Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys using design weights and auxiliary margins
Extracted source text · arXiv 2412.10988
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{geometry}
\usepackage{indentfirst}
\geometry{letterpaper, textwidth=6.5in, textheight=9in, marginparsep=1em}
\usepackage{setspace}
\doublespacing
\usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amsthm,amssymb}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{\mathbb{V}ar}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\tr}{\text{trace}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Cov}{\mathbb{C}ov}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Cor}{\mathbb{C}or}
\DeclareMathOperator{\iid}{\stackrel{\text{IID}}{\sim}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ConvP}{\xrightarrow{p}}
%\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
%\usepackage{listings}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\pagestyle{empty}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{natbib, comment}
\usepackage{booktabs, tabularx, threeparttable, caption}
\captionsetup[table]{justification=justified,singlelinecheck=false}
\numberwithin{figure}{section}
\numberwithin{table}{section}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\makeatletter
\@addtoreset{equation}{section}
\makeatother
%\setlength{\parindent}{0pt} % sets indent to zero
%\setlength{\parskip}{12pt} % adds space between paragraphs
%\definecolor{codegreen}{rgb}{0,0.6,0}
%%\definecolor{codegray}{rgb}{0.5,0.5,0.5}
%\definecolor{codepurple}{rgb}{0.58,0,0.82}
%\definecolor{backcolour}{rgb}{0.95,0.95,0.92}
%\lstdefinestyle{mystyle}{
% backgroundcolor=\color{backcolour},
% commentstyle=\color{codegreen},
% keywordstyle=\color{magenta},
% numberstyle=\tiny\color{codegray},
% stringstyle=\color{codepurple},
% basicstyle=\ttfamily\footnotesize,
% breakatwhitespace=false,
% breaklines=true,
% captionpos=b,
% keepspaces=true,
% numbers=left,
% numbersep=5pt,
% showspaces=false,
% showstringspaces=false,
% showtabs=false,
% tabsize=2
%}
%\lstset{style=mystyle}
\pagestyle{plain}
\title{Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys Using Design Weights and Auxiliary Margins}
\author{Kewei Xu\thanks{Department of Statistical Science, Box 90251, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0251} \and Jerome P. Reiter\thanks{Department of Statistical Science, Box 90251, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0251}}
\date{}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{center}
\textbf{Abstract}
\end{center}
\noindent
Survey data typically have missing values due to unit and item nonresponse. Sometimes, survey organizations know the marginal distributions of certain categorical variables in the target population. As shown in previous work, survey organizations can leverage these distributions in multiple imputation for nonignorable unit nonresponse, generating imputations that result in plausible completed-data estimates for the variables with known margins. However, this prior work does not use the design weights for unit nonrespondents; rather, it relies on a set of fabricated weights for these units. We extend this previous work to utilize the design weights for all sampled units. We illustrate the approach using simulation studies.
Key Words: Item; Missing; Nonignorable; Unit
\section{Introduction}
Survey data usually suffer from both unit and item nonresponse. As a result, survey organizations have to make strong assumptions about the reasons for missingness, for example, the data are missing at random.
%\citep{rubin1976inference}.
One way to lessen reliance on assumptions is to utilize information in auxiliary data sources. For example, and pertinent to the setting of our work,
%To effectively impute missing values, sometimes researchers used to make strong assumptions about missingness mechanisms (Mealli and Rubin 2015) to ensure that the imputations are accurate. When the assumptions are not confirmed, the imputed results would deviate from the true values.
%To avoid this misidentifying missingness mechanism, researchers could instead rely on auxiliary information to make imputations. Sometimesresearchers
survey organizations may know the population percentages or totals of some categorical variables in the survey. These could be available from recent censuses, administrative databases, or other high quality surveys \citep{sadinle2017itemwise}. Indeed, such information is frequently used in methods for handling survey nonresponse, such as calibration and raking.
%\citep{deville1992calibration, dever:valliant}.
%This method is particularly effective when the missingness mechanism is missing not at random (MNAR), as the missing at random (MAR) assumption (Rubin, 1976) might generate biased estimates of the distribution among nonrespondents.
We consider settings where analysts seek to integrate auxiliary information on marginal distributions in multiple imputation for nonresponse \citep{rubin1987multiple} in surveys. We build on the missing data with auxiliary margins, or MD-AM, framework introduced by \citet{akande2021leveraging} and extended to surveys by \citet{akande2021multiple}, \citet{tang2024using}, and \citet{yang:reiter}. The latter three works impute missing values to ensure completed-data, survey-weighted inferences are plausible given the known margins. However, these works impose a simplifying condition on the unit nonrespondents, namely that the analyst does not use their design weights and instead replaces these weights with a convenient constant.
%thereby treating all unit respondents as fully exchangeable.
This creates difficulties for design-based analyses, as the resulting weights for the full sample do not correspond to the design.
%Further, treating all unit nonrespondents exchangeably discards information that could inform imputations.
%that differentiates them. For example, the agency may have other variables, such as paradata, on the unit nonrespondents that it can use for imputation modeling, or it may wish to model some variables conditionally on weights. The existing methods for the MD-AM framework do not permit such flexibility.
%embedded in the weights themselves. For example, i
%To specify nonignorable models for data containing both unit and item response, Missing Data with Auxiliary Margins (MD-AM) by Akande et al. (2021) leverages auxiliary marginal information to model distinct missingness mechanisms for unit and item non-response, enabling flexible and identifiable model specifications. Akande and Reiter (2022) extended the MD-AM model to accommodate stratified simple random samples affected by item non-response only. Tang et al. (2024) extend the MD-AM model to account for survey weights with unequal probabilities of sample selection, introducing what is termed the hybrid missingness MD-AM. Building on the hybrid missingness MD-AM, Yang and Reiter (2024) employ hot-deck imputation for unit nonresponse involving variables lacking auxiliary margins, thereby addressing model misspecification and enhancing the efficiency of item nonresponse imputation by replacing time-consuming Monte Carlo steps with multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE). All these studies are sequentially developed and can produce accurate estimates without the missing at random (MAR) assumption, thereby advancing the robustness of statistical inferences in the presence of complex missing data mechanisms. Previous studies that utilize auxiliary marginal information include the work of Sadinle and Reiter (2019), who utilize such data to establish models that are both identifiable and capable of handling nonignorable item nonresponse.
%In our article, drawing upon concepts from previous research that utilize auxiliary marginal information, we
In this short note, we propose MD-AM models that allow use of the design-based weights for all sampled units.
%The basic idea is as follows. We first impute all missing values due to item nonresponse using multiple imputation by chained equations \citep{vanbuuren, raghunathan2001multivariate}. In each partially completed dataset, we then impute the unit nonrespondents' values of the categorical variables that have auxiliary margins. To do so, we specify probabilities for imputations so that, in expectation, imputations result in plausible \citet{horvitz1952generalization} estimates in the completed data given the known margins, using the design weights for all sampled units. For the variables without auxiliary margins, we use the random hot deck imputation proposed in \citet{yang:reiter}.
%The remainder of this note is organized as follows.
Section \ref{sec:review} provides a brief review of the hybrid missing MD-AM model \citep{tang2024using, yang:reiter}, which we extend to incorporate design weights for unit nonrespondents.
%previous work that incorporate survey weights and auxiliary margins in multiple imputation.
Section \ref{sec:meth} introduces the methodology.
%and allowing for flexible imputations of unit nonrespondents.
Section \ref{sec:sims} illustrates the methods using simulation studies. Codes and additional simulation results are available at \url{https://github.com/kevinxu47/MDAM}. %Additional simulation results are in a supplement available on arXiv \citep{kewei:reiter:arxiv}.
%#Section \ref{sec:concl} outlines directions for future work.
%We do not include an exemplary application of the methodology on genuine data, as we do not have data with survey weights for unit nonrespondents. Typically, these are not published by survey organizations.
%We comment on this in Section \ref{sec:concl}.
\section{Review of Hybrid Missingness MD-AM Modeling}\label{sec:review}
In reviewing the hybrid missingness MD-AM model, we closely follow the notation in \citet{yang:reiter}.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a finite population comprising $N$ units. For $i = 1, \dots, N$, let $\boldsymbol{x}_i = (x_{i1}, \dots, x_{ip})$ denote the $p$ survey variables for unit $i$;
%and let \( \boldsymbol{y}_i = (y_{i1}, \dots, y_{ik}) \) denote the survey variables for unit \( i \) that do not include auxiliary margins.
let $I_i = 1$ if unit $i$ is selected for inclusion in the survey and $I_i = 0$ otherwise; let $\pi_i = \Pr(I_i = 1)$ represent the probability that unit $i$ is selected into the survey; let $w_i^d = 1/\pi_i$ be its design weight; and, let $\boldsymbol{z}_i$ be its design variables, e.g., size measures or stratum indicators. Let $n = \sum_{i=1}^N I_i$ be the intended sample size of the survey. We refer to the sampled units as $\mathcal{S}$.
%Denote $\mathcal{D}$ as survey data and $\mathcal{A}$ as auxiliary data of $i = 1, \dots, N$ individuals, encompassing the variable sets \( \boldsymbol{X} = (X_1, \dots, X_j) \) consisting of \( j \) variables in $\mathcal{D}$.
%The sample has both unit and item nonresponse.
Let $U$ be the unit nonresponse indicator so that, for each unit $i \in \mathcal{S}$, $U_i=1$ if the unit provides no responses to any survey questions and $U_i=0$ otherwise.
%Let $U = (U_1, \dots, U_n)$.
Let \(\boldsymbol{R} = (R_1, \dots, R_p)\) be item nonresponse indicators corresponding to \(\boldsymbol{X} = (X_1, \dots, X_p)\) so that, for any unit \( i \) with \( U_i = 0 \) and any \( X_j \), \( R_{ij} = 1 \) if unit \( i \) does not respond to the question for \( X_j \) and \( R_{ij} = 0 \) otherwise. When $U_i=1$, $(R_{i1}, \dots, R_{ij})$ are undefined.
The survey organization has auxiliary information $\mathcal{A}$ on the marginal distributions of a subset of the $p$ survey variables. We write $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$ whenever $X_j$ has a known margin in $\mathcal{A}$, which we write as
%For $j=1, \dots, p$, let
$\mathcal{A}_j$.
%comprise the known marginal
%for $X_j$ when $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$.
For convenience, we presume each $\mathcal{A}_j$ comprises population totals; incorporating percentages is a simple modification.
%More precisely, f
For any categorical $X_j$ taking on levels $c=\{1, \dots, m_j\}$,
%and $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$,
let $T_{jc} = \sum_{i=1}^NI(x_{ij}=c)$ be the total number of units in $\mathcal{P}$ at level $c$. Here, $I(\cdot) = 1$ when the condition inside the parenthesis is true and $I(\cdot) = 0$ otherwise.
%\in \{1, \dots, m_j\}.$
%We presume that $\mathcal{A}$ comprises only univariate distributions; see \citet{tang2024using} for a discussion of multivariate marginals.
%Suppose we have access to auxiliary information \(\mathcal{A}\) regarding the marginal distributions of \(\boldsymbol{X}\). We assume that \(\mathcal{A}\) provides accurate estimates of totals for categorical variables \((X_1, \dots, X_j)\).
%We aim to use multiple imputation for both unit and item nonresponse for any \( x_{ij} \in \mathcal{S} \) that is unobserved, while utilizing the information in \(\mathcal{A}\). We also aim to ensure that any imputations produce plausible survey-weighted inferences consistent with the known marginal distributions. We do so via the hybrid missingness MD-AM model of \citet{tang2024using}, which we now summarize.
%\subsection{General Model Specification}\label{sec:modelnow}
\textcolor{black}{As described in \citet{tang2024using} and \citet{yang:reiter},}
the hybrid missingness MD-AM model specifies a joint distribution of $(\boldsymbol{X}, \boldsymbol{R}, U)$.
%It uses a pattern mixture model for unit nonresponse coupled with selection models for item nonresponse.
Specifically, the model presumes
$U \sim \textrm{Bernoulli}(\pi_u)$,
where $\pi_u = \Pr(U=1)$ is the marginal probability of unit nonresponse.
%which we presume to be constant for all units.
%Turning to the models for $\boldsymbol{X}|U$,
For $j = 1, \dots, p$, let $g_j(-)$ represent the model for $X_j$ given $X_1, \dots, X_{j-1}$,
%(and possibly the weights $W$),
and let $\Omega_j$ and $\theta_j$ be the corresponding model parameters. For example, $g_j(-)$ could be a logistic regression of $X_j$ on some function of $X_1, \dots, X_{j-1}$, possibly including interactions, as well as a main effect for $U$ when $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$.
%Then, $\Omega_j$ and $\theta_j$ include the coefficients of this model.
Thus, for $\boldsymbol{X}|U$, the hybrid missingness MD-AM model uses
\begin{eqnarray}
X_{1} \mid U &\sim& g_1(\Omega_{1}, \theta_{1} U I(X_1 \in \mathcal{A}) \label{modelx1} \label{eq:x1an}\\
%\end{equation}
%\begin{equation}
%X_{2} \mid X_{1}, U \sim g_2(X_{1}, \Omega_{2}, \theta_{2} U 1_{X_2 \in \mathcal{A}})
%\end{equation}
%\begin{equation}
X_{j} \mid X_{1}, \dots, X_{j-1}, U &\sim& g_j(X_{1}, \dots, X_{j-1}, \Omega_j, \theta_{j} U I(X_j \in \mathcal{A}), \textrm{ for } j = 2, \dots, p.\label{eq:seqAN}
\end{eqnarray}
%INSERT PARAGRAPH HERE ABOUT NMAR.
%The collection of models for $(X_1, \dots, X_k)$ encodes certain nonignorable missingness mechanisms for unit nonresponse. In particular,
Because the distribution for any $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$ differs for unit nonrespondents and respondents when $\theta_j \neq 0$, the model encodes potentially missing not at random mechanisms for unit nonresponse. The key identifying assumption is that the predictor function for any $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$ not include interactions between $U$ and elements of $(X_1, \dots, X_{j-1})$. This assumption is a version of the additive nonignorable missingness mechanism \citep{Hirano2001, sadinle2019sequentially}.
%When it fails to hold, e.g., the distributions for some $X_j \notin \mathcal{A}$ depend on $U$, the MD-AM imputations may lead to unreliable inferences.
%See
%\citep{sadinle2019sequentially}.
%for additional discussion of such sequentumodels.
%The conditional distribution of any $X_j \notin \mathcal{A}$ is identical for unit nonrespondents and respondents.
For the model for each $R_j$, let
%$(R_1, \dots, R_p),$ let can be specified in the same sequence as those for $(X_1, \dots, X_p)$. Let
$h_j(-)$ be some predictor function that excludes the corresponding $X_j$ but may include main and interaction effects involving other variables in $\boldsymbol{X}$. For $j=1, \dots, p$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Rmodel}
R_{j} \mid X_{1}, \dots, X_{p}, U=0 \sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{R_{j}}),\,\,\, \text{logit}(\pi_{R_{j}}) = h_j(X_{1}, \dots, X_{j-1}, X_{j+1}, \dots X_{p}, \Phi_j).
