Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 95 references

Robust Inference with High-Dimensional Instruments

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a weak-identification-robust test whose self-normalized statistic converges to standard normal under the null even when instruments outnumber observations and errors are network- or spatially dependent.

desk verdict A plausible and genuinely novel combination—weak-ID-robust IV inference with K larger than N under general error dependence—but the main null-distribution theorem is deferred to an unpublished self-cited preprint, so the central claim cannot be checked as submitted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23834 v1 pith:RP5UTSAC submitted 2025-06-30 econ.EM

Qu Feng , Sombut Jaidee , Wenjie Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.EM
keywords high-dimensionalinstrumentsweakidentificationinstrumentalvariablesrandommatrixtheoryself-normalizationnetworkdependencespatialAnderson-Rubintests
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to close a gap in instrumental-variable inference: tests that tolerate many weak instruments usually assume homoskedastic or independent errors, while tests that tolerate dependent errors usually require few instruments. It constructs a test statistic by self-normalizing the residual vector and projecting it on the eigenvectors of the instrument Gram matrix, then shows that this statistic converges to a standard normal distribution under the null when the number of instruments grows proportionally with the sample size. A plug-in version, in which the unknown spectral normalization is estimated from the data, inherits the same limit. The paper also derives a power theory: under local alternatives the statistic has a shifted normal limit, so the test can detect departures at a specific rate. If correct, practitioners can test the structural coefficient without estimating the error covariance matrix, even with many instruments and network or spatial dependence.

What carries the argument

The central object is the self-normalized quadratic form \(Q_N\) built from the singular value decomposition of \(Z/\sqrt{N}\). The instrument matrix is expanded as \(Z/\sqrt{N} = \sum_{\ell} \sqrt{\lambda_\ell} q_\ell w_\ell'\), and the statistic compares the projection of the self-normalized outcome \(\underline{Y}\) onto the eigenvectors \(q_\ell\) against the trace of the Gram matrix: \(\underline{Y}' S_N \underline{Y} - \operatorname{tr}(S_N)/N\). Self-normalization by \(\|Y^*\|\) makes the statistic scale-free, while the spectral average over \(\lambda_\ell\) lets random matrix theory control the high-dimensional fluctuations without estimating the \(N\times N\) error covariance matrix. The proof engine is a random-matrix concentration lemma for quadratic forms in iid entries, together with a plug-in estimator of \(\operatorname{tr}(\$Sigma^{2}$)\). The power theorem additionally decomposes the statistic into a null part and deterministic drift terms involving the first-stage coefficients and the correlation between the structural and first-stage errors.

