Average Causal Effect Estimation Via Instrumental Variables: the No Simultaneous Heterogeneity Assumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Instrumental variables (IVs) can be used to provide evidence as to whether a treatment has a causal effect on an outcome . Even if the instrument satisfies the three core IV assumptions of relevance, independence, and exclusion restriction, further assumptions are required to identify the average causal effect (ACE) of on . Sufficient assumptions for this include homogeneity in the causal effect of on ; homogeneity in the association of with ; and no effect modification. METHODS: We describe the no simultaneous heterogeneity assumption, which requires the heterogeneity in the - causal effect to be mean independent of (i.e., uncorrelated with) both and heterogeneity in the - association. This happens, for example, if there are no common modifiers of the - effect and the - association, and the - effect is additive linear. We illustrate the assumption of no simultaneous heterogeneity using simulations and by re-examining selected published studies. RESULTS: Under no simultaneous heterogeneity, the Wald estimand equals the ACE even if both homogeneity assumptions and no effect modification (which we demonstrate to be special cases of-and therefore stronger than-no simultaneous heterogeneity) are violated. CONCLUSIONS: The assumption of no simultaneous heterogeneity is sufficient for identifying the ACE using IVs. Since this assumption is weaker than existing assumptions for ACE identification, doing so may be more plausible than previously anticipated.
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 | 0.073 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".