Estimating and Testing Models with Many Treatment Levels and Limited Instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many empirical microeconomic studies estimate econometric models that assume a single finite-valued discrete endogenous regressor (for example: different levels of schooling), exoge-nous regressors that are additively separable and enter the equation linearly; and coefficients (including per-unit treatment effects) that are homogeneous in the population. Empirical re-searchers interested in the causal effect of the endogenous regressor often use instrumental variables. When few valid instruments are available, researchers typically estimate restricted specifications that impose uniform per-unit treatment effects, even when these effects are likely to vary depending on the treatment level. In these cases, ordinary least squares (OLS) and in-strumental variables (IV) estimators identify different weighted averages of all per-unit effects, so the traditional Hausman test (based on the restricted specification) is uninformative about endogeneity. Addressing this concern, we develop a new exogeneity test that compares the IV estimate from the restricted model with an appropriately weighted average of all per-unit effects estimated from the more general model using OLS. Notably, our test works even when the true model cannot be estimated using IV methods as long as a single valid instrument is available (e.g. a single binary instrument). We re-visit three recent empirical examples that examine the role of educational attainment on various outcomes to demonstrate the practical value of our test.
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 | 0.068 | 0.274 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".