$, by using another B-spline basis $C = (C_1, \dots, C_k)$. The parameter $\theta^0$ can then be identified from the observational distribution under appropriate rank conditions, see Section \[sec:consistency\]. In that case, the hypothesis $H_0(\theta) : \theta= \theta^0$ is equivalent to the hypothesis $\tilde H_0(\theta) : {\mathbb{E}}[C(A)(Y - B(X)^\top \theta)] =
  0$. Let ${\mathbf{B}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times k}$ and ${\mathbf{C}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times k}$ be the associated design matrices, for each $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, $j \in \{1, \dots, k\}$ given as ${\mathbf{B}}_{ij} = B_j(X_i)$ and ${\mathbf{C}}_{ij} = C_{j}(A_i)$. A straightforward choice would be to construct the standard TSLS estimator, i.e., $\hat \theta$ as the minimizer of $\theta \mapsto \norm{{\mathbf{P}} ({\mathbf{Y}} - {\mathbf{B}} \theta)}_2^2$, where ${\mathbf{P}}$ is the projection matrix onto the columns of ${\mathbf{C}}$, see also [@hall2005generalized]. Even though this procedure may result in an asymptotically consistent estimator, there are several reasons why it may be suboptimal in a finite sample setting. First, the above estimator can have large finite sample bias, in particular if $k$ is large. Indeed, in the extreme case where $k = n$, and assuming that all columns in ${\mathbf{C}}$ are linearly independent, ${\mathbf{P}}$ is equal to the identity matrix, and $\hat \theta$ coincides with the OLS estimator. Second, since $\theta$ corresponds to the linear parameter of a spline basis, it seems reasonable to impose constraints on $\theta$ which enforce smoothness of the resulting spline function. Both of these points can be addressed by introducing additional penalties into the estimation procedure. Let therefore ${\mathbf{K}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{k \times k}$ and ${\mathbf{M}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{k \times k}$ be the matrices that are, for each $i,j \in \{1, \dots,
$, by using another B - spline basis $ vitamin c = (C_1, \dots, C_k)$. The argument $ \theta^0 $ can then be identified from the observational distribution under appropriate membership condition, see Section   \[sec: consistency\ ]. In that case, the guess $ H_0(\theta): \theta= \theta^0 $ is equivalent to the hypothesis $ \tilde H_0(\theta): { \mathbb{E}}[C(A)(Y - B(X)^\top \theta) ] = 
   0$. Let $ { \mathbf{B } } \in { \mathbb{R}}^{n \times k}$ and $ { \mathbf{C } } \in { \mathbb{R}}^{n \times k}$ be the associated blueprint matrices, for each $ i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, $ j \in \{1, \dots, k\}$ give as $ { \mathbf{B}}_{ij } = B_j(X_i)$ and $ { \mathbf{C}}_{ij } = C_{j}(A_i)$. A straightforward choice would be to reconstruct the standard TSLS calculator, i.e., $ \hat \theta$ as the minimizer of $ \theta \mapsto \norm{{\mathbf{P } } ({ \mathbf{Y } } - { \mathbf{B } } \theta)}_2 ^ 2 $, where $ { \mathbf{P}}$ is the projection matrix onto the columns of $ { \mathbf{C}}$, visualize also [ @hall2005generalized ]. Even though this procedure may leave in an asymptotically consistent estimator, there are respective reasons why it may be suboptimal in a finite sample setting. First, the above estimator can experience large finite sample bias, in particular if $ k$ is large. Indeed, in the extreme case where $ k = n$, and assume that all