Factor‐Based Identification‐Robust Interference in IV Regressions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Robust methods for instrumental variable inference have received considerable attention recently. Their analysis has raised a variety of problematic issues such as size/power trade‐offs resulting from weak or many instruments. We show that information reduction methods provide a useful and practical solution to this and related problems. Formally, we propose factor‐based modifications to three popular weak‐instrument‐robust statistics, and illustrate their validity asymptotically and in finite samples. Results are derived using asymptotic settings that are commonly used in both the factor and weak‐instrument literature. For the Anderson–Rubin statistic, we also provide analytical finite‐sample results that do not require any underlying factor structure. An illustrative Monte Carlo study reveals the following. Factor‐based tests control size regardless of instruments and factor quality. All factor‐based tests are systematically more powerful than standard counterparts. With informative instruments and in contrast to standard tests: (i) power of factor‐based tests is not affected by k even when large; and (ii) weak factor structure does not cost power. An empirical study on a New Keynesian macroeconomic model suggests that our factor‐based methods can bridge a number of gaps between structural and statistical modeling. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.025 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".