MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007145966 · doi:10.1093/biomet/asaa003

Generalized instrumental inequalities: testing the instrumental variable independence assumption

2020· article· en· W3007145966 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrika · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstrumental variableMathematicsIndependence (probability theory)Variable (mathematics)Outcome (game theory)EconometricsInferenceIntersection (aeronautics)Conditional independenceBinary numberVariablesStatisticsMathematical economicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This paper proposes a new set of testable implications for the instrumental variable independence assumption for discrete treatment, but unrestricted outcome and instruments: generalized instrumental inequalities. When outcome and treatment are both binary, but instruments are unrestricted, we show that the generalized instrumental inequalities are necessary and sufficient to detect all observable violations of the instrumental variable independence assumption. To test the generalized instrumental inequalities, we propose an approach combining a sample splitting procedure and an inference method for intersection bounds. This idea allows one to easily implement the test using existing Stata packages. We apply our proposed strategy to assess the validity of the instrumental variable independence assumption for various instruments used in the returns to college literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.340
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.054 · 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