Tutorials › Multivariate Statistics (Graduate) › Wald Test From the Unrestricted Estimate

Hypothesis Testing in Linear Models · Tutorial 320 of 975

Wald Test From the Unrestricted Estimate

Learn to construct and interpret the Wald statistic for a matrix restriction using the unrestricted multivariate regression estimate.

Intermediate 10 min read

What You'll Learn

  • Express a multivariate linear hypothesis as a restriction on the coefficient matrix.
  • Derive the covariance of the restricted unrestricted estimate.
  • Form the Wald statistic using known or estimated error covariance.
  • Establish the exact null distribution when the error covariance is known.
  • Use the plug-in Wald statistic and distinguish its asymptotic reference from an exact finite-sample one.
  • Compute Wald statistics for scalar and matrix-valued restrictions.

Why the Unrestricted Estimate Gives a Wald Test

A Wald test asks whether the unrestricted estimate lies far from the set of coefficient values allowed by a null hypothesis, after measuring that distance in units of its sampling uncertainty. For a multivariate response, the restriction and its estimate are matrices. The Wald statistic combines their entries while accounting for dependence both among coefficients and among responses.

The key construction is to estimate the restriction in the unrestricted model, find its covariance, and form a squared distance using the inverse covariance. This makes the test sensitive to the uncertainty and correlation structure rather than simply summing unscaled squared discrepancies.

Model, Restriction, and Covariance

Consider the Gaussian multivariate linear model

$$ Y=XB+U, $$

where \(Y\) is an \(n\times p\) response matrix, \(X\) is a fixed \(n\times k\) design matrix of full column rank, and \(B\) is a \(k\times p\) coefficient matrix. The rows of \(U\) are independent \(N_p(0,\Sigma)\), with \(\Sigma\) positive definite. Write \(G=(X'X)^{-1}\) and let \(\hat B=GY'_{\!X}\), equivalently \(\hat B=(X'X)^{-1}X'Y\), be the unrestricted least-squares estimate.

We test the matrix-valued linear restriction \(CBM=\Theta\). Here \(C\) is a fixed \(q\times k\) matrix of row rank \(q\), \(M\) is a fixed \(p\times s\) matrix of column rank \(s\), and \(\Theta\) is a specified \(q\times s\) matrix. Thus \(CBM\) selects and combines coefficient directions and response directions. Its unrestricted estimate is \(C\hat B M\), and its discrepancy from the null value is

$$ D=C\hat B M-\Theta. $$

For a matrix \(A\), \(\operatorname{vec}(A)\) stacks its columns into a vector. We use the identity \(\operatorname{vec}(ABC)=(C'\otimes A)\operatorname{vec}(B)\), where \(\otimes\) denotes the Kronecker product.

Definition: The Wald statistic for \(CBM=\Theta\) is the squared Mahalanobis distance of \(\operatorname{vec}(C\hat B M-\Theta)\) from zero, using the covariance matrix of \(\operatorname{vec}(C\hat B M)\). For known \(\Sigma\), this covariance is \((M'\Sigma M)\otimes(CGC')\). When \(\Sigma\) is unknown, the usual Wald statistic replaces it with an estimate.

Deriving the Wald Statistic

Since \(\operatorname{vec}(Y)=\operatorname{vec}(XB)+\operatorname{vec}(U)\), the covariance of \(\operatorname{vec}(U)\) is \(\Sigma\otimes I_n\). The least-squares estimate satisfies \(\hat B-B=GX'U\). Applying the vec identity gives

$$ \operatorname{vec}(\hat B-B) =(I_p\otimes GX')\operatorname{vec}(U). $$

The covariance rule \(\operatorname{Cov}(AZ)=A\operatorname{Cov}(Z)A'\) therefore yields

$$ \begin{aligned} \operatorname{Cov}\{\operatorname{vec}(\hat B-B)\} &=(I_p\otimes GX')(\Sigma\otimes I_n)(I_p\otimes XG)\\ &=\Sigma\otimes(GX'XG)\\ &=\Sigma\otimes G. \end{aligned} $$

Using the vec identity again for \(C(\hat B-B)M\), its vectorized form is \((M'\otimes C)\operatorname{vec}(\hat B-B)\). Consequently,

$$ \begin{aligned} \operatorname{Cov}\{\operatorname{vec}(C\hat B M)\} &=(M'\otimes C)(\Sigma\otimes G)(M\otimes C')\\ &=(M'\Sigma M)\otimes(CGC'). \end{aligned} $$

Both factors are positive definite: \(CGC'\) is positive definite because \(G\) is positive definite and \(C\) has full row rank; \(M'\Sigma M\) is positive definite because \(\Sigma\) is positive definite and \(M\) has full column rank. The covariance is therefore invertible, with inverse \((M'\Sigma M)^{-1}\otimes(CGC')^{-1}\).

