On the Validity of Durbin-Wu-Hausman Tests for Assessing Partial Exogeneity Hypotheses with Possibly Weak Instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the validity of the standard specification tests for assessing the exogeneity of subvectors in the linear IV regression. Our results show that ignoring the endogeneity of the regressors whose exogeneity is not being tested leads to invalid tests (level is not controlled). When the fitted values from the first stage regression of these regressors are used as instruments under the partial null hypothesis of interest, as suggested Hausman and Taylor (1980, 1981), some versions of these tests are invalid when identification is weak and the number of instruments is moderate. However, all tests are overly conservative and have no power when the number of instruments increases, even for moderate identification strength.
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 | 0.184 | 0.618 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".