The Ridge Path Estimator for Linear Instrumental Variables

Fallaw Sowell; Nandana Sengupta

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 24 references

The Ridge Path Estimator for Linear Instrumental Variables

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A data-selected ridge penalty makes the tuning parameter part of the asymptotic law and improves IV estimation in low-precision samples.

desk verdict Novel shrinkage-IV idea, but Theorem 1's moment conditions have a sign error and characterize a different estimator, so the central asymptotic claim does not hold as written. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09237 v1 pith:YK2YXMNT submitted 2019-08-25 econ.EM stat.ML

Nandana Sengupta , Fallaw Sowell This is my paper · ORCID

classification econ.EMstat.ML

keywords ridgepathestimatorinstrumentalvariablesregressiontuningparameterselectiontrainingandtestsamplesGMMboundarymeansquarederror

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

This paper proposes a ridge-penalized estimator for linear instrumental variables models in which the shrinkage tuning parameter is chosen by the data rather than fixed or forced to satisfy an arbitrary rate condition. The estimator works by tracing a one-dimensional path in the parameter space from the IV estimate to an economically meaningful prior, then selecting the point on that path that minimizes the IV objective on a holdout sample. The paper's central theoretical claim is that the empirically selected tuning parameter must be treated as an estimated parameter: it converges to zero at root-$n$ speed and has a nonstandard, boundary-type asymptotic distribution jointly with the coefficients. This matters because in low-precision or small-sample IV settings the estimator can achieve materially lower mean squared error than two-stage least squares, and because it gives practitioners a way to report uncertainty that accounts for having chosen the tuning parameter from the data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ridge path itself. For each value of $\alpha$, the training subsample defines $\hat\beta_{IV,\tau n}(\alpha) = (X'_{\tau n}P_{Z_{\tau n}}X_{\tau n}/[\tau n] + \alpha I_k)^{-1}(X'_{\tau n}P_{Z_{\tau n}}Y_{\tau n}/[\tau n] + \alpha\beta_p)$, a smooth curve in the coefficient space that runs from the IV estimate at $\alpha=0$ to the prior $\beta_p$ as $\alpha\to\infty$; the estimator is the point on this curve that minimizes the IV objective on the test subsample. The asymptotic machinery is a GMM reparameterization whose moment conditions include the first-order conditions of both the training ridge problem and the test-sample selection problem. Applying a boundary-parameter GMM theorem to this just-identified system yields the cone projection and, therefore, the mixture limiting distribution with mass at $\alpha=0$.

What would settle it

Simulate the paper's design with $\beta_p$ set equal to $\beta_0=(0,0)'$ and let $n$ grow. If the central claim is right, the limiting objective is flat in $\alpha$ and the claimed mixture law for $\hat\alpha$ should not appear; in particular, the asymptotic mass at $\hat\alpha=0$ should depart from the predicted 50\% limit and the matrix that must be inverted in the proof becomes singular.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a ridge-penalized IV estimator with a data-selected tuning parameter can be embedded in the standard GMM framework and its limiting behavior characterized exactly. Under the paper's Assumptions 1-3, the tuning parameter $\hat\alpha$ converges to 0 and $\sqrt{n}\hat\alpha = O_p(1)$; the asymptotic distribution of $\sqrt{n}(\hat\theta - \theta_0)$ is the distribution of the minimizer $\hat\lambda$ of $(Z-\lambda)'M_0'M_0(Z-\lambda)$ over the cone $\Lambda = \{\lambda : \lambda_{\alpha} \ge 0\}$, where $Z$ is the limiting normal vector $(\lim_{n\to\infty} E[-\partial h_i(\theta_0)/\partial\theta'])^{-1}\sqrt{n}H_n(\theta_0)$. Because the population value $\alpha_0=0$ lies on the boundary of the parameter space, the limiting law is a mixture: a discrete mass at $\alpha=0$ and a continuous part over $\alpha>0$. The paper further claims, from Monte Carlo evidence, that in strongly identified models with low finite-sample precision this ridge path estimator has lower MSE than two-stage least squares, and remains competitive when 2SLS is best.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, not stated among Assumptions 1-3, is that the researcher's prior $\beta_p$ differs from the true coefficient $\beta_0$; when they coincide, the limiting test-sample objective is flat in $\alpha$, so the tuning parameter is no longer root-$n$ estimable and the proof of Lemma 1 breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Inference must treat the tuning parameter as part of the parameter vector; conditioning on the selected $\hat\alpha$ ignores the discrete mass at zero in the limiting distribution.
In low-precision or small-sample settings, the ridge path estimator achieves lower combined MSE than 2SLS; in high-precision, large-sample settings 2SLS is better but the ridge path estimator stays competitive.
The probability that the data choose 'no regularization' ($\hat\alpha=0$) approaches roughly one-half as $n$ grows, so the boundary mixture is a first-order feature rather than an edge case.
Closer priors improve the estimator's relative performance, and even a prior several standard deviations from the truth can beat 2SLS in small, low-precision samples.

