 (Q 0 ) < (vec(θ 0 )) F 1 (Q 0 )vec(θ 0 ), we have f 1 (Q 0 ) (vec(θ 0 )) F 1 (Q 0 )vec(θ 0 ) < 1, an (vec(θ 0)) f 1 (Q 0 ) vec(θ 0 ) (vec(θ 0 )) F 1 (Q 0 )vec(θ 0 ) < θ 0 2. Further, since f 1 (Q 0 ) > 0, we have Further, by using Courant Theorem, we have (vec(θ 0 )) F 1 (Q 0 )vec(θ 0 ) (vec(θ 0 )) vec(θ 0 )f 1 > 1 θ 0 2. ch min (F 1 (Q 0 )) < (vec(θ 0)) F 1 (Q 0 )vec(θ 0 ) (vec(θ 0 )) vec(θ 0 ) Therefore, for the inequality in (A.2) to hol, it suffices to have 1 θ 0 2 < ch min(f 1 (Q 0 )). f 1 (Q 0 ) (A.2) < ch max (F 1 (Q 0 )). (A.3) That is if θ 0 2 f 1 (Q 0 ) > ch min (F 1 (Q 0 )), we have ADR( B(ˆΣ),B,W) > ADR( ˆB 1,B;W). Further, if f 1 (Q 0 ) > (vec(θ 0 )) F 1 (Q 0 )vec(θ 0 ), by using (A.3), we establish the conition that if θ 0 2 f 1 (Q 0 ) < ch max (F 1 (Q 0 )), then ADR( B(ˆΣ),B,W) < ADR( ˆB 1,B;W), this completes the proof. 16

17 References [1] Bertsch, W., Chang, R. C, an Zlatkis, A. (1974). The etermination of organic volatiles in air pollution stuies: characterization of proles. Journal of chromatographic science, 12(4): [2] Chen, F., an Nkurunziza, S. (2015). Optimal metho in multiple regression with structural changes. Bernoulli, 21(4): [3] Chen, F., an Nkurunziza, S. (2016). A class of Stein-rules in Multivariate Regression Moel with Structural Changes. Scaninavian Journal of Statistics, 43: [4] Dolby, G. R. (1976). The ultrastructural relation: a synthesis of the functional an structural relations. Biometrika, 63(1): [5] Izenman, A. J. (2008). Moern multivariate statistical techniques: Regression, classification an manifol learning. Springer Science+Business Meia, LLC, New York. [6] Jain, K., Singh, S., an Sharma, S. (2011). Restricte estimation in multivariate measurement error regression moel. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 102(2): [7] Maria, K. V., Kent, J. T., an Bibby, J. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis, 1st eition, Acaemic press. [8] McArle, B. H. (1988). The structural relationship: regression in biology. Canaian Journal of Zoology, 66(11): [9] Saleh, A.K. M E. (2006). Theory of preliminary test an Stein-type estimation with applications, volume 517. John Wiley & Sons. [10] Stevens, J.,. (2012). Applie multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routlege. 17