\end{equation}
%The hybrid missingness MD-AM model relies on two primary identifying assumptions. First, the pattern mixture models for $\boldsymbol{X}|U$ do not include interactions involving $U$. Second,
The models in \eqref{Rmodel} encode itemwise conditionally independent nonresponse (ICIN) mechanisms \citep{sadinle2017itemwise}, which are known to have identifiable parameters.
%The estimation algorithm in \citet{tang2024using} requires values of survey weights for all $n$ individuals sampled in $\mathcal{S}$.
%For unit nonrespondents, t
The imputation and estimation algorithms in \citet{tang2024using} and \citet{yang:reiter} do not use the design weights for the unit nonrespondents. Instead, they replace the design weights for unit nonrespondents with a constant that
%are set to a constant that
makes $\sum_{i=1}^N w_i = N$; that is, they base imputations and completed-data inferences on, for all units $i \in \mathcal{S},$
%Specifically, their algorithm sets the weights as
\begin{equation}
w_i = \left\{\begin{array}{lr}
w_i^d & \text{if } U_i = 0\\
\frac{N-\sum_{k \in \mathcal{S}} w_k^d}{\sum_{k \in \mathcal{S}} U_k} & \text{if } U_i = 1.
\end{array}\right. \label{known_weights_unit_res}
\end{equation}
%In other words, t
%The estimation weights for unit nonrespondents are set %to a constant that
%to make $\sum_{i=1}^N w_i = N$.
%When $N$ is not known and must be estimated, analysts can substitute this estimate into \eqref{known_weights_unit_res}.
%\subsection{Incorporating Survey Weights}
%\label{weight_UNa}
%Now we should integrate the survey weights into the model.
%\citet{tang2024using} incorporate survey weights using the following general strategy.
For any unit $i \in \mathcal{S}$ and $j=1, \dots, p$, let $x_{ij}^\star = x_{ij}$ when $(R_{ij} = 0, U_i=0)$, and let $x_{ij}^\star$ be an imputed value when $R_{ij} = 1$ or $U_i=1$. For any $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$,
\citet{akande2021multiple}, \citet{tang2024using}, and \citet{yang:reiter} suppose the imputations adhere to \eqref{modelx1} -- \eqref{Rmodel}, with the additional constraint that
% suggest that imputations of missing values of $X_j$ should satisfy,
\begin{equation}
\hat{T}_{jc}^* = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c) \sim N(T_{jc},V_{jc}),
\label{prob_cons}
\end{equation}
where the weights are from \eqref{known_weights_unit_res}.
%As described by \citet{tang2024using},
Here, $V_{jc}$ is set by the analyst and determines how closely $\hat{T}_{jc}^*$ matches $T_{jc}$ in any completed dataset.
%As we also assume \eqref{prob_cons}, we discuss setting $V_{jc}$ in Section \ref{sec:meth}.
%Analysts can use a small $V_{X^c_j}$ to make $\hat{T}_{X^c_j}$ close to $T_{X^c_j}$.
%We note, however, that with small $V_{X_k}$ it can be challenging computationally to find imputations that satisfy \eqref{prob_cons} and adequately explore the space of plausible imputations of the missing values \citep{TangDis}.
%On the other hand, when we let $V_{X_k} \to \infty$, we effectively impose no probabilistic constraint on $\hat{T}_{X_k}$, in which case the MD-AM model is not identifiable.
%As a default, t
%As a default, analysts can set $V_{jc}$ to approximate the sampling variance of the H had there been no missing data in $X_j$.
%We discuss methods for doing so in the context of the simulations in Section \ref{sec:sims} and CPS data analysis in Section \ref{sec:CPS}.
\textcolor{black}{Using \eqref{prob_cons} for imputations has commonalities with balanced random imputation \citep{chauvet:deville:haziza, chauvet:paco}, although the goals differ. In balanced random imputation, the imputed values are required always to satisfy some enforced constraint, e.g., the survey-weighted mean of the imputed values equals the survey-weighted mean of the observed values.
%The goal is to eliminate the process of drawing imputations as a source of variance in the completed-data point estimator of some total.
Work on balanced random imputation tends to consider single imputations for item nonresponse, presume values are missing (completely) at random, and set constraints based on observed data quantities. In contrast, the hybrid missingness MD-AM model considers multiple imputation for unit nonresponse that is missing not at random, and it uses auxiliary marginal information to establish distributional constraints on imputations.}
%We do so by requiring the imputations always to sum to some enforced constraint, e.g., the survey-weighted mean of the imputed values equals the survey-weighted mean of the observed values \citep{chauvet:deville:haziza}.
\textcolor{black}{Although not done in \citet{tang2024using} or \citet{yang:reiter}, the model for each $X_j$ or $R_j$ also can include the design variables $\boldsymbol{Z}$
%$\boldsymbol{Z}=(Z_1, \dots, Z_d)$
as predictors. Including $\boldsymbol{Z}$ can improve explanatory power, and hence ultimately imputation quality and estimation accuracy, when they are strongly associated with the survey variables or nonresponse indicators \citep{kinney:reiter:raghu}. Alternatively, the models can include some function of $W$
%defined in \eqref{known_weights_unit_res}
as a predictor. This is common advice for imputation modeling \citep[e.g., ][]{kimetal, quartagno} that is particularly salient when
%In some settings, modeling $W$ may be the only option for incorporating the design in the imputation models, e.g.,
the analyst doing the imputations has the survey weights but not the design variables, e.g., because they are confidential. In the MD-AM models of \citet{tang2024using} and \citet{yang:reiter}, however, every unit nonrespondent has the same value of $w_i$ given in \eqref{known_weights_unit_res}. Thus, including $W$ in the models would not influence the imputation probabilities, and hence not contribute to incorporating the design in the imputation process, for the unit nonrespondents.}
%Regardless of the form of the imputation models, %condition on $\boldsymbol{Z}$ or $W$, or neither for that matter,
%the intention of imputation via a hybrid missingness MD-AM model is to ensure the completed datasets yield plausible survey-weighted estimates given the known margins. \citet{tang2024using} and \citet{yang:reiter} do so for
%present our modifications of
%the hybrid missingness MD-AM model
%of \citet{tang2024using} and \citet{yang:reiter}
%to use the design weights for all sampled individuals, including unit nonrespondents.
%SOMETHING HERE ABOUT YANG AND REITER APPROACH. ALLUDE TO MICE FOR IMPUTATION of ITEM NONRESPONSE, ESTIMATING MODEL FOR VARIABLE SWITH MARGINS, THEN HOT DECK. WE USE SAME APPROACH BUT REPLACE ESTimATING MODEL WITH MOARGINS.
%\textcolor{blue}{One also can make the models for $U$, $\boldsymbol{X}$, or $\boldsymbol{R}$ conditional on the design variables $\boldsymbol{Z}=(Z_1, \dots, Z_d)$ or weights $W$. }
%For simplicity of presentation, and to follow the presentation in \citet{yang:reiter}, for now we presume that the joint distribution does not condition on either; we discuss adding $\boldsymbol{Z}$ or $W$ to the modeling at the end of this section.}
%In the interest of
%For brevity, we do not describe further details of the estimation algorithms of \citet{tang2024using} and \citet{yang:reiter}.
%However, we use the imputation strategies in \citet{yang:reiter} for item nonresponse and for those $X_{j} \notin \mathcal{A}$ for unit nonresponse, as described in Section \ref{sec:meth}.
%the analyst imputes values of $x_{ij}$ for unit nonrespondents using a hot deck imputation, as decribed in Section \ref{sec:hotdeck}.
%The resulting $L$ completed datasets can be analyzed using multiple imputation inferences.
%complete data, we could estimate $T_{X^c_j}$ with the \citet{horvitz:thompson} estimator,
%$\hat{T}_{X^c_j} = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i I(x_{ij}=c)$. When $n$ is large, the central limit theorems could be applied, and $\hat{T}_{X^c_j}$ approximately follows normal distribution with mean $N(T_{X^c_j}$ with some varaince $V_{X^c_j}$:
%\begin{equation}
%\hat{T}_{X^c_j} \sim N(T_{X^c_j}, V_{X^c_j})
%\label{prob_cons}
%\end{equation}
%When the estimated totals for all levels of $X_j$ are given, they approximately follow a multivariate normal distribution with mean $(T_{X^1_j}, \dots, T_{X^{m_j}_j})$ with some covariance $\Sigma$:
%\begin{equation}
%(T_{X^1_j}, \dots, T_{X^{m_j}_j}) \sim N \left((T_{X^1_j}, \dots, T_{X^{m_j}_j})^T, \Sigma \right)
%\label{prob_cons}
%\end{equation}
%Analysts can estimate $V_{X_k}$ using design-based principles (Fuller, 2009). As a default, $V_{X^c_j}$ could be approximated to the sampling variance of $\hat{T}_{X^c_j}$ assuming there is no missing data in $X_j$.
%Tang et al. (2024) suggest that for all $i \in \mathcal{S}$ and for all $j = 1, ..., k$, let $x_{ij}^\star = x_{ij}$ when $R_{ij} = 0$, and let $x_{ij}^\star$ be an imputed value when $R_{ij} = 1$ or $U_i=1$.
%In addition to \eqref{Umodel} -- \eqref{Rmodel}, the imputations of missing values of $X_j$ when $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$ should satisfy,
%\citet{tang2024using} describe $V_{X^c_j}$ as a ``parameter set by the analyst to reflect how closely [$\hat{T}_{X^c_j}$] should match [$T_{X^c_j}$] in any completed data set.'' A small $V_{X^c_j}$ encourages imputations that make $\hat{T}_{X^c_j}$ close to $T_{X^c_j}$.
%We note, however, that with small $V_{X_k}$ it can be challenging computationally to find imputations that satisfy \eqref{prob_cons} and adequately explore the space of plausible imputations of the missing values \citep{TangDis}.
%On the other hand, when we let $V_{X_k} \to \infty$, we effectively impose no probabilistic constraint on $\hat{T}_{X_k}$, in which case the MD-AM model is not identifiable.
%The analyst generates a completed data set for units with $U_i=0$ using a bespoke implementation of multiple imputation by chained equations. Using this completed data set, they compute the survey-weighted estimate of the variance of $\hat{T}_{X^c_j}$ using standard variance estimation techniques for complex surveys based on weights that are adjusted for unit nonresponse.
%and treating the completed data as if they came from a complex sample with no item nonresponse and using the weights (which typically are adjusted for unit nonresponse) provided by those responsible for collecting $\mathcal{D}$.
%We use this estimate for $V_{X_j^c}$.
%The procedure for estimating the hybrid missingness MD-AM model requires weights for all units. \citet{tang2024using} presume that the design weights for unit nonrespondents are not available, as is typical in released data files in practice, in which case we need to create them. \cite{tang2024using} suggest using weights
%\begin{equation}
%w_i = \left\{\begin{array}{lr}
% w_i^d & \text{if } U_i = 0\\
% \frac{N-\sum_{j \in \mathcal{S}} w_j^d}{\sum_{j \in \mathcal{S}} U_j} & \text{if } U_i = 1.
% \end{array}\right. \label{known_weights_unit_res}
%\end{equation}
% \citet{tang2024using} also describe a procedure for approximating design weights when these are not available, for example, because an agency provides adjusted weights due to calibration or post-stratification applied to the released survey file. We present this procedure in the context of the CPS data analysis in Section \ref{sec:CPS}.
%\subsubsection{Using Adjusted Weights}
%\label{sec:adjwts}
%It is a common practice for design weights to be adjusted for unit nonresponse so that the respondents weight up to the full population \citep{Valliant2013}. Indeed, adjusted weights, which we denote as $w_i^a$, are often the only weights available to analysts. Weight adjustment methods include but are not limited to weighting class adjustment, propensity score adjustment, poststratification and raking \citep{Valliant2013,Lohr2010,yajuanBayesraking}. If we use adjusted weights in \eqref{known_weights_unit_res}, we may end up with very small or even negative values of $w_i$ because the sum of the $w_i^a$ for the unit respondents already might be close to or even exceed $N$.
%Analysts could create weights for unit nonrespondents by instead requiring $\sum w_i^* = N$. We find in simulation studies that setting $w_i^*$ so that $\sum w_i^* = N$ or $\sum w_i^* = \sum w_i^a$ does not make much difference to the ultimate inferences \citep{TangDis}.
\section{Methodology}\label{sec:meth}
We now modify
%present our modifications of
the hybrid missingness MD-AM model
%of \citet{tang2024using} and \citet{yang:reiter}
to use the design weights for all sampled individuals, including unit nonrespondents. \textcolor{black}{For brevity of notation, we now let $W$ refer to the design weights $w_i^d$ rather than the weights in \eqref{known_weights_unit_res}. We follow the general strategy outlined in \citet{yang:reiter}. First, we impute values for item nonresponse. Second, we use $\mathcal{A}$ to impute values of variables with margins for the unit nonrespondents. Third, we impute values of the remaining variables for unit nonrespondents. Our innovation is to modify the second step so that imputations and the completed datasets use the design weights rather than \eqref{known_weights_unit_res} for the unit nonrespondents. This change requires new imputation algorithms, which we present in Section \ref{sec:estimation}. For the first and third steps, we use techniques presented in \citet{yang:reiter}, which we briefly summarize in Section \ref{sec:mice} and Section \ref{sec:hotdeck}.}
For convenience, we presume that $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$ for $j = 1, \dots, k<p$, and the remaining $p-k$ variables do not have auxiliary margins.
%Let $W$ represent a variable for the design weights.
%we use the imputation strategies in \citet{yang:reiter} for item nonresponse and for those $X_{j} \notin \mathcal{A}$ for unit nonresponse, as described in Section \ref{sec:meth}.
\subsection{Variables with Item Nonresponse}\label{sec:mice}
%The hot deck simplifies imputation for the unit nonrespondents, but it does not resolve the computational challenges for item nonresponse imputation. To do so, we break the imputations into two distinct stages. Instead of using \eqref{eq:imputeitem} inside an iterative estimation algorithm,
We first create multiple imputations for all values of $x_{ij}$ missing due to item nonresponse for units with $U_i=0$.
%Following \citet{yang:reiter}, we %impute values for the item nonresponse for records with $U_i=0$
We implement multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) %algorithm
%\citep{vanbuuren, raghunathan2001multivariate}
%estimated using
using only units with $U_i=0$ and potentially including $\boldsymbol{Z}$ as predictors.
The specification of the MICE algorithm does not require any extraordinary considerations.
%analysts can treat the item nonresponse imputation task as a typical multiple imputation problem.
In our simulations, we use the ``mice'' package in R \citep{vanbuuren},
following its default settings including the ordering of variables.
%Each conditional model is a function of all other survey variables except $X_j$, including possibly interaction terms. The conditional models also could include subsets of $(R_1, \dots, R_{j-1}, R_{j+1}, \dots, R_p)$ as predictors; these are fully observed for units with $U_i=0$.
We run the MICE procedure to create $L$ completed datasets for the units with $U_i=0$.
%Once we have each set of completed data for item nonresponse, we use the procedures from Section \ref{sec:estimation} and Section \ref{sec:hotdeck} to generate the imputations for unit nonrespondents, resulting in a completed dataset for all $n$ records in $\mathcal{S}$.
%We repeat this process independently $L$ times to create $L$ multiple imputation datasets for unit respondents.