Reading between the lines

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

Because $\hat\alpha$ converges to zero, the estimator is asymptotically equivalent to 2SLS; its value is a finite-sample MSE improvement, so it is best read as a small-sample method rather than a new asymptotic estimator.
The same split-sample, cone-projection logic should extend to other penalties (Lasso, bridge, elastic net) and to $k$-fold cross-validation when the selected penalty converges to a boundary; the paper leaves these extensions open.
A practical diagnostic follows directly: plot the ridge path $\hat\beta(\alpha)$ and the test-sample objective as functions of $\alpha$; the shape of these curves reveals whether the data can discriminate between the prior and the IV estimate.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The idea here is genuinely interesting: shrink a linear IV estimator toward a nonzero prior with a ridge penalty, select the tuning parameter on a holdout sample, and then derive the joint asymptotic distribution of coefficients and tuning parameter as a boundary-GMM mixture. That combination is new, and the paper engages seriously with the post-model-selection literature. The simulation design is thoughtful — four sample sizes, four precision levels, three priors, 10,000 reps — and the MSE gains in low-precision small samples are plausible. Credit where it's due: the path interpretation from 2SLS to prior is clear, and the use of Andrews (2002) is appropriate if the moment system were correct.

But the central theorem is built on a sign error. The first-order condition for the ridge path estimator, equation (10), is the negative of the score plus the penalty: -S' R^{-1} z(y - x'b) + alpha(b - beta_p) = 0. The third block of the moment vector in equation (14) has the positive score plus the penalty: +S' R^{-1} z(y - x'b) + alpha(b - beta_p). Setting that block to zero gives (A - alpha I)b = X'P_ZY - alpha beta_p, whereas the actual ridge solution solves (A + alpha I)b = X'P_ZY + alpha beta_p. These coincide only at alpha = 0. The GMM estimator whose asymptotics are characterized by Theorem 1 is therefore not the ridge path estimator defined in Section 2 for any positive tuning parameter. Since the limiting matrix M0 is computed for the wrong moment vector, the claimed mixture distribution does not apply to the proposed estimator. This is not a cosmetic slip; it invalidates the paper's main theoretical contribution.

There is also a secondary gap: Assumptions 1–3 do not require beta_p != beta_0, and the proof of Lemma 1 plus the invertibility of D in Appendix B both fail when the prior equals the true parameter. The authors do not flag this. The abstract also overclaims when it says the asymptotic distribution captures the sampling distributions — the simulations only examine the proportion of zero tuning parameter values, not the full distribution of the coefficients. That is a minor overstatement relative to the sign problem.