columns in $ { \mathbf{C}}$ are linearly independent, $ { \mathbf{P}}$ is equal to the identity matrix, and $ \hat \theta$ coincides with the OLS estimator. Second, since $ \theta$ corresponds to the analogue argument of a spline footing, it seems reasonable to impose constraints on $ \theta$ which enforce smoothness of the resulting spline function. Both of these point can be address by introducing additional penalty into the estimate procedure. Let therefore $ { \mathbf{K } } \in { \mathbb{R}}^{k \times k}$ and $ { \mathbf{M } } \in { \mathbb{R}}^{k \times k}$ equal the matrix that are, for each $ i, j \in \{1, \dots,
$, by using another B-spline bxsis $C = (C_1, \dots, E_j)$. The 'arametsr $\theta^0$ can then be identified from tye obwervational distributiun under wppropriqte cank conditions, see Sectljn \[sed:gonsivvency\]. In that csse, the hy[othesis $H_0(\thetd) : \tketa= \theta^0$ is equivalent to the hypoehesis $\yipde H_0(\theta) : {\majhbb{E}}[B(A)(R - B(S)^\nok \theta)] =
  0$. Let ${\mathbf{B}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{h \times k}$ and ${\mathbf{V}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times k}$ be tje adsociated design mwtrices, for eacr $i \in \{1, \dots, v\}$, $j \in \{1, \dous, k\}$ given aa ${\mathbf{B}}_{ij} = B_j(X_i)$ and ${\mathbf{C}}_{ij} = C_{j}(A_n)$. A straighjyirwwtd choice wonld be to construcb the sdandard TSLS estimatov, i.e., $\iat \rheta$ as the minimizec of $\theta \mapsto \notm{{\mathbf{P}} ({\kachbf{Y}} - {\mathbf{B}} \theta)}_2^2$, qhwre ${\mdthbx{P}}$ ir thd pdooecfion mwtrmx onto the columns of ${\mathbf{C}}$, see also [@hslj2005teneralized]. Eben thjudh this procedure may result in an asymktotidally consistent estimaror, there are several reasons rhy it may be suboptimal in a finite sample settitg. Ficsg, tkc xvoge estimator can have large finite sample biaf, im iarticular if $k$ if large. Indref, og the extreme case cgede $k = n$, and assumijg that all xolumns ig ${\mayhbf{C}}$ are linearly independwnt, ${\mathbf{P}}$ ps ewual to the identicy matrix, anb $\hat \jheta$ voincides with the OLS zstimafor. Second, dince $\thefx$ corresponds to thv litear parameter of a spline basis, it seeks reasunabke to ympose condtraikds on $\theta$ which fnforee smmothness ov the resulting spline function. Both of these pminns can be addrcssed by introdtcing additioncl penalcies ivto the esnimation 'rocedure. Lee therefore ${\mdjhbf{K}} \in {\mathub{R}}^{k \timef k}$ qnd ${\nathbf{M}} \kn {\mathbb{R}}^{k \tikes k}$ be nht matrices that are, for each $i,j \jn \{1, \dots,
$, by using another B-spline basis $C \dots, The parameter can then be under rank conditions, see \[sec:consistency\]. In that the hypothesis $H_0(\theta) : \theta= \theta^0$ equivalent to the hypothesis $\tilde H_0(\theta) : {\mathbb{E}}[C(A)(Y - B(X)^\top \theta)] = 0$. ${\mathbf{B}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times k}$ and ${\mathbf{C}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times k}$ be the design for $i \{1, \dots, n\}$, $j \in \{1, \dots, k\}$ given as ${\mathbf{B}}_{ij} = B_j(X_i)$ and ${\mathbf{C}}_{ij} = A straightforward choice would be to construct the TSLS estimator, i.e., $\hat as the minimizer of $\theta \norm{{\mathbf{P}} - {\mathbf{B}} where is projection matrix onto columns of ${\mathbf{C}}$, see also [@hall2005generalized]. Even though this procedure may result in an asymptotically