%The specification of the MICE algorithm does not require any extraordinary considerations.
%analysts can treat the item nonresponse imputation task as a typical multiple imputation problem.
%In our simulations, we use the ``mice'' package in R to implement the imputation, following its default procedures for selecting the variable ordering in the sequential imputation. Each conditional model is potentially a function of all other survey variables except $X_j$, including possibly some interaction terms. The conditional models also could include subsets of $(R_1, \dots, R_{j-1}, R_{j+1}, \dots, R_p)$ as predictors; these are fully observed for units with $U_i=0$.
%The conditional models are tuned to the nature of the variables, e.g., a logistic regression for binary $X_j$ or a linear regression for continuous $X_j$.
%nonparametric imputation engines, such as CART models or predictive mean matching. Even with parametric models, using MICE instead of \eqref{eq:imputeitem} has the appealing feature of not requiring rejection sampling steps when imputing missing values of continuous variables.
%The considerations and process of developing a MICE imputation algorithm are amply described in the literature, e.g., see \citet{vanbuuren} and \citet{raghunathan2001multivariate}. We therefore provide some high level details of the process that we use via the ``mice'' package in R.
%More formally, we implement a MICE algorithm as follows.
%We first generate an initial set of imputations for item nonresponse by sampling from the empirical marginal distributions among cases with $U_i=0$. We then specify an ordering of the variables with missing values due to item nonresponse as described in \citet{vanbuuren}. For ease of explanation, suppose that all variables have item nonresponse and the ordering is $X_1, \dots, X_k$. For each $X_j$, where $j=1, \dots, k$,
%that has item nonresponse, Starting with $X_1$,
%For each $X_j$,
%we specify some conditional model
%$f(X_{j} \mid X_{1}, \dots, X_{j-1}, X_{j+1}, \dots, X_k).$ %using only the data from the unit respondents.
%The conditional model is potentially a function of all other survey variables except $X_j$, including possibly some interaction terms. The model also could include subsets of $(R_1, \dots, R_{j-1}, R_{j+1}, \dots, R_k)$ as predictors. The conditional models are tuned to the nature of the variables, e.g., a logistic regression for binary $X_j$ or a linear regression for continuous $X_j$.
%We estimate the model for any $X_j$ using the observed data and the most recently imputed values of the missing items for variables other than $X_j$. Using the estimated model and most recent imputations, we generate new imputations $x_{ij}^*$ for values where $R_{ij}=1$. We cycle through the estimation and imputation process for $X_1, \dots, X_k$, typically five to ten times. The result is one completed dataset.
%This process is repeated independently $L$ times to create $L$ multiple imputation datasets with completed data for all units with $U_i=0$.
%that is linear in the coefficients in $\Omega_j$ and has a main effect for $U$ if $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$.
\subsection{Variables with Margins for Unit Nonrespondents}\label{sec:estimation}
After imputing values for item nonresponse, in each completed dataset we impute the unit nonrespondents' values for all $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$. The analyst orders these variables based on ease of modeling. For convenience, we suppose that $X_1$ is imputed first,
%Starting with the first variable
$X_2$ is imputed second, and so on sequentially until $X_k.$
% \in \mathcal{A}$.
%we impute all $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$.
%i.e., $X_1$,
%The analyst begins with the imputations for $X_1$,
To begin, for each unit $i$ with $U_i=1$ and in each of the $L$ completed datasets, the analyst sets an initial probability distribution for imputing $x_{i1}$. For example, in each completed dataset,
%if $X_1$ has $m_1 \geq 2$ levels,
the analyst estimates a (multinomial) logistic regression of $X_1$ on \textcolor{black}{some function of $\boldsymbol{Z}$ (or $W$),}
%, e.g., a spline \citep{chen:elliott},
and uses
%$\{\Pr(X_{i1}=c | w_i): c = 1, \dots, m_1\}$
the predicted probabilities from the estimated model.
%\textcolor{black}{Unlike with \eqref{known_weights_unit_res}, $W$ can differentiate the imputation probabilities for the unit nonrespondents. This offers modeling flexibility, particularly when $\boldsymbol{Z}$ is unavailable.}
Alternatively, the analyst could regress $X_1$ on an intercept only or compute marginal probabilities of $X_1$ using survey-weighted ratio estimators. For these two alternatives, the initial probabilities are identical for all unit nonrespondents. This approach may be especially appropriate when the analyst does not expect associations between the design weights and the missing values of $X_1$ for unit nonrespondents.
%regress $X_1$ on an intercept only, which essentially makes the probability distributions for all unit nonrespondents identical, i.e.,
%$\Pr(X_{i1}=c | w_i) = 1/m_1$ for $c = 1, \dots, m_1$.
%This uniform model may be useful when the analyst does not have strong reason to expect associations between the weights and the missing values of $X_1$ for unit nonrespondents.
%Regardless of whether models condition on $\boldsymbol{Z}$ or
Regardless of how it is derived, we refer to the initial distribution for imputing $x_{i1}$ as its working distribution, notated as $\{p_{i1c}: c = 1, \dots, m_1; U_i=1; i \in \mathcal{S}\}.$ Because of imputation for item nonresponse, the working distribution for any unit can differ across completed datasets; however, for convenience, we forego notation designating completed datasets. The analyst performs the computations of this section for each of the $L$ completed datasets.
Imputing each missing $x_{i1}$ using its working distribution does not utilize the information in $\mathcal{A}_1$. The resulting imputations could generate completed-data \citet{horvitz1952generalization} estimates that are far from the known totals for some levels of $X_1$, \textcolor{black}{particularly when values are missing not at random.} We therefore modify $\{p_{i1c}\}$ to ensure the resulting imputations result in reasonable design-based, completed-data estimates of these totals. \textcolor{black}{This is the primary objective and motivation of our extension of the MD-AM framework.}
%whether including $\boldsymbol{Z}$, $W$, or neither in the imputation models.}
%in the imputation models, the primary objective of our extension
%the methodology of Section \ref{sec:review}
%to incorporate the design weights
%is to ensure the completed datasets yield plausible design-based estimates given the known margins.}
%\textcolor{blue}{This is the primary ob for extending the methodology of Section \ref{sec:review} to incorporate the design weights.}
%is to ensure the completed datasets yield plausible design-based estimates given the known margins.
%for $X_1$.
To do so,
%Method 2 is borrowed from Tang et al. (2024). Assuming n is large enough, we could apply the central limit theorem and
%follow the strategy in \citet{tang2024using}. W
we first simulate plausible values of $\hat{T}_{1c}$ for each level $c$ by appealing to large-sample central limit theorems. For $c=1, \dots, (m_1-1)$, we sample $\hat{T}_{1c}$ from $N(T_{1c}, V_{1c})$ and set $\hat{T}_{1m_1} = N - \sum_{c=1}^{m_1-1} \hat{T}_{1c}$.
%for the remaining level so that the $m_1$ drawn totals sum to $N$. Using these plausible values, w
We then find adjusted probabilities $\{\tilde{p}_{i1c}: c=1, \dots, m_1; U_i=1; i \in \mathcal{S}\}$ so that, for $c = 1, \dots, m_1$, the expectation of each completed-data estimator $\hat{T}_{1c}^{\star}$ from \eqref{prob_cons}
%$\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)$,
over imputations for unit nonresponse approximately equals $\hat{T}_{1c}$. Put another way, recognizing that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E} \left[\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)\right]
&=& \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)I(U_i=0) + \mathbb{E} \left[\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)I(U_i=1) \right] \nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)I(U_i=0) + \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i \tilde{p}_{i1c}I(U_i=1),
\end{eqnarray*}
we want
\begin{eqnarray*}
%E\left(\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)I(U_i=1)\right)
%&=& \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)I(U_i=0) + E(\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)I(U_i=1)) \nonumber\\
%&=& \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)I(U_i=0) +
\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i \tilde{p}_{i1c}I(U_i=1)
&=& \hat{T}_{1c} - \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{i1}^* = c)I(U_i = 0). \label{eq:modified}
%\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i \left(f_{1c}{p}_{i1c}/ \sum_{c=1}^{m_1}f_{1c}{p}_{i1c}\right)I(U_i=1) \nonumber \\
%&=& \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)I(U_i=0) + \left(\hat{T}_{X_1^c} - \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I_{i1}^* = c, U_i = 0)\right) \nonumber \\.
\end{eqnarray*}
%In other words, adjusting each ${p}_{i1c}$ by the constant $f$ ensures that, in expectation over repeated imputations of the missing values of $X_1$ for unit nonrespondents, the completed-data estimator of each $T_{X_1^c}$ matches the sampled $\hat{T}_{X_1^c}.$
%\begin{equation}
%\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} \tilde{p}_{i1c} w_i I(U_i = 1) = \hat{T}_{X_1^c} - \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{i1}^* = c, U_i = 0), \label{eq:modified}
%\end{equation}
To keep the imputation probabilities tied to the working distribution, for $c=1, \dots, m_1-1$, we set $\tilde{p}_{i1c} = f_{1c} p_{i1c}$, where each constant $f_{1c}>0$ is given by %the marginal probabilities of $\hat p_{X_{1i}^c} = \Pr(X_{1i} = c | U = 1)$ for each unit:
%\begin{equation}
%\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} f_{1c} p_{i1c} w_i I(U_i = 1) = \hat{T}_{X_1^c} - \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{i1}^* = c, U_i = 0), \label{eq:poisson}
%\end{equation}
%so that
\begin{equation}
f_{1c}= \frac{\hat{T}_{1c} - \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S} } w_i I(x_{i1}^* = c, U_i = 0)}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} p_{i1c} w_i I(U_i = 1)}. \label{eq:f1}
\end{equation}
%We repeat this computation for each $c=1, \dots, m_1$.
We impute $x_{i1}^*$ for each unit with $U_i=1$ by drawing randomly from the adjusted probability distribution, $\{\tilde{p}_{i1c}: c = 1, \dots, m_1\}$, where
%each $\tilde{p}_{i1c} = f_{1c}{p}_{i1c}$ for $c=1, \dots, m_1 -1$ and
$\tilde{p}_{i1m_1} = 1 - \sum_{c=1}^{m_1-1} f_{1c}{p}_{i1c}$. If $\sum_{c=1}^{m_1-1} f_{1c}{p}_{i1c}>1$, we compute \eqref{eq:f1} for $c=1, \dots, m_1$ and set $\tilde{p}_{i1c}= f_{1c}{p}_{i1c} / \sum_{c=1}^{m_1}f_{1c}{p}_{i1c}$. In the event that some $f_{1c}p_{i1c} < 0$,
%we directly impute it as~$1$;
we set those $\tilde{p}_{i1c} = 0$. Analysts may consider reducing $V_{1c}$ in this case.
%The constants $\{f_{1c}: c=1, \dots, m_1\}$ serve to adjust the working probabilities to approximately match the sampled marginal totals.
%To see this, consider the expectation of the completed-data estimator, $\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)$, over imputations for unit nonresponse. We have
%\begin{eqnarray}
%E(\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c))
%&=& \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)I(U_i=0) + E(\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)I(U_i=1)) \nonumber\\
%&=& \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)I(U_i=0) + \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i \left(f_{1c}{p}_{i1c}/ \sum_{c=1}^{m_1}f_{1c}{p}_{i1c}\right)I(U_i=1) \nonumber \\
%&=& \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{ij}^{\star} = c)I(U_i=0) + \left(\hat{T}_{X_1^c} - \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{i1}^* = c, U_i = 0)\right) \nonumber \\
%&=& \hat{T}_{X_1^c}.
%\end{eqnarray}
%In other words, adjusting each ${p}_{i1c}$ by the constant $f$ ensures that, in expectation over repeated imputations of the missing values of $X_1$ for unit nonrespondents, the completed-data estimator of each $T_{X_1^c}$ matches the sampled $\hat{T}_{X_1^c}.$
%As suggested previously, analysts may specify a common working distribution for each unit with $U_i=1$; that is, set
%\begin{comment}
%When each $p_{i1c}$ equals some common value $p_{1c}$ for all units with $U_i=1$,
%each $\tilde{p}_{i1c} = f_{1c}p_{1c} = %\tilde{p}_{1c} $ is given conveniently by
%\begin{equation}
%\tilde{p}_{1c} = \frac{\hat T_{1c} - \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S} } w_i I(x_{i1}^* = c, U_i = 0)}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S} } w_i I(U_i = 1)}.\label{p1constant}
%\end{equation}
%\end{comment}
%To set $V_{X^c_j}$, we use the MICE algorithm to impute the entire sample $\mathcal{S}$ once and use a design-based variance estimate.
%Finally, we get a vector of $(\hat{T}_{X^1_j}, \dots, \hat{T}_{X^{m_j}_j})$ for each variable $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$.
%To estimate the model and impute missing values, we propose a sequential imputation method. %called the sequential imputation algorithm (or else).
%This method utilizes the auxiliary margins for some variables to do imputation of all variables due to item response, and do imputation of all variables due to item nonresponse in a sequential manner.
%A detailed example is available in the supplementary material. The algorithm updates variables and parameters for imputing item and unit nonresponse. It can handle variables both with and without marginal information.
%For each $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$ and each level $c$ of that variable with auxiliary margins, we estimate the Horvitz-Thompson estimator $\hat{T}_{X^c_j}$ (citation ??) using 2 different methods.
%Method 1 is to estimate it for each Poisson sample. Assume that we know $T_{X^c_j} = \sum_{i = 1}^N I (x_{ij} = c)$, and we know all the weights $w_i \in \mathcal{S}$ for each Poisson sample. Therefore, we could estimate $T_{X^c_j}$ by Horvitz-Thompson estimator $\hat{T}_{X^c_j}$.
%\[\mathbb{E} [ \hat{T}_{X^c_j} ] = T_{X^c_j} \]
%\[\mathbb{E} \left[\sum_{i \in S} w_i I (x_{ij} = c) \right] = N \]
%Assume $T_{X^c_j} / N = \hat{T}_{X^c_j} / \sum_{i \in S} w_i I (x_{ij} = c)$. We could get the following.
%\[\hat{T}_{X^c_j} = \frac{ \sum_{i \in S} w_i I (x_{ij} = c)}{N} \times T_{X^c_j}\]
%\subsection{For Variables with Auxiliary Information on Unit Nonresponse}
%\subsubsection{Generalized Model}
%In general case, each $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$ follows a multinomial distribution. By maintaining the log-odds ratio for multilevel variables $X_j$, we could calculate pairwise log-odds ratios for observed samples with ($m_j - 1$) levels and use them to calculate estimated conditional probabilities for missing values for imputation.
%The generalized model allows for use of design weights for unit nonrespondents, whereas previous work assumed those weights were not available.
%As long as the equation above is met, we could arbitrarily set up the marginal probabilities of $X_{1i} = c | U = 1$ for each unit. Use the marginal probabilities $\hat p_{X_{1i}^c}$ to do imputation for $X_{1}$ for each unit i.