The paper deserves a referee's attention because the idea is worth salvaging, and the flaw is the kind a careful referee can pinpoint. But as it stands, the central result is wrong. I would tell a serious editor: send it out if the authors can first verify the moment conditions; otherwise the paper should not proceed. My own recommendation is reject in current form, with a clear path to resubmission if the sign is fixed and the theory is reworked.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a ridge-type estimator for linear instrumental variables models in which the parameter of interest is shrunk toward a prior vector beta_p, and the regularization tuning parameter alpha is selected empirically by splitting the sample into training and test parts. The ridge path estimator is defined as the training-sample ridge solution evaluated at the alpha that minimizes the test-sample IV objective. The paper's central theoretical contribution is Theorem 1, which claims that under Assumptions 1-3 the joint asymptotic distribution of the parameter estimates and the empirically selected alpha is a nonstandard mixture distribution obtained by applying Andrews (2002) boundary GMM theory to a just-identified moment system H_n(theta)=0 given in equation (14). Simulation evidence compares the ridge path estimator with 2SLS across sample sizes, instrument strengths, and prior values, and reports the empirical distribution of the selected alpha.

Significance. If Theorem 1 were correct, the paper would fill a real gap: most regularized IV estimators either treat the tuning parameter as fixed or impose rate conditions on it, whereas this paper attempts to characterize the asymptotic distribution when the tuning parameter is itself estimated from a holdout sample. The GMM embedding and the use of the boundary-parameter framework of Andrews (2002) are sensible strategies, and the simulations cover a wide grid of sample sizes, signal strengths, and priors. The paper is also transparent about the bias-variance trade-off and about when the ridge path estimator does not dominate 2SLS. However, the central theorem as stated is not for the estimator defined in Section 2 because equation (14) contains a sign error in the beta moment condition, and the proof also requires an unstated assumption that the prior differs from the true parameter. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main claim.

major comments (2)

[Equation (14) vs. Equation (10)] The third block of the moment vector in equation (14) is 1_{tau n}(i)(S'_tau R^{-1}_tau z_i(y_i - x_i' beta) + alpha(beta - beta_p)), whereas the first-order condition for the ridge estimator in equation (10) has the negative of the score term: - (1/[tau n]) sum_i S'_tau R^{-1}_tau z_i(y_i - x_i' beta) + alpha(beta - beta_p) = 0. Setting the third block of H_n(theta) = 0 gives (A - alpha I) beta = X'_tau P_{Z_tau} Y_tau / [tau n] - alpha beta_p, with A = S'_tau R^{-1}_tau S_tau, while the ridge path estimator in equation (11) solves (A + alpha I) beta = X'_tau P_{Z_tau} Y_tau / [tau n] + alpha beta_p. The two systems coincide only when alpha = 0. Consequently, Theorem 1 characterizes the asymptotic distribution of a different estimator, and the matrix M_0 in Theorem 1 is the derivative of the wrong moment vector. This is a load-bearing error because the mixture distribution for the ridge path estimator is the paper's main theoretical result.
[Assumptions 1-3, Lemma 1, and Appendix B] The asymptotic theory requires beta_p different from beta_0, but this is not stated in Assumptions 1-3. In the proof of Lemma 1, the deterministic limit of Q_{n(1-tau)}(alpha) is uniquely minimized at alpha = 0 only when the quadratic form (beta_p - beta_0)'(Gamma'_0 R_z Gamma_0)(beta_p - beta_0) is positive; if beta_p = beta_0 the limit is identically zero in alpha and the argument fails. In Appendix B, the matrix D is invertible only if delta_tilde = (beta_0 - beta_p)'(S'_0 R^{-1}_z S_0)^{-1}(beta_0 - beta_p) > 0; when beta_p = beta_0, delta_tilde = 0 and D is singular, so M_0 is not invertible. The conclusion's discussion of priors 'at' the true parameter value is therefore inconsistent with the stated assumptions and proofs. The authors should add an explicit assumption beta_p != beta_0 and adjust the text accordingly.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4, Table 3] The first block of Table 3 uses delta = 0.01 while the text describes the precision parameter values as 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, and 1; this inconsistency should be corrected.
[Section 4 and Figure 5] The claim that the histograms confirm the 'mass at alpha = 0 approaching 50%' predicted by Theorem 1 is not supported by an overlay or a numerical computation of the theoretical mixture distribution; adding such a comparison would make the simulation evidence quantitative.
[Assumption 3] Assumption 3 does not restrict the split fraction tau, although the formulas using [tau n] and n - [tau n] require 0 < tau < 1; this should be stated explicitly.
[Conclusion and Appendix B] There are several typographical errors, including 'prioir' in Section 4, 'Assumtions' and 'Anderws' in Appendix B, and the conclusion's reference to priors 'at' the true value despite no such simulation being reported.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the asymptotic distribution is derived from stated moment conditions and an external theorem, not from self-citation or fitted inputs.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain: the ridge-path estimator (equations 7–13), the GMM representation (equation 14), Lemma 1, and Theorem 1 via Andrews (2002). The central asymptotic result is not circular. Lemma 1 derives alpha_0 = 0 from the probability limit of the test-sample objective function; the limiting value of the tuning parameter is a consequence of the objective, not an input. Theorem 1 applies an external published theorem (Andrews 2002) to the constructed moment vector, and the limiting covariance and M0 are computed from the data-generating assumptions (Assumptions 1–3), not calibrated to simulation output. The prior beta_p is a fixed economic input of the estimator, not a fitted parameter, so the path from IV to prior does not smuggle the conclusion into the assumptions. The Monte Carlo comparisons are external benchmarks against 2SLS and do not estimate the theorem's constants. There are no load-bearing self-citations; the only invoked theorem is external. Two correctness concerns are present but are not circularity: (1) the score term in row 3 of equation (14) has the opposite sign from the training-sample first-order condition in equation (10), so Theorem 1 as stated characterizes a different estimating equation; and (2) Appendix B's invertibility of D requires (beta_0 - beta_p)'(S_0' R_z^{-1} S_0)^{-1}(beta_0 - beta_p) > 0, i.e. beta_p != beta_0, which Assumptions 1–3 do not state. Neither issue makes the theorem's output identical to its inputs by construction. No circular step is therefore identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The asymptotic theory rests on standard strong-IV assumptions and on an unstated condition that the prior differs from the true parameter. No new entities are introduced. The prior and split fraction are user-chosen inputs that materially affect the finite-sample results but are not fitted to make the theory work.