What would settle it

Re-derive the omitted proof of Theorem 1 in this IV model; if it requires an additional condition not stated in the paper, such as a bound on error-dependence strength, the claim as stated would fail. Alternatively, simulate the feasible statistic under the null with strongly concentrated errors—one error carrying most of the norm—and check whether size is still near the nominal level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under Assumptions 1–3, with instruments generated as \(z_i = \$Sigma^{{1/2}}$ f_i\) for iid entries \(f_i\) and \(K/N\) converging to a positive constant, the oracle statistic \[Q_N = \sqrt{\frac{$N^{2}$}{2\operatorname{tr}(\$Sigma^{2}$)}}\left(\underline{Y}' S_N \underline{Y} - \frac{1}{N}\operatorname{tr}(S_N)\right)\] satisfies \(Q_N \xrightarrow{d} N(0,1)\) under \(H_0:\$\beta$=\beta_0\), where \(\underline{Y}\) is the self-normalized residual vector and \(S_N = Z'Z/N\). Replacing \(\operatorname{tr}(\$Sigma^{2}$)\) with the ratio-consistent estimator \(\widehat{\operatorname{tr}(\$Sigma^{2}$)} = \frac{1}{N(N-1)}\sum_{i\ne j}(z_i'z_j)^2\) gives the feasible statistic \(\widehat{Q}_N\) with the same standard normal limit. Under local alternatives defined by \($h^{2}$ = N\$\Delta$^2/(2\operatorname{tr}(\$Sigma^{2}$))^{2/5}\), the statistic is asymptotically normal with a non-central drift, yielding a nondegenerate power function. The paper’s stated contribution is that this is the first inference procedure that is simultaneously dimension-robust, weak-identification-robust, and robust to general error dependence of network or spatial type.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on an unpublished companion theorem whose proof is not reproduced here applying unchanged to this IV setting, plus the delocalization condition \(\sum_i |u_i|^3 = o_P(1)\), which is assumed rather than derived from primitive network or spatial dependence conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Applied IV studies with many instruments—judge designs, shift-share instruments, and Fama-MacBeth regressions—could test the causal coefficient using standard normal critical values even when the number of instruments is proportional to or larger than the sample size.
  • The test remains valid under weak identification, so low first-stage F statistics do not invalidate it.
  • Because the limiting distribution does not require knowledge of the error covariance matrix, network and spatial dependence can be accommodated without cluster-robust or spatial-HAC corrections.
  • The local power result provides a concrete detection rate: departures of size \(\Delta\) satisfying \(h^2 = N\Delta^2/(2\operatorname{tr}(\Sigma^2))^{2/5} > 0\) are detectable, with power increasing in \(h\).
  • The feasible statistic inherits the standard normal limit, so the method is operational with no user-chosen tuning parameter beyond the instrument set.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • By inverting the test, one could construct identification-robust confidence sets for \(\beta\) that retain the same dimension- and dependence-robustness; the paper itself only presents hypothesis tests.
  • The dependence of the detection rate on \((2\operatorname{tr}(\Sigma^2))^{1/5}\) suggests that instrument spectra matter for power: instruments whose eigenvectors spread the signal across many directions may make smaller effects detectable, a design implication the paper does not draw.
  • If the delocalization condition \(\sum_i |u_i|^3 = o_P(1)\) fails—for example, when one error dominates the sample—the normal approximation may break down; a practical safeguard would estimate this quantity from residuals and flag cases where it is not small.
  • A bootstrap variant, in the spirit of dimension-agnostic bootstrap tests but combined with self-normalization, could extend the approach to fixed \(K\), which the authors note is outside the present theory.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a weak-identification-robust test for linear instrumental variable regressions with high-dimensional instruments, allowing K to exceed N, and claims robustness to general error dependence such as network and spatial dependence. The test statistic is a self-normalized quadratic form in the instruments, normalized by tr(Σ²), and its asymptotic null distribution is stated in Theorem 1 (oracle) and Corollary 1 (feasible). Theorem 2 states a nondegenerate power property under local alternatives. The simulation section reports finite-sample size and power for N=400 across network, spatial, and multiplicative heteroskedastic error designs.

Significance. If the stated results were fully proven, the paper would fill a genuine gap by combining high-dimensional-instrument asymptotics (K comparable to or larger than N) with general error dependence, an area where the existing AR-type tests mostly assume independence or cluster structure. The literature review is broad and the simulation design covers plausible dependence structures. However, the central null-distribution claim is not established in the submitted manuscript: the proofs of Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 are explicitly deferred to an unpublished overlapping preprint, and the proof of Theorem 2 inherits that unproven result. The paper therefore cannot be verified from its own content.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A.1 and A.2 (Theorem 1 and Corollary 1)] The proofs of the two central limit theorems are not included. Appendix A.1 states 'The proof is identical to Theorem 1 in (Feng et al., 2024) so we omitted the proof' and A.2 states the same for Corollary 1. The referenced manuscript is an unpublished preprint by overlapping authors and is not reproduced or independently verified. This is load-bearing because Corollary 1 is the feasible statistic used in the simulations, and because the proof of Theorem 2 in Appendix A.3 explicitly invokes the asymptotic normality of J11 from Theorem 1. The main null-distribution claim of the paper therefore cannot be checked from the submitted material. The authors should supply complete, self-contained proofs or clearly state that the results are conditional on an external unpublished manuscript.
  2. [Theorem 1, condition (ii); Corollary 1, additional condition] Theorem 1 condition (ii) requires \sum_{i=1}^N |u_i|^3 = o_P(1) for the self-normalized errors u_i = \epsilon_i / \|\epsilon\|. This is a delocalization condition on the error vector, but the paper does not derive it from Assumption 3 or from any primitive network/spatial dependence condition. Corollary 1 further requires \sum_{i=1}^N u_i = O_P(1) without any argument. Since Assumption 3 only imposes mean independence and an unidentified functional form, the paper does not establish that the error processes used in the simulations satisfy these conditions. The asymptotic regime for general error dependence is therefore unsupported.
  3. [Appendix A.3 (Theorem 2 proof)] The proof of Theorem 2 is not self-contained: it states 'We already show the asymptotic normality of J11 in Theorem 1' and thus inherits the unproven Theorem 1. In addition, the included proof has notational and algebraic inconsistencies that prevent verification, including the interchangeable use of T and N, the mixing of p and K, an undefined sigma-algebra F_{T,*} in the L1/L2 discussion, and a garbled decomposition involving J221, J222, J223, and J224. Correcting these issues is not merely cosmetic because the proof as written does not allow the reader to check the steps.
  4. [Corollary 1 and \widehat{\mathrm{tr}(\Sigma^2)}] The feasible statistic replaces tr(\Sigma^2) with the estimator \widehat{\mathrm{tr}(\Sigma^2)} = [N(N-1)]^{-1}\sum_{i\ne j}(z_i'z_j)^2, citing Li and Chen (2012). No proof is provided that this estimator is ratio-consistent under Assumption 2 with K/N \to c \in (0,\infty) and the factor structure used in the simulations. Since the proof of Corollary 1 is omitted, the validity of the feasible statistic is doubly unsupported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, after Eq. (5)] The displayed definition 'Y := Y^* / (Y^{*\prime}Y^*)^{1/2} \in (0,1)' should state that Y is a unit-norm vector in \mathbb{R}^N; as written it appears to define a scalar.
  2. [Assumption 3] The phrase 'for all i = 0, \ldots, N' should read 'i = 1, \ldots, N'.
  3. [Appendix A.3] The labels J211, J212, J213, J221, J222, J223, and J224 are used inconsistently; in particular, J211 appears to denote different quantities in different lines of the proof.
  4. [Section 3] The simulations report only N=400 and use 1,000 replications with MATLAB's default seed; no standard errors for the rejection probabilities are given. The results are illustrative, but they do not by themselves demonstrate the claimed asymptotic regime.
  5. [References] The entry for Feng et al. (2024) lists only 'archive' with no arXiv identifier or publication status; this makes the deferred proofs particularly difficult to locate or check.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 are not proved in the paper: each proof is deferred verbatim to an unpublished overlapping-authored preprint, and Theorem 2's power theory inherits the same deferred null limit.