%Having imputed values of $X_1$ for units with $U_i=1$,
We now turn to imputing $X_2 \in \mathcal{A}$ for unit nonrespondents. We follow a similar strategy: in each completed dataset, start by setting each unit nonrespondent's working distribution for imputation of $x_{i2}^*$ given $x_{i1}^*$ and $(\boldsymbol{z}_i, w_i$), then adjust the probabilities to make $(\hat{T}_{21}^*, \dots, \hat{T}_{2m_2}^*)$ approximately match a sampled value of $(\hat{T}_{21}, \dots, \hat{T}_{2m_2}).$ \textcolor{black}{We present two options for imputing $X_2$, one based on applying a multiplicative adjustment to the working probabilities (Section \ref{sec:mdamadj}) and the other based on solving a system of equations making use of $\mathcal{A}$ (Section \ref{sec:mdamsys}).}
\subsubsection{Multiplicative Adjustment Method}\label{sec:mdamadj}
Let $p_{i2c} = \Pr(X_{i2} = c | x_{i1}^*=d, \boldsymbol{z}_i, w_i)$ be the working probability that $X_2=c$ for unit $i$, given its imputed $x_{i1}^*=d$ and $(\boldsymbol{z}_i, w_i)$.
%Following the MD-AM model,
%strategy in \citet{tang2024using}, w
We determine these from a (multinomial) logistic regression of $X_2$ on $X_1$ and possibly some function of $\boldsymbol{Z}$ or $W$, with coefficients estimated from the completed data for units with $U_i=0$. Note that if we disregard $\boldsymbol{Z}$ and $W$, $p_{i2c}
%= \Pr(X_{i2} = c | x_{i1}=d, w_i)
= \Pr(X_{2} = c | X_{1}=d)$ for $c=1, \dots, m_2$ and $d=1, \dots, m_1$; that is, the conditional probability
%that $X_2=c$
is the same for all units with $x_{i1}^*=d$. For this case (which we use in Section \ref{sec:mdamsys}), to simplify notation we drop the index $i$ for individual units and add a subscript $d$ for the value of $X_1$, writing $p_{i2c} = p_{2cd}$.
\textcolor{black}{
For $c=1, \dots, m_2-1$, we sample a plausible value of $\hat{T}_{2c}$ from a $N(T_{2c}, V_{2c})$, setting the estimated total for the final level as $\hat{T}_{2m_2} = N-\sum_{c=1}^{m_2-1}\hat{T}_{2c}$. As in \eqref{eq:f1}, we find suitable constants $f_{2c}>0$ to adjust each $p_{i2c}$. We have
\begin{equation}
f_{2c}= \frac{\hat{T}_{2c} - \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S} } w_i I(x_{i2}^* = c, U_i = 0)}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} p_{i2c} w_i I(U_i = 1)}. \label{eq:f2}
\end{equation}
%\begin{equation}
%\tilde{p}_{i2c}= f_{2c}{p}_{i2c} \label{eq:p2_m1}
%\end{equation}
We impute each $x_{i2}^*$ given
%the previously imputed
$x_{i1}^*$ and $\boldsymbol{z}_i$ (or $w_i$) for units with $U_i=1$ using a random draw from the adjusted probability mass function $\{\tilde{p}_{i2c}: c = 1, \dots, m_2\}$, where $\tilde{p}_{i2c}= f_{2c}{p}_{i2c}$ for $c=1, \dots, m_2 -1$ and $\tilde{p}_{i2m_2} = 1 - \sum_{c=1}^{m_2-1} f_{2c}{p}_{i2c}$. If $\sum_{c=1}^{m_2-1} f_{2c}{p}_{i2c}>1$, we compute \eqref{eq:f2} for $c=1, \dots, m_2$ and set
$\tilde{p}_{i2c}= f_{2c}{p}_{i2c} / \sum_{c=1}^{m_2}f_{2c}{p}_{i2c}$. As for $X_1$, if some
%if $f_{2c}{p}_{i2c} > 1$, we directly impute it as~$1$; if
$f_{2c}{p}_{i2c} < 0$, we set those $\tilde{p}_{i2c}=0$. This process ensures the completed-data \citet{horvitz1952generalization} estimates approximately match the sampled $(\hat{T}_{21}, \dots, \hat{T}_{2m_2})$ in expectation, while also incorporating relationships between $X_2$, $X_1$ and $\boldsymbol{Z}$ (or $W$) implied in the working probabilities.
%We use $\{\tilde{p}_{i2c}\}$ to impute $x_{i2}^*$ conditional on $x_{i1}^*$ for units with $U_i=1$.
We independently repeat the estimation and imputation process in each completed dataset.
} \textcolor{black}{We refer to this method as MDAM--adj.}
%When $\{p_{i2c}:c=1, \dots, m_2\}$ is determined conditionally on $x_{i1}^*$, t
When $\{p_{i2c}\}$
%c = 1, \dots, m_2; U_i=1; i \in \mathcal{S}\}$
derives from a logistic regression of $X_2$ on $X_1$ and $\boldsymbol{Z}$ (or $W$), using $\{\tilde{p}_{i2c}\}$ is equivalent to adjusting the intercept in that regression,
%logistic regression of $X_2$ on $X_1$ (and possibly $W$),
leaving other coefficients alone. This implies a model in which the log-odds for $X_1$ are the same for unit respondents and nonrespondents,
%In this way, the imputation strategy implements
in accordance with
%hybrid missingness MD-AM
no interactions between $U$ and $X_1$ in \eqref{eq:seqAN}.
%FIXED TYPOS CHANGED FROM X@ to X!
\subsubsection{Systems of Equations Method} \label{sec:mdamsys}
MDAM--adj captures the relationship between $X_2$ and $X_1$ through the logistic regression used in the working probabilities. Another approach is to impose constraints on the imputations through a system of equations implied by the assumptions underpinning
%the hybrid MDAM mechanism in
\eqref{eq:seqAN} and \eqref{prob_cons}, as we now describe.
As in Section \ref{sec:mdamadj}, we first sample plausible values of $(\hat{T}_{21}, \dots, \hat{T}_{2m_2})$. For now, we presume the working probabilities follow $p_{i2c} = p_{2cd}$ for all units.
\textcolor{black}{
%If the user has prior assumptions about the relative probabilities for units with $X_1 = d$, we could make the model more flexible for this case.
Within any completed dataset,
%$\tilde{p}_{2cd} = \Pr(X_2 = c | X_1 = d, U=1)$ for all unit nonrespondents, we can estimate
%$\tilde{p}_{i2c | 1d}$ by
%we define a system of equations implied by \eqref{eq:seqAN} and \eqref{prob_cons}.
%hybrid missingness MD-AM model assumptions.
%Let $p_{2cd} = \Pr(X_2 = d | X_1 = c, U = 0)$ to be the conditional probabilities of variable $X_2 | X_1$ in observed values, and the estimated conditional probability of $\hat p_{X_2^d | X_1^c, miss} = \Pr(X_2 = d | X_1 = c, U = 1)$ to be the conditional probabilities of variable $X_2 | X_1$ in missing values. Set r to be the reference level of $X_2$ and p to be the reference level of $X_1$.
%In total, we are going to
%Let \tilde p_{X_2^d | X_1^c, miss}
%Specifically,
we encode the constant log-odds assumption assumption in \eqref{eq:seqAN}
%of the hybrid missingness MD-AM model
as a set of $(m_1-1)(m_2 - 1)$ equations. For $c=2, \dots, m_2$ and $d=2, \dots, m_1$, we have }
%by optimization method to obtain the numerical values of $\hat p_{X_2^d | X_1^c, miss}$.
\begin{equation}
\text{log} \left[\frac{p_{2cd}}{p_{21d}}\right] - \text{log} \left[\frac{p_{2c1}}{p_{211}} \right]
= \text{log}\left[\frac{\Pr(X_2 = c| X_1 = d, U=0)}{\Pr(X_2=1| X_1=d, U=0)}\right] - \text{log} \left[\frac{\Pr(X_2=c| X_1=1, U=0)}{\Pr(X_2=1| X_1=1, U=0)} \right]. \label{eq:X2logodds}
\end{equation}
%\begin{eqnarray}
%& \text{log} \left[\frac{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2} = c, X^*_{i1} = d, U=1)}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2}=1, X^*_{i1}=d, U=1)}\right] - \text{log} \left[\frac{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2}=c, X^*_{i1}=1, U=1)}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2}=1, X^*_{i1}=1, U=1)} \right] \nonumber\\
%& = \text{log}\left[\frac{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2} = c, X^*_{i1} = d, U=0)}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2}=1, X^*_{i1}=d, U=0)}\right] - \text{log} \left[\frac{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2}=c, X^*_{i1}=1, U=0)}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2}=1, X^*_{i1}=1, U=0)} \right]. \label{eq:X2logodds}
%\end{eqnarray}
We estimate the conditional probabilities for unit respondents in \eqref{eq:X2logodds} via survey-weighted ratio estimators using the completed data; for example,
\begin{equation}
\Pr(X_2 = c | X_1 = d, U=0) = \frac{ \sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(x_{i1}^* = d, x_{i2}^* = c, U_i = 0) }{\sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(x_{i1}^* = d, U_i = 0)}. \label{eq:survwtprob}
\end{equation}
%\text{log} \left(\frac{\hat p_{X_2^d | X_1^c, obs} }{\hat p_{X_2^r | X_1^c, obs} } \right) - \text{log} \left(\frac{\hat p_{X_2^d | X_1^c, obs} }{\hat p_{X_2^d | X_1^p, obs} } \right)
%In other words, we set the odds ratio in the model for unit nonrespondents equal to the odds ratio estimated from the respondents' data.
We encode the conditions on
%the completed-data estimates of $
$(\hat{T}_{21}^*, \dots, \hat{T}_{2m_2}^*)$
in \eqref{prob_cons} as a set of $m_2$ equations. We have
%The $(m_1 - 1)(m_2 - 1)$ { equations }
%{Totally } $(m_2 - 1)$ { equations }
\begin{equation}
\sum_{d=1}^{m_1} \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i {p}_{2cd} I(x_{i1}^* = d, x_{i2}^* = c, U_i = 1) = \hat T_{2c} - \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(x_{i2}^* = c, U_i = 0). \label{eq:x2total}
\end{equation}
%for the unit respondents.
%Analysts can estimate the probabilities for respondents in the odds ratios using survey-weighted, ratio estimators.
%In total, we have $m_1(m_2-1)$ equations
%to solve
We solve these equations for the $m_1(m_2-1)$ conditional probabilities,
$\{p_{2cd}: c=2, \dots, m_2; d = 1, \dots m_1\}$. We impute $x_{i2}^*$ given $x_{i1}^*$ for the unit nonrespondents using Bernoulli draws with probabilities $\{{p}_{2cd}\}.$ We refer to this method as MDAM--sys.
It is possible to modify MDAM--sys to use working probabilities $\{p_{i2c}\}$ that vary for units with the same value of $x_{i1}^*$. To do so,
%As done in section \ref{sec:mdamadj},
%With prior assumptions about the relative probabilities $\{ {p}_{i2c | 1d} \}$ for each units with $X_1 = d$,
we impute using Bernoulli draws with probabilities $\{\tilde {p}_{i2c} \}$, where $\tilde {p}_{i2c} = f_{2cd} {p}_{i2c}$ and
\begin{equation}
f_{2cd} = \frac{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i {p}_{2cd}}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i {p}_{i2c}} \label{eq:sysadj}
%\tilde {p}_{i2c | 1d} &=& f_{2c|d} \cdot {p}_{i2c | 1d}
\end{equation}
for each $(X_2 = c, X_1 = d)$. The adjustment in \eqref{eq:sysadj} is motivated by matching
%$mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i \tilde {p}_{i2c | 1d}\right]
$\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i {p}_{2c} = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i f_{2cd} {p}_{i2c}.$
%The supplement illustrates the computations in \eqref{eq:X2logodds} and \eqref{eq:x2total} for binary $X_2$ and $X_1$.
%We use these in the simulations of Section \ref{sec:sims}.
\begin{comment}
To illustrate, we present the computations for \eqref{eq:X2logodds} and \eqref{eq:x2total} for binary $X_2$ and $X_1$. We use these in the simulations of Section \ref{sec:sims}. First, we compute
$\Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 1, U=0)$ and $\Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 0, U=0)$ using \eqref{eq:survwtprob}.
%$\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, obs} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 1, U = 0)$ and $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, obs} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 0, U = 0)$:
%\begin{eqnarray}
%\Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 1, U=0) &=& \frac{ \sum_{i \in %\textit{S} } w_i I(x_{i1}^* = 1, x_{i2}^* = 1, U_i = 0) }{\sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(x_{i1}^* = 1, U_i = 0)} \\
%\Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 0, U=0) &=& \frac{ \sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(x_{i1}^* = 0, x_{i2}^* = 1, U_i = 0) }{\sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(x_{i1}^* = 0, U_i = 0)}.
%\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, obs} = \frac{ \sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(X_{i1} = 0, X_{i2} = 1, U_i = 0) }{\sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(X_{i1} = 0, U_i = 0)}
%\end{eqnarray}
To ease notation, define
%Using the observed conditional probabilities for $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, obs}$ and $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, obs}$ to infer the missing conditional probabilities for $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, miss} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 1, U = 1)$ and $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, miss} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 0, U = 1)$. We achieve this by calculating
%Define $\hat \beta_{1 | obs}$, $\hat \beta_{0 | obs}$, $\hat \beta_{1 | miss}$ and $\hat \beta_{0 | miss}$:
\[
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\beta}_{1,obs} &=& \text{log}\left[\frac{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2} = 1, X^*_{i1} = 1, U=0)}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2}=0, X^*_{i1}=1, U=0)}\right] - \text{log} \left[\frac{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2}=1, X^*_{i1}=0, U=0)}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2}=0, X^*_{i1}=0, U=0)} \right] \label{b1obs}
\end{aligned}
\]
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat \beta_{0,obs} &=& \text{log} \left[\frac{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2}=1, X^*_{i1}=0, U=0)}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}} w_i I(X^*_{i2}=0, X^*_{i1}=0, U=0)} \right] \label{b0obs}
\end{eqnarray}
Define the unobserved quantities $\hat{\beta}_{1, mis}$ and $\hat{\beta}_{0, mis}$ for the unit nonrespondents analogously, replacing $U_i=0$ with $U_i=1$ in \eqref{b0obs}.
We set the log odds ratios equal for the unit respondents and nonrespondents, that is, we set $\hat{\beta}_{1, mis} = \hat{\beta}_{1,obs}.$ We also set
\begin{equation}
\frac{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S} } w_i I(x_{i1}^* = 1, U_i = 1)}{1 + \exp(- (\hat{\beta}_{0,mis} + \hat{\beta}_{1,mis}))} + \frac{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S} } w_i I(x_{i1}^* = 0, U_i = 1)}{1 + \exp (-\hat{\beta}_{0, mis}) } \nonumber \\
= \hat{T}_{2} - \sum_{i \in \mathcal{S} } w_i I(x_{i2}^* = 1, U_i = 0).
\end{equation}
To determine $\hat{\beta}_{0, mis}$, we numerically solve the system of nonlinear equations using the modified Powell method as implemented in the R package ``nleqslv'' \citep{hasselman2018nleqslv}.
The imputation probabilities are then
% Calculate the estimated marginal probability for $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, miss} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 1, U = 1)$ and $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, miss} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 0, U = 1)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{p}_{21 | 11} = \frac{1}{ 1 + \exp[-(\hat \beta_{0, mis} + \hat \beta_{1, mis} )] } \\
\tilde{p}_{21 | 10} = \frac{1}{ 1 + \exp(-\hat \beta_{0, mis}) }.
