Misspecification in moment inequality models: back to moment equalities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consider the linear model where one is interested in learning about β given data on y and x and when y is interval measured; that is, we observe such that . Moment inequality procedures use the implication . As compared to least squares in the classical regression model, estimates obtained using an objective function based on these moment inequalities do not provide a clear approximation to the underlying unobserved conditional mean function. Most importantly, under misspecification, it is not unusual that no parameter β satisfies the previous inequalities for all values of x, and hence minima of an objective function based on these moment inequalities are typically tight. We construct set estimates for β in the linear model that have a clear interpretation when the model is misspecified. These sets are based on moment equality models. We illustrate these sets and compare them to estimates obtained using moment inequality‐based methods. In addition to the linear model with interval outcomes we also analyse the binary missing data model with a monotone instrument assumption (MIV), we find there that when this assumption is misspecified, bounds can still be non‐empty, and can differ from parameters obtained via maximum likelihood. We also examine a bivariate discrete game with multiple equilibria. In sum, misspecification in moment inequality models is of a different flavour than in moment equality models, and so care should be taken with (1) the_interpretation of the estimates and (2) the size of the ‘identified set’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".