Journal of Global Optimization

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 471–485 | Cite as

Calibration of estimator-weights via semismooth Newton method

  • Ralf T. Münnich
  • Ekkehard W. Sachs
  • Matthias WagnerEmail author


Weighting is a common methodology in survey statistics to increase accuracy of estimates or to compensate for non-response. One standard approach for weighting is calibration estimation which represents a common numerical problem. There are various approaches in the literature available, but quite a number of distance-based approaches lack a mathematical justification or are numerically unstable. In this paper we reformulate the calibration problem as a system of nonlinear equations. Although the equations are lacking differentiability properties, one can show that they are semismooth and the corresponding extension of Newton’s method is applicable. This is a mathematically rigorous approach and the numerical results show the applicability of this method.


Semismooth Newton method Calibration Convex objective function General regression estimator Sample weights 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Clarke F.: Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis. Wiley, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Demnati A., Rao J.: Linearization variance estimators for survey data. Surv. Methodol. 30, 17–26 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dennis J., Schnabel R.: Numerical Methods for Unconstrained Optimization and Nonlinear Equations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ (1983)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deville J.C., Särndal C.E.: Calibration estimators in survey sampling. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 87, 376–382 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deville J.C., Särndal C.E., Sautory O.: Generalized raking procedures in survey sampling. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 88, 1013–1020 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Estevao V., Särndal C.E.: Survey estimates by calibration on complex auxiliary information. Int. Stat. Rev. 74, 127–147 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer A.: Solution of monotone complementarity problems with locally lipschitzian functions. Math. Program. 76, 513–532 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gill P., Murray W., Wright M.: Practical Optimization. Academic Press, NY (1981)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horst R.: Nichtlineare Optimierung. Carl Hanser Verlag, USA (1979)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horvitz D., Thompson D.: A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47, 663–685 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim J., Park M.: Calibration estimation in survey sampling. Int. Stat. Rev. 78, 21–39 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kott P.: Using calibration weighting to adjust for nonresponse and coverage errors. Surv. Methodol. 32, 133–142 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mifflin R.: Semismooth and semiconvex functions in constrained optimization. SIAM J. Contr. Optim. 15, 957–972 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Münnich, R., Sachs, E., Wagner, M.: Numerical solution of optimal allocation problems in stratified sampling under box constraints. (In submission) (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pang J.S., Qi L.: Nonsmooth equations: motivation and algorithms. SIAM J. Optim. 3, 443–465 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qi L.: Convergence analysis of some algorithms for solving nonsmooth equations. Math. Oper. Res. 18, 227–244 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qi L., Sun J.: A nonsmooth version of Newton’s method. Math. Program. 58, 353–367 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R Development Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2010). ISBN 3-900051-07-0
  19. 19.
    Rademacher H.: über partielle und totale differenzierbarkeit von funktionen mehrerer variablen und über die transformation der doppelintegrale. Mathematische Annalen 79, 340–359 (1919)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ruszczynski A.: Nonlinear Optimization. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Särndal C.E.: The calibration approach in survey theory and practise. Surv. Methodol. 33, 99–119 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shapiro A.: On concepts of directional differentiability. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 66, 477–487 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singh A., Mohl C.: Understanding calibration estimators in survey sampling. Surv. Methodol. 22, 107–115 (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stukel D., Hidiroglou M., Särndal C.E.: Variance estimation for calibration estimators: a comparison of jackknifing versus taylor linearization. Surv. Methodol. 22, 117–125 (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tillé, Y., Matei, A.: sampling: survey sampling (2009). R package version 2.3
  26. 26.
    Vanderhoeft, C.: Statistics belgium working papers—generalised calibration at statistics belgium. Tech. Rep. STATBEL, 1–192 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralf T. Münnich
    • 1
  • Ekkehard W. Sachs
    • 2
  • Matthias Wagner
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Forumstat and Department of EconomicsUniversity of TrierTrierGermany
  2. 2.Forumstat and Department of MathematicsUniversity of TrierTrierGermany
  3. 3.Forumstat—Research Center for Regional and Environmental StatisticsUniversity of TrierTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations