Identification of Average Marginal Effects in Fixed Effects Dynamic Discrete Choice Models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In nonlinear panel data models, fixed effects methods are often criticized because they cannot identify average marginal effects (AMEs) in short panels. The common argument is that identifying AMEs requires knowledge of the distribution of unobserved heterogeneity, but this distribution is not identified in a fixed effects model with a short panel. In this paper, we derive identification results that contradict this argument. In a panel data dynamic logit model, and for $T$ as small as three, we prove the point identification of different AMEs, including causal effects of changes in the lagged dependent variable or the last choice's duration. Our proofs are constructive and provide simple closed-form expressions for the AMEs in terms of probabilities of choice histories. We illustrate our results using Monte Carlo experiments and with an empirical application of a dynamic structural model of consumer brand choice with state dependence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it