  1. self citation load bearing [Appendix A.1, Proof of Theorem 1; reference list entry for Feng et al. (2024)]
    "The proof is identical to Theorem 1 in (Feng et al., 2024) so we omitted the proof."

    Theorem 1 is the paper's central null-distribution result (Q_N → N(0,1) under Assumptions 1-3). Its proof is entirely absent from the submitted material: the only justification given is that the proof is 'identical to Theorem 1 in (Feng et al., 2024)'. That cited manuscript is an unpublished 'archive' preprint whose author list overlaps the present paper (Feng and Jaidee appear in both). None of the independence conditions in the rubric hold: the proof is not reproduced, the cited result is not machine-checked or code-verified here, and no external verification is provided. The oracle statistic's claimed N(0,1) limit therefore reduces, as submitted, to an unverified self-citation rather than to any derivation contained in the paper.

  2. self citation load bearing [Appendix A.2, Proof of Corollary 1]
    "The proof is identical to Corollary 1 in (Feng et al., 2024) so we omitted the proof."

    The feasible statistic bQ_N → N(0,1) — the headline practical result, and the statistic whose size and power are reported in Table 1 — is justified by the same sentence pattern, deferred to the same overlapping unpublished preprint. Since bQ_N merely replaces tr(Σ²) with the Li-Chen (2012) consistent estimator inside Q_N, its limit is exactly the oracle result of Theorem 1, which is itself only a citation to Feng et al. (2024). The null-distribution chain for both the oracle and the feasible tests thus terminates at the self-citation, with no assumption or equation in this paper supplying the distributional content.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Appendix A.3, Proof of Theorem 2, step (i) of the proof]
    "We already show the asymptotic normality of J11 in Theorem 1."

