MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292176388 · doi:10.1080/07474938.2015.1092806

Efficient estimation with many weak instruments using regularization techniques

2013· preprint· en· W2292176388 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEstimatorRegularization (linguistics)Unbiased EstimationMathematicsApplied mathematicsInstrumental variableEconometricsMathematical optimizationStatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of weak instruments is due to a very small concentration parameter. To boost the concentration parameter, we propose to increase the number of instruments to a large number or even up to a continuum. However, in finite samples, the inclusion of an excessive number of moments may be harmful. To address this issue, we use regularization techniques as in Carrasco (2012) and Carrasco and Tchuente (2013). We show that normalized regularized 2SLS and LIML are consistent and asymptotically normally distributed. Moreover, their asymptotic variances reach the semiparametric efficiency bound unlike most competing estimators. Our simulations show that the leading regularized estimators (LF and T of LIML) work very well (is nearly median unbiased) even in the case of relatively weak instruments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it