Projection-Based Statistical Inference in Linear Structural Models with Possibly Weak Instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that standard asymptotic theory is not applicable or is very unreli-able in models with identification problems or weak instruments. One possible way out consists of using a variant of the Anderson–Rubin ((1949), AR) procedure. The latter allows one to build exact tests and confidence sets only for the full vector of the coef-ficients of the endogenous explanatory variables in a structural equation, but not for individual coefficients. This problem may in principle be overcome by using projection methods (Dufour (1997), Dufour and Jasiak (2001)). At first sight, however, this tech-nique requires the application of costly numerical algorithms. In this paper, we give a general necessary and sufficient condition that allows one to check whether an AR-type confidence set is bounded. Furthermore, we provide an analytic solution to the problem of building projection-based confidence sets from AR-type confidence sets. The latter involves the geometric properties of “quadrics ” and can be viewed as an extension of usual confidence intervals and ellipsoids. Only least squares techniques are needed to build the confidence intervals.
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 | 0.042 | 0.238 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".