    Theorem 2's nondegenerate power claim is assembled from J11, defined as sqrt(N²/(2tr(Σ²)))·(u'S_N u − tr(S_N)/N) with u the self-normalized error — under the null exactly the Q_N of Theorem 1. The proof states that the asymptotic normality of J11 was already shown in Theorem 1, i.e., the only distributional step in the power proof is the very theorem whose proof was omitted and deferred to the self-cited Feng et al. (2024). Hence Theorem 1, Corollary 1, and Theorem 2 all inherit their asymptotic distributions from that single unverified self-citation.

full rationale

The manuscript itself asserts the omissions: A.1 'The proof is identical to Theorem 1 in (Feng et al., 2024) so we omitted the proof,' A.2 the same for Corollary 1, and A.3 'We already show the asymptotic normality of J11 in Theorem 1.' Under the rubric's pattern 3 (self-citation load-bearing), this is a circularity: the central claim — that Q_N and bQ_N converge to N(0,1) under Assumptions 1-3 — is justified only by citation to an unpublished archive preprint by overlapping authors, with no proof, machine-check, code reproduction, or external verification supplied. Every asymptotic distributional claim in the paper (Theorem 1, Corollary 1, and Theorem 2's J11 block) reduces to that single self-citation, so the result is forced by a self-citation chain, matching the score-8 anchor. The surrounding material is genuinely independent and non-circular: the IV formulation, Assumption 3's general-dependence class, the algebra bounding the J12–J14 power terms, the Li-Chen (2012) consistent trace estimator, and the Monte Carlo study do not reduce to the paper's own inputs. Separately, Theorem 1 condition (ii), Σ|u_i|³ = o_P(1), is asserted for network and spatial dependence without derivation from primitive conditions, and Table 1's N=400 simulations do not verify the asymptotic regime; that is an unsupported-assumption concern rather than a circularity. If the deferred proof were included, or the cited result were independently verified (published with proof, machine-checked, or code-reproduced), the circularity score would fall to 0-2; as submitted, the paper's central distributional derivation is a load-bearing, unverified self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The test has no tuning parameters, so the free-parameter list is empty. The validity rests on several domain assumptions (proportional asymptotics, factor instruments, exogeneity) and on ad hoc conditions on self-normalized errors that are not verified for the claimed general dependence structures. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: K/N -> c in (0, infinity) as N -> infinity
    High-dimensional proportional regime; excludes a fixed number of instruments or slower growth.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: instruments Z = Sigma^{1/2} F with F iid entries, mean 0, variance 1, finite fourth moment
    Factor model for instruments needed for random matrix theory; requires Sigma to be deterministic and bounded in operator norm.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: instruments are independent of errors epsilon and v; errors may have general dependence via unknown functions of the other errors and exogenous variables
    Exogeneity of instruments is imposed; general error dependence is allowed but the independence from Z is essential for the moment condition under the null.
  • ad hoc to paper Theorem 1 condition (ii): sum_i |u_i|^3 = o_P(1) for self-normalized errors u_i = epsilon_i / ||epsilon||
    This is a sufficient delocalization condition for the RMT CLT; it is not derived from primitive conditions on the network or spatial error process.
  • ad hoc to paper Corollary 1 condition: sum_i u_i = O_P(1)
    An additional restriction on the self-normalized errors, needed for the feasible statistic with the Li-Chen estimator of tr(Sigma^2).
  • standard math Moment conditions E(f_11^4) < infinity (and E(f_11^8) < infinity in Theorem 2)
    Standard moment conditions used in Bai-Silverstein type lemmas cited in the appendix.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Inference with High-Dimensional Instruments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RP5UTSAC

@misc{pith2026250623834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Inference with High-Dimensional Instruments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RP5UTSAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23834}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a weak-identification-robust test for linear instrumental variable (IV) regressions with high-dimensional instruments, whose number is allowed to exceed the sample size. In addition, our test is robust to general error dependence, such as network dependence and spatial dependence. The test statistic takes a self-normalized form and the asymptotic validity of the test is established by using random matrix theory. Simulation studies are conducted to assess the numerical performance of the test, confirming good size control and satisfactory testing power across a range of various error dependence structures.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anatolyev, S. and N. Gospodinov (2011). Specification testing in models with many instruments. Econometric Theory\/ 27\/ (2), 427--441

    2011

  2. [2]

    Anatolyev, S. and A. Mikusheva (2022). Factor models with many assets: strong factors, weak factors, and the two-pass procedure. Journal of Econometrics\/ 229\/ (1), 103--126

    2022

  3. [3]

    Anatolyev, S. and M. S lvsten (2023). Testing many restrictions under heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics\/ 236\/ (1), 105473

    2023

  4. [4]

    Kunitomo, and Y

    Anderson, T., N. Kunitomo, and Y. Matsushita (2010). On the asymptotic optimality of the liml estimator with possibly many instruments. Journal of Econometrics\/ 157\/ (2), 191--204

    2010

  5. [5]

    Andrews, D. W. (2017). Identification-robust subvector inference. Technical report, Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper 2105