Theorem: If \(\Sigma\) is known and the null hypothesis \(CBM=\Theta\) is true, then the Wald statistic
$$ W_0= \operatorname{vec}(D)' \left\{(M'\Sigma M)\otimes(CGC')\right\}^{-1} \operatorname{vec}(D) = \operatorname{tr}\left\{(CGC')^{-1}D(M'\Sigma M)^{-1}D'\right\} $$

has a \(\chi^2_{qs}\) distribution.

Proof. Under the null, \(E[\operatorname{vec}(C\hat B M)]=\operatorname{vec}(\Theta)\). The estimate is a linear transformation of the Gaussian matrix \(Y\), so the centered vector \(\operatorname{vec}(D)\) is multivariate normal with mean zero and the covariance just derived. For any mean-zero normal vector \(Z\) with positive-definite covariance \(\Omega\), \(\Omega^{-1/2}Z\) is normal with identity covariance. Its squared Euclidean length is chi-square with degrees of freedom equal to its dimension. Here that dimension is \(qs\), so \(W_0\sim\chi^2_{qs}\). The trace expression follows from the vec identity for quadratic forms and the Kronecker inverse rule. \(\square\)

The degrees of freedom count the \(qs\) independent entries of the restricted matrix, not the total number \(kp\) of coefficients. The rank conditions above ensure that the restriction covariance has that full dimension.

Unknown Error Covariance

In practice, \(\Sigma\) is usually unknown. Let \(P_X=X(X'X)^{-1}X'\), let \(\nu=n-k\), and define the unrestricted residual sum-of-squares-and-cross-products matrix \(E=Y'(I_n-P_X)Y\). When \(\nu>0\), the usual unbiased estimator is \(\hat\Sigma=E/\nu\). Replacing \(\Sigma\) by \(\hat\Sigma\) gives the plug-in Wald statistic

$$ W= \operatorname{tr}\left\{(CGC')^{-1}D(M'\hat\Sigma M)^{-1}D'\right\}. $$

This statistic is defined when \(M'\hat\Sigma M\) is invertible. Under the Gaussian model, \(E\) has a Wishart distribution with \(\nu\) degrees of freedom; in particular, it is positive definite with probability one when \(\nu\ge p\). Since \(M\) has full column rank, this condition ensures that \(M'\hat\Sigma M\) is positive definite with probability one.

The plug-in statistic is not, in general, exactly \(\chi^2_{qs}\) in a finite sample. Its familiar reference is asymptotic. For example, suppose \(k,p,q,s,C,M\) are fixed, \(\nu\) tends to infinity, and the design satisfies the usual information-growth condition \(X'X/n\to Q\) for a positive-definite matrix \(Q\). Under the null, \(\hat\Sigma\xrightarrow{p}\Sigma\), so the estimated covariance of the restricted estimate is consistent for its true covariance. The standardized restricted estimate is asymptotically standard normal by the Gaussian model and this covariance consistency; the continuous mapping theorem then gives \(W\xrightarrow{d}\chi^2_{qs}\). This is the basis for using the chi-square tail probability as an approximate p-value when \(\Sigma\) is estimated.

Worked Wald Calculations

Worked Example: One Coefficient Direction and Two Responses

Suppose \(q=1\), \(s=2\), the null value is \(\Theta=(0,0)\), and the observed discrepancy is \(D=(1,-2)\). Let \(CGC'=1/4\) and let the estimated response covariance in the tested directions be

$$ M'\hat\Sigma M= \begin{pmatrix} 4&1\\ 1&2 \end{pmatrix}. $$

The determinant of this covariance matrix is \(4(2)-1(1)=7\), so its inverse is

$$ (M'\hat\Sigma M)^{-1} =\frac{1}{7} \begin{pmatrix} 2&-1\\ -1&4 \end{pmatrix}. $$

First compute the response-space quadratic form:

$$ D(M'\hat\Sigma M)^{-1}D' =(1,-2)\frac{1}{7} \begin{pmatrix} 2&-1\\ -1&4 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}1\\-2\end{pmatrix} =\frac{1}{7}(1,-2)\begin{pmatrix}4\\-9\end{pmatrix} =\frac{22}{7}. $$

Since \((CGC')^{-1}=4\), the statistic is \(W=4(22/7)=88/7\), approximately \(12.57\). The response correlation is included in the calculation through the off-diagonal covariance entries.

