MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409297037 · doi:10.3390/e27040396

Weak Identification Robust Tests for Subvectors Using Implied Probabilities

2025· article· en· W4409297037 on OpenAlexafffund
Marine Carrasco, Saraswata Chaudhuri

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsScore testDistortion (music)Identification (biology)Wald testMoment (physics)ScoreProjection (relational algebra)Class (philosophy)StatisticsStatistical hypothesis testingLikelihood-ratio testEmpirical likelihoodApplied mathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops tests for hypotheses concerning subvectors of parameters in models defined by moment conditions. It is well known that conventional tests such as Wald, Likelihood-ratio and Score tests tend to over-reject when the identification is weak. To prevent uncontrolled size distortion and introduce refined finite-sample performance, we extend the projection-based test to a modified version of the score test using implied probabilities obtained by information theoretic criteria. Our test is performed in two steps, where the first step reduces the space of parameter candidates, while the second one involves the modified score test mentioned earlier. We derive the asymptotic properties of this procedure for the entire class of Generalized Empirical Likelihood implied probabilities. Simulations show that the test has very good finite-sample size and power. Finally, we apply our approach to the veteran earnings and find a negative impact of the veteran status.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntropySame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207