    2017

  6. [6]

    Andrews, D. W. K. and J. H. Stock (2007). Testing with many weak instruments. 138\/ (1), 24--46

    2007

  7. [7]

    Andrews, I., J. H. Stock, and L. Sun (2019). Andrews-Stock-Sun(2019) Weak instruments in instrumental variables regression: Theory and practice . Annual Review of Economics\/ 11\/ (1), 727--753

    2019

  8. [8]

    Angrist, J. and B. Frandsen (2022). Machine labor. Journal of Labor Economics\/ 40\/ (S1), S97--S140

    2022

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    Imbens, and A

    Angrist, J., G. Imbens, and A. Krueger (1999). Angrist(1999) Jackknife instrumental variables estimates . 14\/ (1), 57--67

    1999

  2. [10]

    Angrist, J. D. and A. B. Krueger (1991). Does compulsory school attendance affect schooling and earning? Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 106\/ (4), 979--1014

    1991

  3. [11]

    Tibshirani, and S

    Athey, S., J. Tibshirani, and S. Wager (2019). Generalized random forests. The Annals of Statistics\/ 47\/ (2), 1148--1178

    2019

  4. [12]

    Bai, Z. D., B. Q. Miao, and G. M. Pan (2007). On asymptotics of eigenvectors of large sample covariance matrix . The Annals of Probability\/ 35 , 1532 -- 1572

    2007

  5. [13]

    Bai, Z. D. and J. W. Silverstein (1998). No eigenvalues outside the support of the limiting spectral distribution of large-dimensional sample covariance matrices. The Annals of Probability\/ 26 , 316--345

    1998

  6. [14]

    Bartik, T. J. (1991). Who benefits from state and local economic development policies? Kalamazoo, MI: WE Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

    1991

  7. [15]

    Bekker, P. (1994). Bekker(1994) Alternative approximations to the distributions of instrumental variable estimators . Econometrica\/ 62\/ (3), 657--681

    1994

  8. [16]

    Belloni, A., D. Chen, V. Chernozhukov, and C. Hansen (2012). Sparse models and methods for optimal instruments with an application to eminent domain. Econometrica\/ 80 , 2369--2429

    2012

  9. [17]

    Chernozhukov, and C

    Belloni, A., V. Chernozhukov, and C. Hansen (2011). Inference for high-dimensional sparse econometric models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1201.0220\/

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bhattacharya, A. and D. B. Dunson (2011). Sparse bayesian infinite factor models. Biometrika\/ 98 , 291--306

    2011

  11. [19]

    Blanchard, O. J., L. F. Katz, R. E. Hall, and B. Eichengreen (1992). Regional evolutions. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity\/ 1992\/ (1), 1--75

    1992

  12. [20]

    Bonney, M

    Blandhol, C., J. Bonney, M. Mogstad, and A. Torgovitsky (2022). When is tsls actually late? Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA

    2022

  13. [21]

    Roth, and L

    Bondy, M., S. Roth, and L. Sager (2020). Crime is in the air: The contemporaneous relationship between air pollution and crime. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists\/ 7\/ (3), 555--585

    2020

  14. [22]

    Boot, T. and J. W. Ligtenberg (2023). Identification- and many instrument-robust inference via invariant moment conditions. arXiv:2303.07822\/

    2023

  15. [23]

    Boot, T. and D. Nibbering (2024). Inference on lates with covariates. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12607\/

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Carrasco, M. (2012). A regularization approach to the many instruments problem. Journal of Econometrics\/ 170\/ (2), 383--398

    2012

  17. [25]

    Carrasco, M. and M. Doukali (2017). Efficient estimation using regularized jackknife iv estimator. Annals of Economics and Statistics\/ (128), 109--149

    2017

  18. [26]

    Carrasco, M. and G. Tchuente (2015). Regularized liml for many instruments. Journal of Econometrics\/ 186\/ (2), 427--442

    2015

  19. [27]

    Carrasco, M. and G. Tchuente (2016a). Efficient estimation with many weak instruments using regularization techniques. Econometric Reviews\/ 35\/ (8-10), 1609--1637

    2016

  20. [28]

    Carrasco, M. and G. Tchuente (2016b). Regularization based anderson rubin tests for many instruments. Technical report, School of Economics Discussion Papers, University of Kent

    2016

  21. [29]

    Chamberlain, G. and G. Imbens (2004). Random effects estimators with many instrumental variables. Econometrica\/ 72\/ (1), 295--306