Worked Example: Two Restrictions on a Scalar Response

For a single response, take \(s=1\), \(M'\hat\Sigma M=4\), and suppose the two-entry restriction discrepancy is \(D=(1,-1)'\). Let

$$ CGC'= \begin{pmatrix} 2&1/2\\ 1/2&1 \end{pmatrix}. $$

Its determinant is \(2(1)-(1/2)^2=7/4\), giving

$$ (CGC')^{-1} =\frac{4}{7} \begin{pmatrix} 1&-1/2\\ -1/2&2 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 4/7&-2/7\\ -2/7&8/7 \end{pmatrix}. $$

The coefficient-direction quadratic form is

$$ D'(CGC')^{-1}D =(1,-1) \begin{pmatrix} 6/7\\-10/7 \end{pmatrix} =\frac{16}{7}. $$

Because the response-space factor is the scalar 4, \(W=(16/7)/4=4/7\), approximately \(0.571\). Here the non-diagonal entries of \(CGC'\) matter: ignoring the correlation between the two estimated restrictions would change the statistic.

Worked Example: A Two-by-Two Restriction

Suppose \(q=s=2\), the discrepancy and covariance factors are

$$ D= \begin{pmatrix}1&2\\-1&1\end{pmatrix},\qquad CGC'= \begin{pmatrix}1/2&0\\0&1/4\end{pmatrix},\qquad M'\hat\Sigma M= \begin{pmatrix}2&0\\0&8\end{pmatrix}. $$

The two inverse factors are \(\operatorname{diag}(2,4)\) and \(\operatorname{diag}(1/2,1/8)\). For these diagonal factors, the trace is the sum of each squared discrepancy entry weighted by the corresponding diagonal entries:

$$ \begin{aligned} W &=1^2(2)(1/2)+2^2(2)(1/8) +(-1)^2(4)(1/2)+1^2(4)(1/8)\\ &=1+1+2+1/2=9/2. \end{aligned} $$

Thus \(W=4.5\). This example shows how each cell of the restriction discrepancy is scaled by uncertainty in both its coefficient direction and its response direction.

Common Pitfall and Interpretation

A common mistake is to calculate \(\sum_{i,j}D_{ij}^2\) and treat it as the Wald statistic. That sum ignores the scale and correlations in the estimate. For instance, a discrepancy of one unit may be substantial if its standard error is small and unremarkable if its standard error is large. The correction is to use the inverse covariance of the entire vectorized restriction, or equivalently the two inverse covariance factors in the trace formula.

The Wald statistic measures distance from the null restriction in the uncertainty geometry of the unrestricted estimate. With known \(\Sigma\), its null calibration is exact under the stated Gaussian model; with estimated \(\Sigma\), the chi-square calibration is an asymptotic approximation, not an automatic finite-sample identity. The statistic’s construction also makes clear why the rank and invertibility conditions matter: a redundant restriction or singular covariance cannot be handled by the displayed inverse without changing the formulation.

Check Your Understanding

Use the definitions and derivations above to answer these questions.

  1. For \(C\) of size \(q\times k\) and \(M\) of size \(p\times s\), what is the dimension of \(C\hat B M-\Theta\), and why are there \(qs\) chi-square degrees of freedom when \(\Sigma\) is known?
  2. Write the covariance of \(\operatorname{vec}(C\hat B M)\) in terms of \(C\), \(G\), \(M\), and \(\Sigma\).
  3. Why does the Wald statistic use an inverse covariance rather than an unscaled sum of squared discrepancies?
  4. In the two-by-two worked example, which covariance factors determine the weight applied to the entry \(D_{21}\)?
  5. Why should the plug-in statistic not be described as exactly chi-square in every finite sample?
Clinical Biostats