consistent estimator, are several it may suboptimal a sample setting. First, estimator can have large finite sample if $k$ is large. Indeed, in the extreme where $k n$, and assuming that all columns ${\mathbf{C}}$ are linearly independent, ${\mathbf{P}}$ is equal to identity matrix, and $\hat \theta$ coincides with the OLS estimator. Second, since $\theta$ corresponds to parameter of a spline it seems reasonable impose on which smoothness of resulting spline function. Both of these points can be addressed by additional penalties into the estimation procedure. Let therefore ${\mathbf{K}} \in k}$ ${\mathbf{M}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{k k}$ be the matrices are, each $i,j \in \{1,
$, by using another B-spline basiS $C = (C_1, \dots, C_k)$. THe parAmeTer $\ThEta^0$ cAn thEn be identified FRom tHe observational distribUtion UnDEr apPRoPriatE rank coNDiTIOns, SeE SEctIoN \[SeC:consIstEncy\]. In tHat case, the HypOtHesis $H_0(\theta) : \tHEtA= \theta^0$ is eqUivAlent to the hyPotHesis $\tIlDe H_0(\THeta) : {\mAthBb{E}}[C(A)(y - B(X)^\top \THeta)] =
  0$. LeT ${\mathbf{B}} \iN {\mAThbb{R}}^{n \TImes k}$ anD ${\MAtHbf{C}} \In {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times k}$ bE ThE Associated desiGn matrIcES, fOR EacH $i \iN \{1, \dots, n\}$, $j \in \{1, \dOtS, k\}$ givEN as ${\mathBF{B}}_{IJ} = b_J(X_i)$ ANd ${\mathbf{C}}_{ij} = C_{j}(a_i)$. A straightFOrwArd choIcE woULd be to ConstRuCT thE standard TSlS esTimator, i.e., $\Hat \theTA$ as the mINimizer Of $\thetA \maPstO \norM{{\MaThBf{P}} ({\MaTHbf{y}} - {\MaThbF{b}} \thEta)}_2^2$, where ${\MaThBf{P}}$ is The pROJECtioN maTrix Onto tHe columns of ${\maThbF{C}}$, seE AlsO [@hall2005GenerAlizEd]. even tHough tHis prOcEdure may result iN an aSymptoticAllY cOnsIsTent eSTimatoR, thEre Are seveRal reasONs wHy IT MAy Be suboptimal in a finItE SAmPle settiNg. FirsT, ThE aBOve estimAtOr cAn haVE Large FiniTE sAmple biaS, in parTIcUlAr if $k$ is LaRge. IndEeD, in The ExtreME casE where $K = n$, and assUming THat all columns iN ${\Mathbf{C}}$ are linEArLY InDEpenDenT, ${\mathbf{P}}$ is eQual TO the IdenTItY maTRix, anD $\hat \tHeTA$ cOIncides with the OLS esTiMator. SEcond, Since $\theta$ corResponds to THE Linear paRameTEr OF a spline basis, iT seemS reasonablE To impose ConstRaints on $\Theta$ whicH ENforce smOotHneSs oF thE REsUlting spline fUNCtioN. BOth of thEse Points cAn bE adDreSseD bY introducIng additIoNaL pEnAltIes inTO the estiMaTioN pRocEdure. lEt therEfore ${\MathBf{k}} \iN {\MatHbb{R}}^{k \tiMEs K}$ ANd ${\maThBf{m}} \in {\mAthBb{r}}^{k \timEs k}$ bE The MatriceS that are, fOr eACh $i,j \In \{1, \DoTs,
$, by using another B-spli ne basis $ C = ( C_1 , \ do ts,C_k) $. The paramet e r $\ theta^0$ can then be i denti fi e d fr o mthe o bservat i on a l  di st ri but io n  u nderapp ropriat e rank con dit io ns, see Sect i on  \[sec:con sis tency\]. Intha t case ,the hypot hes is $H _0(\th e ta) :\theta= \ th e ta^0$i s equiv a l en t to  the hypothesis $ \ ti l de H_0(\theta)  : {\m at h bb { E }}[ C(A )(Y - B(X) ^\ top \ t heta)]= 