    2004

  22. [30]

    Chao, J. C. and N. R. Swanson (2005). Chao-Swanson(2005) Consistent Estimation with a Large Number of Weak Instruments . Econometrica\/ 73\/ (5), 1673--1692

    2005

  23. [31]

    Chao, J. C., N. R. Swanson, J. A. Hausman, W. K. Newey, and T. Woutersen (2012). Asymptotic distribution of jive in a heteroskedastic iv regression with many instruments. Econometric Theory\/ 28\/ (1), 42--86

    2012

  24. [32]

    Chao, J. C., N. R. Swanson, and T. Woutersen (2023). Jackknife estimation of a cluster-sample iv regression model with many weak instruments. Journal of Econometrics\/

    2023

  25. [33]

    Chudik, A., M. H. Pesaran, and E. Tosetti (2011). Weak and strong cross-section dependence and estimation of large panels

    2011

  26. [34]

    Mellace, and Z

    Crudu, F., G. Mellace, and Z. S \'a ndor (2021). Inference in instrumental variable models with heteroskedasticity and many instruments. Econometric Theory\/ 37\/ (2), 281--310

    2021

  27. [35]

    Davey Smith, G. and S. Ebrahim (2003). Mendelian randomization: Can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? International journal of epidemiology\/ 32\/ (1), 1--22

    2003

  28. [36]

    Davies, N. M., S. von Hinke Kessler Scholder, H. Farbmacher, S. Burgess, F. Windmeijer, and G. D. Smith (2015). The many weak instruments problem and mendelian randomization. Statistics in medicine\/ 34\/ (3), 454--468

    2015

  29. [37]

    Heutel, N

    Deryugina, T., G. Heutel, N. H. Miller, D. Molitor, and J. Reif (2019). The mortality and medical costs of air pollution: Evidence from changes in wind direction. American Economic Review\/ 109\/ (12), 4178--4219

    2019

  30. [38]

    Goldin, and C

    Dobbie, W., J. Goldin, and C. S. Yang (2018). The effects of pretrial detention on conviction, future crime, and employment: Evidence from randomly assigned judges. American Economic Review\/ 108\/ (2), 201--40

    2018

  31. [39]

    Dobriban, E. and S. Wager (2018). High-dimensional asymptotics of prediction: Ridge regression and classification. The Annals of Statistics\/ 46\/ (1), 247--279

    2018

  32. [40]

    Donald, S. G. and W. K. Newey (2001). Choosing the number of instruments. Econometrica\/ 69\/ (5), 1161--1191

    2001

  33. [41]

    Dov \` , M.-S., A. B. Kock, and S. Mavroeidis (2024). A ridge-regularized jackknifed anderson-rubin test. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics\/ , 1--12

    2024

  34. [42]

    Dufour, J.-M. and M. Taamouti (2005). 0in Projection -based statistical inference in linear structural models with possibly weak instruments. Econometrica\/ 73\/ (4), 1351--1365

    2005

  35. [43]

    Evdokimov, K. S. and M. Koles \'a r (2018). Inference in instrumental variables analysis with heterogeneous treatment e ects

    2018

  36. [44]

    Fama, E. F. and J. D. MacBeth (1973). Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy\/ 81\/ (3), 607--636

    1973

  37. [45]

    Farbmacher, H., R. Groh, M. M \"u hlegger, and G. Vollert (2024). Revisiting the many instruments problem using random matrix theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08580\/

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Jaidee, G

    Feng, Q., S. Jaidee, G. Pan, and W. Zhu (2024). Robust testing in high dimensional linear models. archive\/

    2024

  39. [47]

    Fuller, W. A. (1977). Some properties of a modification of the limited information estimator. Econometrica\/ 45\/ (4), 939--953

    1977

  40. [48]

    Gabaix, X. and R. S. Koijen (2024). Granular instrumental variables. Journal of Political Economy\/ 132\/ (7), 000--000

    2024

  41. [49]

    Sorkin, and H

    Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., I. Sorkin, and H. Swift (2020). Bartik instruments: What, when, why, and how. American Economic Review\/ 110\/ (8), 2586--2624

    2020

  42. [50]

    Kleibergen, and S

    Guggenberger, P., F. Kleibergen, and S. Mavroeidis (2019). A more powerful subvector anderson rubin test in linear instrumental variables regression. Quantitative Economics\/ 10\/ (2), 487--526

