REVIEW 3 cited by
An Identification and Dimensionality Robust Test for Instrumental Variables Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Using modifications of Lindeberg's interpolation technique, I propose a new identification-robust test for the structural parameter in a heteroskedastic instrumental variables model. While my analysis allows the number of instruments to be much larger than the sample size, it does not require many instruments, making my test applicable in settings that have not been well studied. Instead, the proposed test statistic has a limiting chi-squared distribution so long as an auxiliary parameter can be consistently estimated. This is possible using machine learning methods even when the number of instruments is much larger than the sample size. To improve power, a simple combination with the sup-score statistic of Belloni et al. (2012) is proposed. I point out that first-stage F-statistics calculated on LASSO selected variables may be misleading indicators of identification strength and demonstrate favorable performance of my proposed methods in both empirical data and simulation study.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Wild Bootstrap Inference for Linear Regressions with Many Covariates
A scaled wild bootstrap is proven asymptotically valid for inference on a regression coefficient when the number of covariates is of the same order as the sample size and errors are heteroskedastic.
-
Robust Inference with High-Dimensional Instruments
A self-normalized, random-matrix-based test for the structural parameter in IV regressions with K proportional to N and general error dependence, with the central proof deferred to the authors' prior unpublished work.
-
An Empirical Comparison of Weak-IV-Robust Procedures in Just-Identified Models
Anderson-Rubin and tF procedures are compared on AER data and simulations, with Anderson-Rubin showing higher power and shorter confidence intervals in most specifications.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.