0 $ . L e t ${\mathbf{B }} \in {\ma t hbb {R}}^{ n\ti m es k}$  and${ \ mat hbf{C}} \in  {\m athbb{R}} ^{n \t i mes k}$ be theassoci ate d d esig n  m at ric es ,  fo r  e ach $i\in \{1,  \ do ts, n \}$, $ j \in\{1 , \d ots,k\}$ given as  ${ \mat h bf{ B}}_{ ij} =  B_j (X _i)$and ${ \math bf {C}}_{ij} = C_{ j}(A _i)$. A s tra ig htf or wardc hoicewou ldbe to c onstruc t  th es t a nd ard TSLS estimator ,i . e. , $\hat\theta $  a st he minim iz erof $ \ t heta\map s to  \norm{{ \mathb f {P }}  ({\mat hb f{Y}}-{\m ath bf{B} }  \th eta)}_ 2^2$, wh ere $ { \mathbf{P}}$ i s  the projecti o nm a tr i x on tothe columns  of$ {\ma thbf { C} }$, see a lso [ @h a ll 2 005generalized]. Ev en  thoug h thi s procedure m ay resulti n an asymp toti c al l y consistent e stima tor, there are seve ral r easons w hy it may b e subopt ima l i n a  fi n i te  sample setti n g . Fi rs t, theabo ve esti mat orcan  ha ve  large fi nite sam pl ebi as , i n par t icular i f$k$  i s l arge. Indeed , intheex tr e mecase wh e re $ k =n$ ,andass um ing t hata llcolumns  in ${\ma thb f {C}} $ar e linea rly independe nt , ${\mathb f{ P}} $ is e q u al to th e identity matrix, and$ \hat \t het a$ co inci des withthe  OLS e sti m ator.Second , sin ce  $\ t h eta$c o rr esp on ds to thel i nea r par am eter  of a s pline basis, it se e msreasonable to  im pose c on str a in t s o n$ \th e t a$ which enforc e smoothne ss of  the resul t ing  s pline f unction . Bot h  of the se points  can be a dd ress e d  by  introduci ng addit ional pen a lties in to th e e stimat io n p roced ure. L e t t heref ore ${ \m athbf{ K}} \ in  {\mathb b{R}}^{k \times k}$ and  ${\ma thbf{ M}}  \in {\ma thb b {R} }^{k \tim es k }$ be themat ric es th ata re, f or e a ch  $i , j \in  \{1 ,  \dots,
$, by_using another_B-spline basis $C =_(C_1, \dots,_C_k)$._The parameter_$\theta^0$_can then be_identified from the_observational distribution under appropriate_rank conditions, see_Section \[sec:consistency\]._In that case, the hypothesis $H_0(\theta) : \theta= \theta^0$ is equivalent to the hypothesis_$\tilde_H_0(\theta) :_{\mathbb{E}}[C(A)(Y_-_B(X)^\top \theta)] =
  0$._Let ${\mathbf{B}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times_k}$ and_${\mathbf{C}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times k}$ be the associated_design_matrices, for each_$i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, $j \in \{1, \dots,_k\}$ given as ${\mathbf{B}}_{ij} = B_j(X_i)$_and ${\mathbf{C}}_{ij} =_C_{j}(A_i)$._A_straightforward choice would be_to construct the standard TSLS estimator,_i.e., $\hat \theta$ as the minimizer_of $\theta \mapsto \norm{{\mathbf{P}} ({\mathbf{Y}} - {\mathbf{B}}_\theta)}_2^2$, where ${\mathbf{P}}$ is the projection_matrix onto the columns of_${\mathbf{C}}$, see_also [@hall2005generalized]. Even though this_procedure may result_in an_asymptotically consistent estimator,_there are several reasons why it_may be suboptimal_in a finite sample setting. First,_the_above estimator can_have_large_finite sample_bias, in particular_if_$k$ is_large._Indeed, in the extreme case where_$k_= n$, and assuming that all columns_in ${\mathbf{C}}$ are linearly_independent,_${\mathbf{P}}$ is equal to_the identity matrix, and $\hat_\theta$ coincides with the OLS estimator._Second, since_$\theta$ corresponds_to the linear parameter of a spline basis, it seems reasonable_to impose constraints on $\theta$ which_enforce smoothness of the_resulting spline_function._Both of these_points_can be_addressed by introducing additional penalties into the_estimation procedure._Let therefore ${\mathbf{K}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{k \times_k}$ and ${\mathbf{M}} \in_{\mathbb{R}}^{k_\times k}$ be the matrices that_are, for each $i,j \in \{1,_\dots,