    2019

  43. [51]

    Kleibergen, and S

    Guggenberger, P., F. Kleibergen, and S. Mavroeidis (2021). A powerful subvector anderson rubin test in linear instrumental variables regression with conditional heteroskedasticity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11371\/

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Kleibergen, S

    Guggenberger, P., F. Kleibergen, S. Mavroeidis, and L. Chen (2012). GKMC(2012) On the asymptotic sizes of subset Anderson--Rubin and Lagrange multiplier tests in linear instrumental variables regression . Econometrica\/ 80\/ (6), 2649--2666

    2012

  45. [53]

    Han, C. and P. C. Phillips (2006). Gmm with many moment conditions. Econometrica\/ 74\/ (1), 147--192

    2006

  46. [54]

    Hausman, and W

    Hansen, C., J. Hausman, and W. Newey (2008). Estimation with many instrumental variables. 26\/ (4), 398--422

    2008

  47. [55]

    Hansen, C. and D. Kozbur (2014). Instrumental variables estimation with many weak instruments using regularized jive. Journal of Econometrics\/ 182\/ (2), 290--308

    2014

  48. [56]

    Montanari, S

    Hastie, T., A. Montanari, S. Rosset, and R. J. Tibshirani (2022). Surprises in high-dimensional ridgeless least squares interpolation. Annals of statistics\/ 50\/ (2), 949

    2022

  49. [57]

    Hausman, J. A., W. K. Newey, T. Woutersen, J. C. Chao, and N. R. Swanson (2012). Instrumental variable estimation with heteroskedasticity and many instruments. Quantitative Economics\/ 3\/ (2), 211--255

    2012

  50. [58]

    Kaffo, M. and W. Wang (2017). Kaffo-Wang(2017) On bootstrap validity for specification testing with many weak instruments . Economics Letters\/ 157 , 107--111

    2017

  51. [59]

    Karoui, N. E. (2008). Spectrum estimation for large dimensional covariance matrices using random matrix theory . The Annals of Statistics\/ 36 , 2757--2790

    2008

  52. [60]

    Khan, S., X. Lan, E. Tamer, and Q. Yao (2024). Estimating high dimensional monotone index models by iterative convex optimization. Journal of Econometrics\/ , 105901

    2024

  53. [61]

    Kim, M. S. and Y. Sun (2011). Spatial heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent estimation of covariance matrix. Journal of Econometrics\/ 160\/ (2), 349--371

    2011

  54. [62]

    Kleibergen, F. (2002). Kleibergen(2002) Pivotal statistics for testing structural parameters in instrumental variables regression . Econometrica\/ 70\/ (5), 1781--1803

    2002

  55. [63]

    Marmer, and K

    Kojevnikov, D., V. Marmer, and K. Song (2021). Limit theorems for network dependent random variables. Journal of Econometrics\/ 222 , 882--908

    2021

  56. [64]

    Koles \'a r, M. (2013). Estimation in instrumental variables models with heterogeneous treatment effects. Working Paper\/

    2013

  57. [65]

    Koles \'a r, M. (2018). Minimum distance approach to inference with many instruments. Journal of Econometrics\/ 204\/ (1), 86--100

    2018

  58. [66]

    Kuersteiner, G. and R. Okui (2010). Constructing optimal instruments by first-stage prediction averaging. Econometrica\/ 78\/ (2), 697--718

    2010

  59. [67]

    Kunitomo, N. (1980). Asymptotic expansions of the distributions of estimators in a linear functional relationship and simultaneous equations. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 75\/ (371), 693--700

    1980

  60. [68]

    Ledoit, O. and M. Wolf (2002). Some hypothesis tests for the covariance matrix when the dimension is large compared to the sample size. The Annals of Statistics\/ 30 , 1081--1102

    2002

  61. [69]

    Lee, D. S., J. McCrary, M. J. Moreira, and J. R. Porter (2022). Valid t-ratio inference for iv. American Economic Review\/ 112\/ (10), 3260--90

    2022

  62. [70]

    Li, J. and S. X. Chen (2012). Two sample tests for high-dimensional covariance matrices . The Annals of Statistics\/ 40 , 908--940

    2012

  63. [71]

    Zhang, T

    Li, S., L. Zhang, T. T. Cai, and H. Li (2024). Estimation and inference for high-dimensional generalized linear models with knowledge transfer. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 119 , 1274--1285

    2024

  64. [72]