\end{eqnarray}
With prior assumptions about the relative probabilities $\{ {p}_{i21 | 11} \}$ and $\{ {p}_{i21 | 10} \}$ for each units, we could find $f_{21|1}$ and $f_{21|0}$ with:
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{21|1}
&=& \frac{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i \tilde{p}_{21 | 11}}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i {p}_{i21 | 11} } \\
f_{21|0}
&=& \frac{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i \tilde{p}_{21 | 10}}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{S}}w_i {p}_{i21 | 10} } \\
\tilde {p}_{i21 | 11}
&=& f_{21|1} \cdot {p}_{i21 | 11} \label{p1final} \\
\tilde {p}_{i21 | 10}
&=& f_{21|0} \cdot {p}_{i21 | 10} \label{p2final}
\end{eqnarray}
\textcolor{red}{We call this method MDAM--sys.}
% Use $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, miss}$ to impute all values for $X_2 | X_1 = 1, U = 1$.
% Use $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, miss}$ to impute all values for $X_2 | X_1 = 0, U = 1$.
\end{comment}
\subsubsection{Accounting for Additional Variables with Margins}
When $k>2$, for MDAM--adj
%$\mathcal{A}$ includes more than two variables,
we can apply the process used in \eqref{eq:f2} to each $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$. For example, if $X_3 \in \mathcal{A}$, the analyst specifies a set of working probabilities, $p_{i3c} = \Pr(X_{i3}=c | x_{i1}^*, x_{i2}^*, \boldsymbol{z}_i,w_i)$ for $c=1, \dots, m_3$ via a logistic regression of $X_3$ on $X_1, X_2,$ and $\boldsymbol{Z}$ (or $W$). The analyst samples values of $(\hat{T}_{31}, \dots, \hat{T}_{3m_3})$ and computes values of $f_{3c}$ using expressions analogous to \eqref{eq:f2}, replacing quantities based on $X_2$ with those based on $X_3$. %When
%Qthe regression for $X_j$ does not depend on $W$, so that
%the working probabilities are identical across nonresponding units,
For MDAM--sys, the analyst can solve a system of equations akin to those in \eqref{eq:X2logodds} and \eqref{eq:x2total}. However, MDAM--sys becomes increasingly complicated as more variables are added to $\mathcal{A}$.
%As more variables $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$ are introduced,we could
%For example, for $X_3$, we form the equations for the log-odds of $X_3$ for each combination of $(X_1, X_2)$, as well as for the totals of $X_3$.
%Naturally, as the number of equations grows,
%as conditional variables and use it for the calculation of the estimated conditional probability $\hat p_{X_j^d | X_1^{c_1}, \cdots, X_{j-1}^{c_{j - 1}}, miss} = \Pr(X_j = d | X_1 = c_1, \cdots, X_{j - 1} = c_{j - 1}, U = 1)$ by numerically solving the equation similar to the case of $X_2 | X_1$, though it would be more complicated.
%Once we finished imputing all missing values, independently repeat the entire estimation and imputation process for L times to to generate L completed datasets, which can be used for multiple imputation inferences.
%For variables with margins, the sampler updates parameter estimates based on unit respondents, adjusts these estimates using known margins, and draws imputations of variables from their posterior distribution using adjusted estimates.
%For variables without margins, it updates parameters based on unit respondents without intercept adjustments. See appendix for detailed imputation procedure of the Intercept Matching algorithm.
%While the hybrid missingness MD-AM model leverages auxiliary margins and accounts for survey weights in imputations, as noted previously, implementation of the model presents several practical challenges. We therefore introduce two modifications, namely (i) replacing parts of the model-based imputations for unit nonrespondents with hot deck imputations as described in Section \ref{sec:hotdeck}, and (ii) replacing the sampling steps in \eqref{eq:imputeitem} with an application of multiple imputation by chained equations as described in Section \ref{sec:mice}.
%We begin by adding hot deck imputation.
%To be specific, with substantial fractions of unit nonresponse, downstream analyses of imputed datasets could be especially sensitive to mis-specification of the joint distribution for the survey variables, since all values are missing for those units.
%with large $k$, \eqref{eq:imputeitem} is a product of many distributions, which can be cumbersome to code. Further, in the case when $X_j$ is continuous---which is not covered in \citet{tang2024using}---sampling from this conditional distribution can involve Metropolis-Hastings rejection steps. In addition to presenting coding challenges, these steps also can cause the sampler to be slow.
\begin{comment}
\subsubsection{Special Case of Model: For Two Binary Variables}
%One of the special case for general model above is to set all the marginal probabilites for each unit to be the same. (i.e., $\hat p_{X_{1i}^c} = \hat p_{X_{1}^c}$)
%To simplify the scenario, we consider 2 binary variables, $X_1$ and $X_2$ with known auxiliary margins. In this case, $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$ will follow Bernoulli distribution instead. Suppose that we know $T_{X_1} = \sum_{i=1}^N I(x_{i1} = 1)$ and $T_{X_2} = \sum_{i=1}^N I(x_{i2} = 1)$. To perform the imputation sequentially, we should first impute the missing values for $X_1$, followed by $X_2$. Set the estimated marginal probability of $\hat p_{X_1^1} = \Pr(X_1 = 1 | U = 1)$. After calculating $\hat T_{X_1}$, we have
%\[\hat p_{X_1^1} = \frac{ \hat T_{X_1} - \sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(X_{i1} = 1, U_i = 0)}{\sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(U_i = 1)} \]
%With estimated marginal probability of $X_1$, we could impute variable $X_1$ first for unit nonresponse.
For variable $X_2$, to maintain the association between $X_2$ and $X_1$ and preserve its auxiliary information, set $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, miss} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 1, U = 1)$, $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, miss} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 0, U = 1)$, $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, obs} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 1, U = 1)$ and $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, obs} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 0, U = 1)$ to be the conditional probabilities of variable $X_2 | X_1$. To estimate the $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, miss}$ and $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, miss}$, we could maintain both the auxiliary margins and their log odds ratio to be the same as the observed cases.
\[ \text{logit}(\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, miss}) - \text{logit}(\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, miss}) = \text{logit}(\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, obs}) - \text{logit}(\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, obs}) \text{ (equation 1)}\]
\[
\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, \text{miss}} \times \sum_{i \in S} w_i I(X_{i2} = 1, X_{i1} = 1, U_i = 1) +
\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, \text{miss}} \times \sum_{i \in S} w_i I(X_{i2} = 1, X_{i1} = 0, U_i = 1)
\]
\[
= \hat T_{X_2} - \sum_{i \in S} w_i I(X_{i2} = 1, U_i = 0)
\text{ (equation 2)} \]
By solving this equation numerically using the optimization method (such as the modified powell method), we get the estimated conditional probabilities of $X_2 | X_1$ for missing values. we could then use $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, \text{miss}}$ and $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, \text{miss}}$ to impute the variable $X_2$ for the unit nonresponse.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Variables Without Margins for Unit Nonrespondents}\label{sec:hotdeck}
%In hot deck imputation, analysts match units with missing values (known as recipients) to units with observed values (known as donors) based on their similarity on some set of variables. The donor's values are used as the imputation for the recipient's missing values. There are various types of hot deck imputation methods \citep{kalton1986treatment, andridge2010review}. We use the random hot deck, in which each unit's donor is randomly selected from a pool of possible donors. Other methods include, for example, nearest neighbor hot deck, weighted sequential hot deck, hierarchical hot deck, and fractional hot deck \citep{cox1980weighted, brick1996handling, kim2004fractional}.
After creating $L$ partially completed datasets using Section \ref{sec:mice} and \ref{sec:estimation}, we impute values $x_{ij}^*$ for unit nonrespondents for all $X_j \notin \mathcal{A}$. We use the random hot deck imputation procedure developed by \citet{yang:reiter}.
Paraphrasing from their presentation,
for any unit $i \in \mathcal{S}$ with $U_{i}=0$, in any completed dataset,
let $\boldsymbol{x}_{i}^{\mathcal{A}} = \{x_{ij}: X_j \in \mathcal{A}; j=1, \dots, p; U_i=0\}$ be the values of the (possibly imputed) survey variables in the completed data for those $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$.
%We next run the intercept matching algorithm described in Section \ref{sec:estimation}. Specifically, fTurning now to the unit nonrespondents,
%To begin, we create imputed values for the $X_j$ with known margins for unit nonrespondents.
Similarly, for any unit $i' \in \mathcal{S}$ with $U_{i'}=1$, let $\boldsymbol{x}_{i'}^{\mathcal{A}*} = \{x_{i'j}^*: X_j \in \mathcal{A}; j = 1, \dots, p; U_i=1\}.$
%be the vector of imputed values for those $X_j$ with known margins.
%For each unit $i'$, we obtain $\boldsymbol{x}_{i'}^{\mathcal{A}*}$ by running the algorithm described in Section \ref{sec:estimation} based on the completed data, $\{\boldsymbol{x}_{i}^{\mathcal{A}}: U_{i}=0, i \in \mathcal{S}\}$, and the known margins.
%We employ a random hot deck to create $\{x_{i'j}^*: X_j \notin \mathcal{A}\}$, i.e., the imputed values for the survey variables without known margins.
%For any any unit $i'$ with $U_{i'}=0$, let the corresponding variable be $x_{i'} = \{x_{i'j}^*: X_j \in \mathcal{A}\}$.
%we note that some $x_{i'j}^*$ could be imputations for item nonresponse in a completed dataset.
For each unit $i'$ with $U_{i'}=1$, in each completed dataset we construct its donor set,
$\mathcal{D}_{i'} = \{(x_{i1}, \dots, x_{ip}): \boldsymbol{x}_{i}^{\mathcal{A}}=\boldsymbol{x}_{i'}^{\mathcal{A}*}, U_{i}=0, i \in \mathcal{S}\}$.
%We form each $\mathcal{D}_{i'}$ in each completed dataset based on $\boldsymbol{x}_{i'}^{\mathcal{A}*}$ and the completed-data values $\{\boldsymbol{x}_{i}^{\mathcal{A}}: U_i=0, i \in \mathcal{S}\}$ in that dataset.
%and we randomly sample the donor from the completed-data records
%values
%in that $\mathcal{D}_{i'}$.
We randomly sample one record $i$ from $\mathcal{D}_{i'}$ and append its $\{(x_{i1}, \dots, x_{ik}): X_j \notin \mathcal{A}\}$ to $\boldsymbol{x}_{i'}^{\mathcal{A}*}$ to make the full imputation $\boldsymbol{x}_{i'}^*$ for unit $i'$. We apply this procedure for all units in $\mathcal{S}$ with $U_{i'}=1$, resulting in a completed dataset for all $n$ units. We repeat this process in each of the $L$ datasets.
%We substitute this procedure for imputing values of $X_j \notin \mathcal{A}$ for all units with $U_{i'}=1$ into the estimation routine of Section \ref{sec:estimation} to create the $L$ completed datasets.
%Using the completed data for units with $U_i=0$, we run the intercept matching algorithm described in Section \ref{sec:estimation} to create
%For each unit nonrespondent, we first impute its values for each $X_j \in \mathcal{A}$ following the intercept matching algorithm outlined in Section \ref{sec:estimation}. Then, we employ a random hot deck to impute the remaining survey variables without known margins, i.e., for each $X_j \notin \mathcal{A}$. To create the donor pools, we form cross-classifications of all combinations of $\{X_j: X_j \in \mathcal{A}, $. For each unit with $U_i=1$, we randomly select a donor from its matching pool. For instance,
%To illustrate, suppose $X_1$ and $X_2$ are binary variables with known margins, and $X_3$ and $X_4$ are variables without known margins. For unit $i' \in \mathcal{S}$ with $U_{i'}=1$, the algorithm in Section \ref{sec:estimation} generates the imputation $(x_{i'1}^*, x_{i'2}^*) =(1,1)$. We form a donor pool $\mathcal{D}_{i'}$ from all sampled units with $U_i=0$ having completed data values $(x_{i1}, x_{i2}) = (1,1)$. We then
%the second includes all unit respondents with $(x_{i1}, x_{i2}) = (0,1)$; the third includes all unit respondents with $(x_{i1}, x_{i2}) = (1,0)$; and the fourth includes all unit respondents with $(x_{i1}, x_{i2}) = (1,1)$. For each unit $i'$ with $U_{i'}=1$, we identify the donor pool corresponding to their imputed values for $(X_1, X_2)$ and
%randomly sample a value of
%$(X_3, X_4)$ from the donors in that pool. For example, if the imputation of $(X_1, X_2)$ for unit $i$ is $(x_{i1}^*, x_{i2}^*) =(0,0)$, we
%$(x_{i3}, x_{i4})$ from the records in $\mathcal{D}_{i'}$ and append that value to $(1,1)$ to construct the imputation for unit $i'$.
%To describe the procedure more precisely, we first suppose all units with $U_i=1$ have complete data; that is, any missing values due to item nonresponse have been imputed. We consider completed datasets arising from multiple imputation for item nonresponse shortly. For any unit $i'$ with $U_{i'}=0$, let the vector
% $\boldsymbol{x}_{i'}^{\mathcal{A}} = \{x_{i'j}: X_j \in \mathcal{A}\}$ be the survey variables for those $X_j$ with known margins. For any unit $i$ with $U_i=1$, let $\boldsymbol{x}_{i'}^{\mathcal{A}*} = \{x_{ij}^*: X_j \in \mathcal{A}\}$ be the vector of imputed values for the $X_j$ with known margins.
%For any any unit $i'$ with $U_{i'}=0$, let the corresponding variable be $x_{i'} = \{x_{i'j}^*: X_j \in \mathcal{A}\}$.
%we note that some $x_{i'j}^*$ could be imputations for item nonresponse in a completed dataset.
%To implement the random hot deck for unit $i$, we first construct the donor set
%$\mathcal{D}_i = \{(x_{i'1}, \dots, x_{i'k}): \boldsymbol{x}_{i'}^{\mathcal{A}}=\boldsymbol{x}_{i}^{\mathcal{A}*}, U_{i'}=0, i'=1, \dots, n\}$. We then randomly sample one record from $\mathcal{D}_i$ and append its values of $\{(x_{i'1}, \dots, x_{i'k}): X_j \notin \mathcal{A}\}$ to $\boldsymbol{x}_{i}^{\mathcal{A}*}$ to make the imputation $\boldsymbol{x}_i^*$ for unit $i$. We repeat this process for all units with $U_i=1$. The result is one completed dataset with values for all $n$ units. We substitute this procedure for imputing values of $X_j \notin \mathcal{A}$ for units with $U_i=1$ into the estimation routine of Section \ref{sec:estimation} to create the $L$ completed datasets.
%We independently repeat this process for each set of imputations from the intercept matching algorithm to make multiple completed datasets.
%It is possible that $\mathcal{D}_{i'} = \emptyset$ for some units. In such cases, agencies need to determine rules for identifying the set of units eligible for the donor set.
% This is common in hot deck imputation settings.
