MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2969935180 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.08083

Complete Subset Averaging with Many Instruments

2018· preprint· en· W2969935180 on OpenAlexaff
Seojeong Lee, Youngki Shin

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorMathematicsMean squared errorFunction (biology)Sample size determinationStatisticsSet (abstract data type)Applied mathematicsClass (philosophy)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a two-stage least squares (2SLS) estimator whose first stage is the equal-weighted average over a complete subset with $k$ instruments among $K$ available, which we call the complete subset averaging (CSA) 2SLS. The approximate mean squared error (MSE) is derived as a function of the subset size $k$ by the Nagar (1959) expansion. The subset size is chosen by minimizing the sample counterpart of the approximate MSE. We show that this method achieves the asymptotic optimality among the class of estimators with different subset sizes. To deal with averaging over a growing set of irrelevant instruments, we generalize the approximate MSE to find that the optimal $k$ is larger than otherwise. An extensive simulation experiment shows that the CSA-2SLS estimator outperforms the alternative estimators when instruments are correlated. As an empirical illustration, we estimate the logistic demand function in Berry, Levinsohn, and Pakes (1995) and find the CSA-2SLS estimate is better supported by economic theory than the alternative estimates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.004 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact→French-language works237,207→