Misspecification in moment inequality models: back to moment equalities?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it