%When also using multiple imputation for item nonresponse,
%We impute all missing values for unit nonrespondents using the algorithm in Section \ref{sec:estimation} and the hot deck imputation independently for each set of unit respondents' completed data. In doing so,
%we treat the item nonresponse imputations in $\boldsymbol{x}_{i}$ for units with $U_{i}=0$ as if they were observed values. That is,
%In each completed dataset, we form each unit's $\mathcal{D}_{i'}$ based on $\boldsymbol{x}_{i'}^{\mathcal{A}*}$ and the completed-data values $\{\boldsymbol{x}_{i}^{\mathcal{A}}: U_i=0, i \in \mathcal{S}\}$ in that dataset, and we randomly sample the donor from the completed-data records
%values
%in that $\mathcal{D}_{i'}$.
%such that $U_{i'}=0$ and $x_{ij}^* = x_{i'j}^*$ for all $X_j \in \mathcal{A}, U_i=1\}$,
%COULD MATHEMATIZE.... ADD SOMETHING HERE ABOUT what happens when there is not an exact match.
%Using these imputations for unit nonrespondents, we can proceed with the model estimation strategy. The steps for sampling model parameters remain the same as in Section \ref{sec:estimation}. For imputing missing values due to item nonresponse, we can maintain the steps in Section \ref{sec:estimation} or instead use a chained equations approach, as we now describe.
\section{Simulation Studies}\label{sec:sims}
%\subsection{Data}
%We demonstrate the methodology using a repeated sampling simulation study.
We construct a population $\mathcal{P}$ comprising $N=3,405,809$ individuals from the 2023 American Community Survey public use files available from IPUMS. Each individual has the six variables described in Table \ref{tab:cps-variables}.
We fill in any missing values using a single bespoke run of the ``mice'' package. We treat the survey weight on the file as a known size measure,
%For $i=1, \dots, N$, we gather four binary variables $(x_{i1}, x_{i2}, y_{i1}, y_{i2})$ and two continuous variables $(y_{i3}, y_{i4})$ in Table 4.1. We make one of the variables in this file a size variable,
$Z= (z_1, \dots, z_N)$. To generate any $\mathcal{S}$, we sample records from $\mathcal{P}$ independently with probabilities $\pi_i=1/10z_i$, where $i=1, \dots, N$. This Poisson sampling results in approximately $n=6000$ individuals in any $\mathcal{S}$. We take 500 independent Poisson samples.
%Let $W=10Z$ be the survey weights.
%We independently sample 500 .
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Description of variables in %constructed population for
the simulation study.}
%arital status and school attendance are converted to binary variables.} %Specifically, we coded “Married” individuals as 1 and others as 0; we coded individuals attending school as 1 and others as 0; and for codes representing missing values (such as 0 or 9), we set them to missing. }
\label{tab:cps-variables}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{@{} l c X c @{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Variable} & \textbf{Notation} & \textbf{Range} \\
\midrule
Sex & $X_1$ & 1 = Male, 0 = Female \\
Marital status & $X_2$ & 1 = Married, 0 = Other \\
Any health insurance coverage & $X_3$ & 1 = Yes, 0 = No \\
School attendance & $X_4$ & 1 = Yes, 0 = No \\
Travel time to work & $X_5$ & 0 to 888 \\
Occupational income score & $X_6$ & 0 to 80 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
For each $\mathcal{S}$, we generate unit nonresponse by sampling $U_i$ for all $i \in \mathcal{S}$ from %of $U|X_1, X_2$.
%To do so, we compute $P(U=1|X_1, X_2)$ for each of the four combinations of $(X_1, X_2)$ using the true probabilities determined by joint distribution of $(U, X_1, X_2)$. We then take a Bernoulli draw of each $U_i$ based on $(x_{i1}, x_{i2})$:
\begin{equation}
\label{1a}
U \sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{U})\quad \text{logit}(\pi_{U})=\omega_{0} + \omega_{1} X_1 + \omega_{2} X_2.
\end{equation}
We set $(\omega_{0}, \omega_{1}, \omega_{2}) = (-1.6, 0.5, 0.5)$ for a unit nonresponse rate around 23\%. We make all data other than $Z$ and $W$ completely missing for every unit where \( U_i = 1 \). To generate item nonresponse for any unit $i$ with $U_i=0$, we sample $R_{ij}$ for $j=1, \dots, 6$ using
%ICIN mechanisms. We have
%to illustrate scenarios with some complete variables.
%--\eqref{2k}.
%That is, for each unit $i$ with $U_i=0$, we sample item nonresponse indicators using,
\begin{equation}
\label{2h}
\begin{aligned}
& R_{j} \mid X_1, X_2, X_3, X_4, X_5, X_6, Z, U=0
\sim \mathrm{Bernoulli}(\pi_{R_j}), \\
& \operatorname{logit}(\pi_{R_j})
= \phi_{j0} + \sum_{k \neq j} \phi_{jk} X_k
% + \sum_{Y_l \neq j} \phi_{Y_l} Y_\ell
+ \phi_{Z} Z.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We set parameters in \eqref{2h} so that approximately 20\%-25\% of each survey variable is missing for units with $U_i=0$. Specifically,
%parameter values are available in Appendix \ref{appendixB}. For all cases,
$\phi_Z = 0.00001$;
%For $j \in \{X_1, X_2, Y_1, Y_2 \}$,
$\phi_{j0} = -1.6$ when $j \leq 4$ and $\phi_{j0} = -1.5$ when $j =5,6$; and, $\phi_{jk} = 0.1$ when $k \leq 4$ and $\phi_{jk}=0.0001$ when $k=5,6$, for all $j$. We blank every $x_{ij}$ for which the sampled $R_{ij}=1$.
%$(\phi_{j1}, \phi_{j2}, \phi_{j3}, \phi_{j4}, \phi_{j5}, \phi_{j6}) = (0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.0001, 0.0001)$ for all $j$.
\begin{comment}
To demonstrate
%the performance of
this methodology, we mimic the simulation study in \citet{yang:reiter}. They found that, by leveraging auxiliary margins, multiple imputation via the hybrid missingness MD-AM model can offer more accurate inferences than multiple imputation that does not utilize $\mathcal{A}$. However, they use \eqref{known_weights_unit_res} in lieu of the design weights for unit nonrespondents, whereas
%we presume that these weights are available and
we use them per Section \ref{sec:meth}.
We generate $\mathcal{P}$ comprising $N=3,373,378$ units. This is the number of individuals in the 2022 American Community Survey data file used by \citet{yang:reiter}.
%available from the U.S.\ Census Bureau's Microdata Access Tool website (\url{https://data.census.gov/}).
We make one of the variables in this file a size variable $Z = (z_1, \dots, z_N)$; this is observed for all $N$ individuals. To generate a $\mathcal{S}$, we sample records from $\mathcal{P}$ independently with $\pi_i=1/10z_i$, where $i=1, \dots, N$. This Poisson sampling design results in approximately $n=6000$ units in any $\mathcal{S}$.
%, although the precise number varies.
Let $W=10Z$ be the survey weights.
%We note that it is crucial to account for survey design in analyses of simulated datasets, as it ensures valid design-based estimates by incorporating survey weights from complex designs.
%Following \citet{yang:reiter}, f
For each unit $i=1, \dots, N$, we consider four binary variables $(x_{i1}, x_{i2}, y_{i1}, y_{i2})$ and two continuous variables $(y_{i3}, y_{i4})$.
%We make $X_1$ depend on $W$ to ensure associations between the weights and the survey variables.
The data generation model is displayed in \eqref{2a}--\eqref{2f}.
\begin{align}
\label{2a}
U &\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{U})\quad \text{logit}(\pi_{U})=\nu_0\\
\label{2b}
X_1|U &\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{x_1})\quad
\text{logit}(\pi_{x_1})=\omega_{10}+\omega_{11}W + \theta_{1}U \\
\label{2c}
X_2|X_1,U&\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{x_2})\quad
\text{logit}(\pi_{x_2})=\omega_{20}+\omega_{21}X_1+\theta_{2}U\\
\label{2d}
X_j|X_1, \dots, X_{j-1}, U&\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{x_j})\quad
\text{logit}(\pi_{x_j})=\omega_{j0}+ \sum_{k=1}^{j-1}\omega_{jk}X_k \,\,\, \textrm{for } j=3, 4\\
\label{2f}
X_j|X_1, \dots, X_{j-1},U &\sim \text{Normal}(\omega_{j0} + \sum_{k=1}^{j-1}\omega_{jk}X_k, \sigma_{j}^2) \,\,\, \textrm{for } j=5, 6.
%X_6|X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4,X_5,U &\sim \text{Normal}(\omega_{60}+\omega_{61}X_1+\omega_{62}X_2+\omega_{63}X_3+\omega_{64}X_4+\omega_{65}X_5,\sigma_{j}^2).
\end{align}
We set $\nu_0=-1.2$ for a unit nonresponse rate around 23\%. We consider $\theta_{1}\in\{-2,-0.5\}$. The marginal distribution of $X_1$ for unit respondents and nonrespondents is substantially different when $\theta_1=-2$ and modestly different when $\theta_1=-0.5$. We use $\theta_2 = -2$, which ensures the unit respondents and nonrespondents have different marginal distributions of $X_2$. The remaining parameter
%s so that there are associations among the variables. Specific parameter
values are available in Appendix \ref{appendixB}.
\begin{align}
\label{2a}
U &\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{U})\quad \text{logit}(\pi_{U})=\nu_0\\
\label{2b}
X_1|U &\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{x_1})\quad
\text{logit}(\pi_{x_1})=\omega_{10}+\omega_{11}W + \theta_{1}U \\
\label{2c}
X_2|X_1,U&\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{x_2})\quad
\text{logit}(\pi_{x_2})=\omega_{20}+\omega_{21}X_1+\theta_{2}U\\
\label{2d}
X_3|X_1,X_2,U&\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{x_3})\quad
\text{logit}(\pi_{x_3})=\omega_{30}+\omega_{31}X_1+\omega_{32}X_2
\\
\label{2e}
X_4|X_1,X_2,X_3,U&\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{x_4})\quad
\text{logit}(\pi_{x_4})=\omega_{40}+\omega_{41}X_1+\omega_{42}X_2+\omega_{43}X_3
\\
\label{2f}
X_5|X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4,U &\sim \text{Normal}(\omega_{50}+\omega_{51}X_1+\omega_{52}X_2+\omega_{53}X_3+\omega_{54}X_4,\sigma_{x_5}^2)\\
\label{2g}
X_6|X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4,X_5,U &\sim \text{Normal}(\omega_{60}+\omega_{61}X_1+\omega_{62}X_2+\omega_{63}X_3+\omega_{64}X_4+\omega_{65}X_5,\sigma_{x_6}^2).
\end{align}
We independently sample 500 datasets.
%using Poisson sampling.
For each sample $\mathcal{S}$, we generate the unit nonrespondents by sampling Bernoulli random draws of $U_i$, where $i \in \mathcal{S}$, from the distribution of $U|X_1, X_2$ implied by \eqref{2a}--\eqref{2c}.
%To do so, we compute $P(U=1|X_1, X_2)$ for each of the four combinations of $(X_1, X_2)$ using the true probabilities determined by joint distribution of $(U, X_1, X_2)$ per \eqref{2a}--\eqref{2c}. We then take a Bernoulli draw of each $U_i$ based on $(x_{i1}, x_{i2})$, and we
We make $\boldsymbol{x}_i$ completely missing for any unit in $\mathcal{S}$ where the drawn $U_i=1$. For item nonresponse, we use the ICIN mechanisms
%to illustrate scenarios with some complete variables.
%--\eqref{2k}.
%That is, for each unit $i$ with $U_i=0$, we sample item nonresponse indicators using,
\begin{equation}
\label{2h}
R_j|X_1, X_2, X_3, X_4, X_5, X_6, U=0
\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{R_j}), \,\,\,
\text{logit}(\pi_{R_{j}}) =\phi_{j0}+ \sum_{k \neq j} \phi_{jk}X_{k}
\end{equation}
for $X_j$ where $j \in \{2, 3, 4, 6\}$, and we let $X_1$ and $X_5$ be fully observed.
We blank every $x_{ij}$ for which the sampled $R_{ij}=1$. We set parameters in \eqref{2h} so that approximately 25\% of each eligible survey variable is missing for units with $U_i=0$. Specific parameter values are available in Appendix \ref{appendixB}.
\end{comment}
%The second implements only the modification in Section \ref{sec:hotdeck}. It follows the iterative estimation algorithm in \citet{tang2024using} to generate imputations for item nonrespondents and uses the hot deck imputation with the intercept matching algorithm for unit nonrespondents. We refer to this ``MH'' for the MD-AM model with hot deck. We also fit a fully parametric version of the hybrid missingness MD-AM model using the approach in \citet{tang2024using}. We refer to this as the ``MB'' for the MD-AM model with Bayesian updates using the full conditionals from the joint model. For both MB and MH, we specify the models according to \eqref{2a}--\eqref{2k}.
We let $\mathcal{A}$ include
%the population totals
$T_{X_1}=\sum_{i=1}^N x_{i1}$ and $T_{X_2}=\sum_{i=1}^N x_{i2}$.
%which we use for multiple imputation via the MD-AM models
%are known and use them as $\mathcal{A}$ for the model
%for the hybrid missingness MD-AM model
%of Section \ref{sec:meth}.
Using Section \ref{sec:mice}, we generate $L=10$ completed datasets for item nonresponse using a bespoke implementation of the ``mice'' package.
%as described in Section \ref{sec:mice}.
Using Section \ref{sec:estimation}, we %two sets of working probabilities for $X_1$.
implement MDAM--adj and MDAM--sys with working probabilities derived from logistic regressions of $X_1$ on $Z$ and of $X_2$ on $(X_1, Z)$.
%MDAM--adj, each unit's working probability $p_{i1c}$ equals the unit's predicted probability from the logistic regression of $X_1$ on $Z$ estimated using the units with $U_i=0$, and $p_{i2c}$ equals the unit's predicted probability from the logistic regression of $X_2$ on $(X_1, Z)$ estimated using the units with $U_i=0$. We use the same working probabilities for MDAM--sys.
%For MDAM-sys, we consider an approach that
%\textcolor{red}{TO BE EDITED... The MDAM--sys method draws $\{ p_{i1c} \}$ from $\mathrm{Uniform}(0,1)$, which provides greater flexibility. We use the adjusted working probabilities to impute $X_2$ for MDAM--adj, and \eqref{p1final} and \eqref{p2final} to impute $X_2$ for MDAM--sys.}
For $V_{X_1}$ and $V_{X_2}$ used to
%used to
sample $\hat{T}_{X_1} \sim N(T_{X_1}, V_{X_1})$ and $\hat{T}_{X_2} \sim N(T_{X_2}, V_{X_2})$,
we use ``mice'' to make one completed dataset for all of $\mathcal{S}$ and compute the expressions for the unbiased variance estimators for $\hat{T}_{X_1}$ and $\hat{T}_{X_2}$ under Poisson sampling. Using Section \ref{sec:hotdeck}, we create donor pools for the hot deck by matching on $(X_1, X_2)$.
%with unit nonrespondents' weights set as in \eqref{known_weights_unit_res}.
%In each sample, we estimate the hybrid missingness MD-AM model described in Section \ref{sec:meth}. We use a bespoke implementation of the ``mice'' package in R \citep{vanbuuren} to generate completed data for item nonresponse.