    Ligtenberg, J. W. (2023). Inference in iv models with clustered dependence, many instruments and weak identification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08559\/

    2023

  65. [73]

    Wang, and Y

    Lim, D., W. Wang, and Y. Zhang (2024a). A conditional linear combination test with many weak instruments. Journal of Econometrics\/ 238\/ (2), 105602

    2024

  66. [74]

    Wang, and Y

    Lim, D., W. Wang, and Y. Zhang (2024b). A dimension-agnostic bootstrap anderson-rubin test for instrumental variable regressions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01603\/

    2024

  67. [75]

    Maestas, N., K. J. Mullen, and A. Strand (2013). Does disability insurance receipt discourage work? using examiner assignment to estimate causal effects of ssdi receipt. American Economic Review\/ 103\/ (5), 1797--1829

    2013

  68. [76]

    Matsushita, Y. and T. Otsu (2022). Jackknife lagrange multiplier test with many weak instruments. Econometric Theory\/ forthcoming

    2022

  69. [77]

    Maurice J. G. Bun, H. F. and R. W. Poldermans (2020). Finite sample properties of the gmm anderson-rubin test. Econometric Reviews\/ 39\/ (10), 1042--1056

    2020

  70. [78]

    Mikusheva, A. and L. Sun (2022). Inference with many weak instruments. Review of Economic Studies\/ 89\/ (5), 2663--2686

    2022

  71. [79]

    Morimune, K. (1983). Approximate distributions of k-class estimators when the degree of overidentifiability is large compared with the sample size. Econometrica\/ 51\/ (3), 821--841

    1983

  72. [80]

    Navjeevan, M. (2023). An identification and dimensionality robust test for instrumental variables models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14892\/

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Newey, W. K. and F. Windmeijer (2009). Newey-Windmeijer(2009) Generalized method of moments with many weak moment conditions . Econometrica\/ 77\/ (3), 687--719

    2009

  74. [82]

    Okui, R. (2011). Instrumental variable estimation in the presence of many moment conditions. Journal of Econometrics\/ 165\/ (1), 70--86

    2011

  75. [83]

    Onatski, A., M. J. Moreira, and M. Hallin (2013). Asymptotic power of sphericity tests for high-dimensional data. The Annals of Statistics\/ 41 , 1204--1231

    2013

  76. [84]

    Sampat, B. and H. L. Williams (2019). How do patents affect follow-on innovation? evidence from the human genome. American Economic Review\/ 109\/ (1), 203--36

    2019

  77. [85]

    Shanken, J. (1992). On the estimation of beta-pricing models. The Review of Financial Studies\/ 5\/ (1), 1--33

    1992

  78. [86]

    S oczy \'n ski, T. (2024). When should we (not) interpret linear iv estimands as late? arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06695\/

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    S lvsten, M. (2020). Robust estimation with many instruments. Journal of Econometrics\/ 214\/ (2), 495--512

    2020

  80. [88]

    Stock, J. and M. Yogo (2005). Asymptotic distributions of instrumental variables statistics with many instruments. Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg\/ 6 , 109--120

    2005

  81. [89]

    Tuvaandorj, P. (2024). Robust permutation tests in linear instrumental variables regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ (forthcoming), 1--24

    2024

  82. [90]

    Wang, W. (2020). Wang(2020) On the inconsistency of nonparametric bootstraps for the subvector Anderson-Rubin test . Economics Letters\/ , 109157

    2020

  83. [91]

    Wang, W. and F. Doko Tchatoka (2018). Wang-Doko(2018) On Bootstrap inconsistency and Bonferroni-based size-correction for the subset Anderson--Rubin test under conditional homoskedasticity . Journal of Econometrics\/ 207\/ (1), 188--211

    2018

  84. [92]

    Wang, W. and M. Kaffo (2016). Bootstrap inference for instrumental variable models with many weak instruments. Journal of Econometrics\/ 192\/ (1), 231--268

    2016

  85. [93]

    Wang, W. and Y. Zhang (2024). Wild bootstrap inference for instrumental variables regressions with weak and few clusters. Journal of Econometrics\/ 241\/ (1), 105727

    2024

  86. [94]

    Yap, L. (2024). Inference with many weak instruments and heterogeneity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11193\/

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Zhang, Z., P. Ding, W. Zhou, and H. Wang (2025). With random regressors, least squares inference is robust to correlated errors with unknown correlation structure. Biometrika\/ 112 , asae054

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.