%For and hot deck imputation with the intercept matching algorithm to generate the completed data for unit nonrespondents.
%We refer to the hybrid missing MD-AM model as ``MDAM''
%We also used the completed data from this preliminary run to estimate and set the initial values of all model parameters. For MH and MB, in each $\mathcal{S}$ we execute 10,000 iterations of the sampler, discarding the first 5000 as burn-in. From the remaining 5,000 posterior samples, we take every 100 posterior samples to generate $L = 10$ multiple imputation datasets. For MMH, we also create $L=10$ completed datasets using the default parameters of the ``mice'' package. For both MMH and MH, we create donor pools for the hot deck based on $(X_1, X_2)$.
%We now give a sense of the steps for imputation of item nonresponse in MB and MH, as these steps are the most computationally intensive. Specifically, we present the conditionals for $X_2$ and $X_6$. At any iteration $t$ of the estimation algorithm, we draw imputations $x_{i2}^*$ for units with $(R_{i2}=1,U_i=0)$ from a Bernoulli distribution with probability
%\begin{align}\label{eq:imputex1}
%Q&P(X_2=x|R_2=1,U=0,\dots)=\frac{P(R_2=1|X_2=x,U=0,\dots)P(X_2=x|U=0,\dots)}{\sum_{x\in\{0,1\}}P(R_2=1|X_2=x,U=0,\dots)P(X_2=x|U=0,\dots)}\\
%&\propto P(X_2=x|\dots)P(X_3|X_2=x,\dots) P(X_4|X_2=x,\dots)P(X_5|X_2=x,\dots)\\ \nonumber
%&\times P(X_6|X_2=x,\dots) P(R_3|X_2=x,\dots)P(R_4|X_2=x,\dots)P(R_6|X_2=x,\dots).
%\end{align}
%Here, $P(R_2=1|X_1=x,U=0,\dots)$ cancels from \eqref{eq:imputex1} because of the ICIN assumption in \eqref{2h}, i.e., $R_2$ is conditionally independent of $X_2$. This is straightforward to compute, although one must take care to avoid computational underflow.
%For $X_6$, we use a rejection sampling step to impute values $x_{i6}^*$ for units with $(R_{i6}=1,U_i=0)$. Let $y$ represent the value of $x_{i6}^*$ from the current iteration of the sampler. We draw a potential replacement $y'$ from the normal distribution in \eqref{2g} using the current draw of the parameters and completed data.
%Writing the normal density for $X_{6}$ evaluated at any $y$ as $f(y|\dots)$, we compute the ratio
%\begin{equation}
%a= \frac{f(y'|\dots)P(R_{i2}|x_{i6}=y',\dots)P(R_{i3}|x_{i6}=y',\dots)P(R_{i4}|x_{i6}=y', \dots)}{f(y|\dots)P(R_{i2}|x_{i6}=y,\dots)P(R_{i3}|x_{i6}=y,\dots)P(R_{i4}|x_{i6}=y, \dots)}.\label{rejection}
%\end{equation}
%We randomly sample $u\sim \text{Unif}(0,1)$, and accept $y'$ as the new imputation when $u\leq a$ and keep $y$ as the imputation otherwise. With many missing values, it can be computationally expensive to get a sufficient effective sample size.
%One can reduce the computational burden resulting from \eqref{rejection} by presuming all $\phi_{j5}=0$ for $j\in\{2,3,4\}$ when estimating the model. In this case, the full conditional for $X_6$ need not include the probabilities for any $R_j$. Indeed, in general contexts, one can go further and assume a missing completely at random model for every $R_j$, which allows the analyst to ignore models for $\boldsymbol{R}$ entirely, although at the cost of a stronger assumption on missingness than ICIN. In our simulations, we facilitate the computation for repeated sampling experiments by presuming $\phi_{j5}=0$ for $j\in\{2,3,4\}$ in both modeling and data generation, but we let other $\phi$ parameters take non-zero values in both modeling and data generation.
After generating $L=10$ completed datasets, we use the inferential methods in \citet{rubin1987multiple} for the
%, along with detailed results from the 500 simulation runs, are identical to the ones
%in \citet{yang:reiter},
marginal totals for $(X_1, \dots, X_6)$ and several conditional and joint probabilities; see
\url{https://github.com/kevinxu47/MDAM} for the full list. %involving multiple categorical variables.
%The estimands
%, along with detailed results from the 500 simulation runs,
%are identical to the ones in \citet{yang:reiter}.
%in Appendix \ref{appendixB}.
%For comparisons, we also specify a multiple imputation model that does not use $\mathcal{A}$. Specifically, we use the bespoke implementation of ``mice'' to impute missing values due to item nonresponse to create $L=10$ completed datasets for the records with $U_i=0$. To impute the values for unit nonrespondents in each completed dataset, we randomly sample records with replacement from the records with $U_i=0$ in that dataset. We refer to this method as IH, which stands for ICIN plus hot deck. For both MDAM and IH,
In each completed dataset, we compute \citet{horvitz1952generalization} point and variance estimators under Poisson sampling based on the design weights for all sampled records.
%The results will be forthcoming in a revised version of this manuscript.
For comparison, we also use the method in \citet{yang:reiter} with the weights in \eqref{known_weights_unit_res}.
%in lieu of the design weights for unit nonrespondents.
We refer to this method as MDAM--yr.
Finally, we use
%an imputation strategy that does not utilize $\mathcal{A}$. It uses
a bespoke implementation of ``mice'' to impute missing items and randomly sample whole records with replacement as imputations for unit nonresponse. We refer to this method as IH. It does not utilize $\mathcal{A}$.
%Finally, we use the method in \citet{yang:reiter} with the weights in \eqref{known_weights_unit_res}.
%in lieu of the design weights for unit nonrespondents.
%We refer to this method as MDAM--yr.
%which stands for ICIN plus hot deck.
%; although not shown here for brevity, it exhibits the poor performance evident in their simulations.
Figure \ref{fig:sim2}
%and Figure \ref{fig:sim2}
summarizes the relative root mean squared errors (rRMSEs) of the point estimates and empirical coverage rates of 95\% multiple imputation confidence intervals for the methods across the 500 samples. Results in tabular form are available at \url{https://github.com/kevinxu47/MDAM}.
%for $\theta_1=-2$; results for $\theta_1 = -0.5$ are available at URL HERE.
MDAM--adj tends to produce lower rRMSEs and higher coverage rates than IH. The coverage rates for the MD-AM models tend to exceed 95\% due to over-estimation of variances. As discussed by \citet{yang:reiter}, this is because the combining rules of \citet{rubin1987multiple} do not account for using known totals in imputation.
%in contrast, an ICIN imputation strategy that does not utilize the information in $\mathcal{A}$; although not shown here for brevity, it exhibits the poor performance evident in their simulations. PUT THIS IN THE CAPTION....
MDAM--adj and MDAM--sys offer qualitatively similar results. For both, only the interval for $T_{X_3}$ has a lower than nominal coverage rate (around 85\%).
%yet it still exceeds the coverage of the Pre-miss baseline (around 83\%), which uses the original data values before missingness is induced and imputation is performed.
This rate approximately matches the coverage rate of design-based confidence intervals estimated before introducing any missing data (see the tabular results), suggesting that the lower than nominal coverage is a feature of the complete data estimator, not a consequence of MDAM modeling.
%primarily because the imputation models do not adequately describe the distribution.
MDAM--yr performs similarly to MDAM--adj and MDAM--sys.
%---ours presumes design weights for unit nonrespondents are available, and \citet{yang:reiter} presumes they are not---
%both types of MDAM strategies work reasonably well.
As evident in the tabular results, MDAM--yr tends to have lower variances, which results from flattening all weights for unit nonrespondents to a constant.
Overall, the results suggest that the new MD-AM models enable analysts
%from Section \ref{sec:meth}
%offer principled ways
to incorporate known marginal totals in multiple imputation when using all sampled units' design weights.
%In \citet{kewei:reiter:arxiv}, we provide additional simulation results based on artificial data; results continue to illustrate the benefits of MDAM modeling.
%the data are generated from specified statistical models and do not see any coverage rates in that range.
%WFuture research is needed to derive more accurate variance estimators.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{rRMSE_real_data.png}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{rRMSE_partial_real_data.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Simulated relative RMSEs and coverage rates for population totals,
two-way conditional probabilities, and joint probabilities.
Left panel compares MDAM--adj and IH. Right panel displays MDAM--adj,
MDAM--sys, and MDAM--yr.}
\label{fig:sim2}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{rRMSE_real_data.png}
%%population totals, two-way conditional probabilities, and joint probabilities for MDAM--adj and IH.}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{rRMSE_partial_real_data.png}
\caption{Simulated rRMSEs and coverage rates for population totals, two-way conditional probabilities, and joint probabilities. Top panel compares MDAM--adj and IH. Bottom panel displays MDAM--adj, MDAM--sys, and MDAM--yr.}
\label{fig:sim2}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\begin{align}
\label{2h}
R_2|X_1, X_2, X_3, X_4, X_5, X_6, U=0
&\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{R_2})\\\nonumber
\text{logit}(\pi_{R_{2}})&=\phi_{20}+\phi_{21}X_1+\phi_{22}X_3+\phi_{23}X_4+\phi_{24}X_5+\phi_{25} X_6
\\
\label{2i}
R_3|X_1, X_2, X_3, X_4, X_5, X_6, U=0
&\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{R_{3}})\\\nonumber
\text{logit}(\pi_{R_{3}})&=\phi_{30}+\phi_{31}X_1+\phi_{32}X_2+\phi_{33}X_4+\phi_{34}X_5+\phi_{35}X_6\\
\label{2j}
R_4|X_1, X_2, X_3, X_4, X_5, X_6, U=0
&\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{R_{4}})\\\nonumber
\text{logit}(\pi_{R_{4}})&=\phi_{40}+\phi_{41}X_1+\phi_{42}X_2+\phi_{43}X_3+\phi_{44}X_5+\phi_{45}X_6
\\
\label{2k}
R_6|X_1, X_2, X_3, X_4, X_5, X_6, U=0
&\sim \text{Bernoulli}(\pi_{R_{6}})\\\nonumber
\text{logit}(\pi_{R_{6}})&=\phi_{60}+\phi_{61}X_1+\phi_{62}X_2+\phi_{63}X_3+\phi_{64}X_4+\phi_{65}X_5.
\end{align}
%The second implements only the modification in Section \ref{sec:hotdeck}. It follows the iterative estimation algorithm in \citet{tang2024using} to generate imputations for item nonrespondents and uses the hot deck imputation with the intercept matching algorithm for unit nonrespondents. We refer to this ``MH'' for the MD-AM model with hot deck. We also fit a fully parametric version of the hybrid missingness MD-AM model using the approach in \citet{tang2024using}. We refer to this as the ``MB'' for the MD-AM model with Bayesian updates using the full conditionals from the joint model. For both MB and MH, we specify the models according to \eqref{2a}--\eqref{2k}.
We let $\mathcal{A}$ include
%the population totals
$T_{1}=\sum_{i=1}^N x_{i1}$ and $T_{2}=\sum_{i=1}^N x_{i2}$, which we use for multiple imputation via the MD-AM models
%are known and use them as $\mathcal{A}$ for the model
%for the hybrid missingness MD-AM model
of Section \ref{sec:meth}.
Using Section \ref{sec:mice}, we generate $L=10$ completed datasets for item nonresponse using a bespoke implementation of the ``mice'' package in R.
%as described in Section \ref{sec:mice}.
Using Section \ref{sec:estimation}, we consider two sets of working probabilities for $X_1$. The first allows $p_{i1c}$ to vary across units: each $p_{i1c}$ equals the unit's predicted probability from the logistic regression of $X_1$ on $W$ estimated using the units with $U_i=0$.
%; we call this MD-vary.
The second fixes $p_{i1c} = p_{1c}$ across units and uses \eqref{p1constant}. For both we use \eqref{p1final} and \eqref{p2final} to impute $X_2$. For the variances $V_1$ and $V_2$ used to
%used to
sample $\hat{T}_{1} \sim N(T_1, V_1)$ and $\hat{T}_{2} \sim N(T_2, V_2)$,
we use ``mice'' to make one completed dataset for all of $\mathcal{S}$ and compute the expressions for
the unbiased variance estimators for $\hat{T}_{1}$ and $\hat{T}_{2}$ under Poisson sampling.
Using Section \ref{sec:hotdeck}, we create donor pools for the hot deck by matching on $(X_1, X_2)$.
%with unit nonrespondents' weights set as in \eqref{known_weights_unit_res}.
%In each sample, we estimate the hybrid missingness MD-AM model described in Section \ref{sec:meth}. We use a bespoke implementation of the ``mice'' package in R \citep{vanbuuren} to generate completed data for item nonresponse.
%For and hot deck imputation with the intercept matching algorithm to generate the completed data for unit nonrespondents.
%We refer to the hybrid missing MD-AM model as ``MDAM''
%We also used the completed data from this preliminary run to estimate and set the initial values of all model parameters. For MH and MB, in each $\mathcal{S}$ we execute 10,000 iterations of the sampler, discarding the first 5000 as burn-in. From the remaining 5,000 posterior samples, we take every 100 posterior samples to generate $L = 10$ multiple imputation datasets. For MMH, we also create $L=10$ completed datasets using the default parameters of the ``mice'' package. For both MMH and MH, we create donor pools for the hot deck based on $(X_1, X_2)$.
%We now give a sense of the steps for imputation of item nonresponse in MB and MH, as these steps are the most computationally intensive. Specifically, we present the conditionals for $X_2$ and $X_6$. At any iteration $t$ of the estimation algorithm, we draw imputations $x_{i2}^*$ for units with $(R_{i2}=1,U_i=0)$ from a Bernoulli distribution with probability
%\begin{align}\label{eq:imputex1}
%Q&P(X_2=x|R_2=1,U=0,\dots)=\frac{P(R_2=1|X_2=x,U=0,\dots)P(X_2=x|U=0,\dots)}{\sum_{x\in\{0,1\}}P(R_2=1|X_2=x,U=0,\dots)P(X_2=x|U=0,\dots)}\\
%&\propto P(X_2=x|\dots)P(X_3|X_2=x,\dots) P(X_4|X_2=x,\dots)P(X_5|X_2=x,\dots)\\ \nonumber
%&\times P(X_6|X_2=x,\dots) P(R_3|X_2=x,\dots)P(R_4|X_2=x,\dots)P(R_6|X_2=x,\dots).
%\end{align}
%Here, $P(R_2=1|X_1=x,U=0,\dots)$ cancels from \eqref{eq:imputex1} because of the ICIN assumption in \eqref{2h}, i.e., $R_2$ is conditionally independent of $X_2$. This is straightforward to compute, although one must take care to avoid computational underflow.
%For $X_6$, we use a rejection sampling step to impute values $x_{i6}^*$ for units with $(R_{i6}=1,U_i=0)$. Let $y$ represent the value of $x_{i6}^*$ from the current iteration of the sampler. We draw a potential replacement $y'$ from the normal distribution in \eqref{2g} using the current draw of the parameters and completed data.
%Writing the normal density for $X_{6}$ evaluated at any $y$ as $f(y|\dots)$, we compute the ratio
%\begin{equation}
%a= \frac{f(y'|\dots)P(R_{i2}|x_{i6}=y',\dots)P(R_{i3}|x_{i6}=y',\dots)P(R_{i4}|x_{i6}=y', \dots)}{f(y|\dots)P(R_{i2}|x_{i6}=y,\dots)P(R_{i3}|x_{i6}=y,\dots)P(R_{i4}|x_{i6}=y, \dots)}.\label{rejection}
%\end{equation}
%We randomly sample $u\sim \text{Unif}(0,1)$, and accept $y'$ as the new imputation when $u\leq a$ and keep $y$ as the imputation otherwise. With many missing values, it can be computationally expensive to get a sufficient effective sample size.
%One can reduce the computational burden resulting from \eqref{rejection} by presuming all $\phi_{j5}=0$ for $j\in\{2,3,4\}$ when estimating the model. In this case, the full conditional for $X_6$ need not include the probabilities for any $R_j$. Indeed, in general contexts, one can go further and assume a missing completely at random model for every $R_j$, which allows the analyst to ignore models for $\boldsymbol{R}$ entirely, although at the cost of a stronger assumption on missingness than ICIN. In our simulations, we facilitate the computation for repeated sampling experiments by presuming $\phi_{j5}=0$ for $j\in\{2,3,4\}$ in both modeling and data generation, but we let other $\phi$ parameters take non-zero values in both modeling and data generation.
After generating $L=10$ completed datasets, we use the inferential methods in \citet{rubin1987multiple} for the estimands
%, along with detailed results from the 500 simulation runs, are identical to the ones
in \citet{yang:reiter}, including
marginal totals for $(X_1, \dots, X_6)$ and several probabilities involving multiple categorical variables.
%The estimands
%, along with detailed results from the 500 simulation runs,
%are identical to the ones in \citet{yang:reiter}.
%in Appendix \ref{appendixB}.
%For comparisons, we also specify a multiple imputation model that does not use $\mathcal{A}$. Specifically, we use the bespoke implementation of ``mice'' to impute missing values due to item nonresponse to create $L=10$ completed datasets for the records with $U_i=0$. To impute the values for unit nonrespondents in each completed dataset, we randomly sample records with replacement from the records with $U_i=0$ in that dataset. We refer to this method as IH, which stands for ICIN plus hot deck. For both MDAM and IH,
In each completed dataset, we compute \citet{horvitz1952generalization} point and variance estimators for a Poisson sampling design based on the design weights for all sampled records.
%The results will be forthcoming in a revised version of this manuscript.
For comparisons, we also use the
%ICIN-plus-hot-deck (called IH)
imputation strategy in \citet{yang:reiter} that does not utilize $\mathcal{A}$. It uses a bespoke implementation of ``mice'' to impute missing items and randomly samples whole records with replacement as imputations for unit nonresponse. We refer to this method as IH.
%which stands for ICIN plus hot deck.
%; although not shown here for brevity, it exhibits the poor performance evident in their simulations.
Figure \ref{fig:sim2} summarizes the relative root mean squared errors (RMSEs) of the point estimates and empirical coverage rates of 95\% multiple imputation confidence intervals for the three methods. Results in tabular form are at \url{https://github.com/kevinxu47/MDAM}.
%for $\theta_1=-2$; results for $\theta_1 = -0.5$ are available at URL HERE.
Both MD-AM models produce accurate point estimates, mitigating the bias from the nonignorable nonresponse evident in IH. The coverage rates for both MD-AM models tend to exceed 95\% due to over-estimation of variances. As discussed by \citet{yang:reiter}, this is because the combining rules of \citet{rubin1987multiple} do not account for using known totals in imputation.
%in contrast, an ICIN imputation strategy that does not utilize the information in $\mathcal{A}$; although not shown here for brevity, it exhibits the poor performance evident in their simulations. PUT THIS IN THE CAPTION....
Overall, the results suggest that the MD-AM models enable analysts
%from Section \ref{sec:meth}
%offer principled ways
to incorporate known marginal totals in multiple imputation when using all sampled units' design weights.
\end{comment}
%WFuture research is needed to derive more accurate variance estimators.
%\section{Discussion}\label{sec:concl}
%\appendix
%\section{Algorithm for Sequential Imputation in Simulation Study}\label{appendixA}
%In this section, we present the steps for the sequential imputation for simulation study.
%Denote N as the number of the total population. Assume that we also know about the auxiliary margins of the total population, $T_{X_1}$ and $T_{X_2}$. At the outset, we consider a Poisson sample $\textit{S}$ that contains missing values resulting from both the nonresponse of items and the nonresponse of units.
%\section{Simulation Parameters}\label{appendixB}
%This section presents t
%The parameter values used in the simulations of Section \ref{sec:sims} are identical to those in \citet{yang:reiter}.
%Parameters for the simulation are as follows.
%We set
%W\begin{itemize}
%\item
%$\nu_u = -1.2$;
%\item
%$(\omega_{10}, \omega_{11}) = (0.06, -0.0002)$ and $\theta_1 \in (-2, -0.5)$;
%\item
%$(\omega_{20}, \omega_{21}) = (0.2, 0.4)$ and $\theta_2 = -2$;
%\item
%$(\omega_{30}, \omega_{31}, \omega_{32})=(0.2, 0.3, 0.1)$;
%\item
%$(\omega_{40}, \dots, \omega_{43})=(0.2, 0.4, 0.4, 0.1)$;
%\item
%$(\omega_{50}, \dots, \omega_{54})=(0.4, 1.2, -0.9, 0.1, 0.2)$ and %$\sigma_{5}=0.5$;
%\item
%$(\omega_{60}, \dots, \omega_{65})=(0.4, 1.2, -0.9, 0.1, -0.1, 0.1)$ and $\sigma_{6}=0.5$;
%$(\phi_{j0}, \dots, \phi_{j5}) = (-1.4, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0)$ for $j %\in \{2, 3, 4\}$,; and, $(\phi_{60}, \dots, \phi_{65})$$ = (-1.4, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1)$.
%\end{itemize}
%For all cases, $\phi_W = 0.0001$;
%For $j \in \{X_1, X_2, Y_1, Y_2 \}$, $\phi_{j0}$ = -1.6; for $j \in \{Y_3, Y_4 \}$, $\phi_{j0}$ = -1.5.
%For all cases, $(\phi_{X_1}, \phi_{X_2}) = (0.1, 0.1)$ and $(\phi_{Y_1}, \phi_{Y_2}, \phi_{Y_3}, \phi_{Y_4}) = (0.1, 0.1, 0.0001, 0.0001)$.
\bibliographystyle{chicago}
\bibliography{ref.bib}
\end{document}
\begin{enumerate}
\item There are 2 methods to calculate $\hat T_{X_1}$ and $\hat T_{X_2}$.
Method 1: Calculate the sum of weights in the sample $\textit{S}$, $W = \sum_{i \in \textit{S}} w_i$. Use it to calculate the weighting factor $\text{WF} = \frac{\text{W}}{\text{N}}$.
We have
\[\hat T_{X_1} = \text{WF} \times T_{X_1}\]
\[\hat T_{X_2} = \text{WF} \times T_{X_2}\]
Method 2: Do an MICE imputation for the sample $\textit{S}$ first. Calculate the empirical variances, $V_1$ and $V_2$, for variables $X_1$ and $X_2$. Draw $\hat T_{X_1} \sim N(T_{X_1}, V_1)$ and $\hat T_{X_2} \sim N(T_{X_2}, V_2)$. (Note that we only do MICE imputation once and keep using the same $V_1$ and $V_2$ all the time for multiple imputation).
\item Use MICE to impute missing values due to item nonresponse only.
\item Calculate the estimated marginal probability for $\hat p_{X_1^1} = \Pr(X_1 = 1 | U = 1)$:
\[\hat p_{X_1^1} = \frac{ \hat T_{X_1} - \sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(X_{i1} = 1, U_i = 0)}{\sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(U_i = 1)} \]
Use that probability to impute all values for $X_1$.
\item Calculate the observed conditional probabilities for $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, obs} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 1, U = 0)$ and $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, obs} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 0, U = 0)$:
\[\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, obs} = \frac{ \sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(X_{i1} = 1, X_{i2} = 1, U_i = 0) }{\sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(X_{i1} = 1, U_i = 0)} \]
\[\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, obs} = \frac{ \sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(X_{i1} = 0, X_{i2} = 1, U_i = 0) }{\sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(X_{i1} = 0, U_i = 0)} \]
\item Using the observed conditional probabilities for $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, obs}$ and $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, obs}$ to infer the missing conditional probabilities for $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, miss} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 1, U = 1)$ and $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, miss} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 0, U = 1)$. We achieve this by calculating $\hat \beta_{1 | obs}$, $\hat \beta_{0 | obs}$, $\hat \beta_{1 | miss}$ and $\hat \beta_{0 | miss}$:
\[\hat \beta_{1 | obs} = \text{logit}(\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, obs}) - \text{logit}(\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, obs}) \]
\[\hat \beta_{0 | obs} = \text{logit}(\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, obs}) - \hat \beta_{1 | obs} \]
To keep the log odd ratio of observed cases and missing cases the same, we set:
\[\hat \beta_{1 | miss} = \hat \beta_{1 | obs} \]
During calculation $\hat \beta_{0 | miss}$, solve the non-linear equation numerically by modified Powell method:
\[\frac{\sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(X_{i1} = 1, U_i = 1)}{1 + \exp[ - (\hat \beta_{0 | miss} + \hat \beta_{1 | miss})] } + \frac{\sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(X_{i1} = 0, U_i = 1)}{1 + \exp (-\hat \beta_{0 | miss}) }\]
\[= \hat T_{X_2} - \sum_{i \in \textit{S} } w_i I(X_{i2} = 1, U_i = 0) \]
Calculate the estimated marginal probability for $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, miss} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 1, U = 1)$ and $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, miss} = \Pr(X_2 = 1 | X_1 = 0, U = 1)$:
\[\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, miss} = \frac{1}{ 1 + \exp[-(\hat \beta_{0 | miss} + \hat \beta_{1 | miss} )] } \]
\[\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, miss} = \frac{1}{ 1 + \exp(-\hat \beta_{0 | mis}) } \]
Use $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^1, miss}$ to impute all values for $X_2 | X_1 = 1, U = 1$.
Use $\hat p_{X_2^1 | X_1^0, miss}$ to impute all values for $X_2 | X_1 = 0, U = 1$.
\item After imputing all values for variables with auxiliary margins ($X_1$, $X_2$), start using random hot deck imputation for variables without known margins ($Y_1$, $Y_2$, $Y_3$, $Y_4$) based on the donor pools of all units in sample $\textit{S}$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{thebibliography}{}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Akande, Madson, Hillygus, and Reiter}{Akande et~al.}{2021}]{akande2021leveraging}
Akande, O., G.~Madson, D.~S. Hillygus, and J.~P. Reiter (2021).
\newblock Leveraging auxiliary information on marginal distributions in nonignorable models for item and unit nonresponse.
\newblock {\em Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A\/}~{\em 184}, 643--662.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Akande and Reiter}{Akande and Reiter}{2022}]{akande2021multiple}
Akande, O. and J.~P. Reiter (2022).
\newblock Multiple imputations for nonignorable item nonresponse in complex surveys using auxiliary margins.
\newblock In {\em Statistics in the {P}ublic {I}nterest: In {M}emory of {S}tephen {E}. {F}ienberg}, pp.\ 289--306. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chauvet, Deville, and Haziza}{Chauvet et~al.}{2011}]{chauvet:deville:haziza}
Chauvet, G., J.~Deville, and D.~Haziza (2011).
\newblock On balanced random imputation in surveys.
\newblock {\em Biometrika\/}~{\em 98}, 459--471.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chauvet and {Do Paco}}{Chauvet and {Do Paco}}{2018}]{chauvet:paco}
Chauvet, G. and W.~{Do Paco} (2018).
\newblock Exact balanced random imputation for sample survey data.
\newblock {\em Computational Statistics \& Data Analysis\/}~{\em 128}, 1--16.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hirano, Imbens, Ridder, and Rubin}{Hirano et~al.}{2001}]{Hirano2001}
Hirano, K., G.~W. Imbens, G.~Ridder, and D.~B. Rubin (2001).
\newblock Combining panel data sets with attrition and refreshment samples.
\newblock {\em Econometrica\/}~{\em 69\/}(6), 1645--1659.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Horvitz and Thompson}{Horvitz and Thompson}{1952}]{horvitz1952generalization}
Horvitz, D.~G. and D.~J. Thompson (1952).
\newblock A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe.
\newblock {\em Journal of the American Statistical Association\/}~{\em 47}, 663--685.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kim, Brick, Fuller, and Kalton}{Kim et~al.}{2006}]{kimetal}
Kim, J.~K., J.~M. Brick, W.~A. Fuller, and G.~Kalton (2006).
\newblock On the bias of the multiple-imputation variance estimator in survey sampling.
\newblock {\em Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B\/}~{\em 68}, 509--–521.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Quartagno, Carpenter, and Goldstein}{Quartagno et~al.}{2020}]{quartagno}
Quartagno, M., J.~R. Carpenter, and H.~Goldstein (2020).
\newblock Multiple imputation with survey weights: A multilevel approach.
\newblock {\em Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology\/}~{\em 8}, 965--–989.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Reiter, Raghunathan, and Kinney}{Reiter et~al.}{2006}]{kinney:reiter:raghu}
Reiter, J.~P., T.~E. Raghunathan, and S.~Kinney (2006).
\newblock The importance of modeling the sampling design in multiple imputation for missing data.
\newblock {\em Survey Methodology\/}~{\em 3}, 143--149.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rubin}{Rubin}{1987}]{rubin1987multiple}
Rubin, D.~B. (1987).
\newblock {\em {Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys}}.
\newblock New York: John Wiley.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sadinle and Reiter}{Sadinle and Reiter}{2017}]{sadinle2017itemwise}
Sadinle, M. and J.~P. Reiter (2017).
\newblock Itemwise conditionally independent nonresponse modelling for incomplete multivariate data.
\newblock {\em Biometrika\/}~{\em 104}, 207--220.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sadinle and Reiter}{Sadinle and Reiter}{2019}]{sadinle2019sequentially}
Sadinle, M. and J.~P. Reiter (2019).
\newblock Sequentially additive nonignorable missing data modelling using auxiliary marginal information.
\newblock {\em Biometrika\/}~{\em 106}, 889--911.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tang, Hillygus, and Reiter}{Tang et~al.}{2024}]{tang2024using}
Tang, J., D.~S. Hillygus, and J.~P. Reiter (2024).
\newblock Using auxiliary marginal distributions in imputations for nonresponse while accounting for survey weights, with application to estimating voter turnout.
\newblock {\em Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology\/}~{\em 12}, 155--182.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Van Buuren}}{{Van Buuren}}{2018}]{vanbuuren}
{Van Buuren}, S. (2018).
\newblock {\em Flexible Imputation of Missing Data}.
\newblock CRC Press.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Yang and Reiter}{Yang and Reiter}{2025}]{yang:reiter}
Yang, Y. and J.~P. Reiter (2025).
\newblock Imputation of nonignorable missing data in surveys using auxiliary margins via hot deck and sequential imputation.
\newblock {\em Survey Methodology\/}~{\em 51}, 251--274.
\end{thebibliography}