free parameters (2)

Prior vector beta_p = (1/sqrt(2),1/sqrt(2)), (sqrt(2),sqrt(2)), (3/sqrt(2),3/sqrt(2)) in simulations
The prior is chosen by the researcher rather than estimated. The asymptotic distribution and the reported MSE comparisons depend on the distance between beta_p and the true beta_0.
Split fraction tau = 0.7 in simulations
The proportion of data used for training is fixed at 0.7 in the Monte Carlo design. The asymptotic theory treats tau as a fixed constant in (0,1), but finite-sample performance will vary with this choice.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Assumption 1: The instruments z_i are iid with finite fourth moments and full-rank second moment matrix R_z.
Standard strong-instruments condition used for the CLT, uniform convergence, and the GMM framework.
domain assumption Assumption 2: Conditional on Z, the errors (epsilon_i, u_i')' are iid with zero mean and full-rank covariance.
Ensures E[h_i(theta_0)] = 0 and the central limit theorem applies.
domain assumption Assumption 3: The parameter space is bounded with alpha in [0,B_4] and eigenvalues of R_z bounded above and below.
Used to verify the conditions of Andrews (2002), including uniform convergence and invertibility of the derivative matrix.
ad hoc to paper The prior beta_p differs from the true beta_0 (unstated).
Needed for the limiting test objective to have a unique minimum at alpha=0 and for the matrix D to be invertible. The paper does not state this in Assumptions 1-3.
domain assumption The number of instruments m is fixed and the instruments are strong.
The paper explicitly restricts attention to the strong-instruments setting with fixed m; weak and many instruments are out of scope.
domain assumption The training and test subsamples are independent as a consequence of iid sampling.
The split creates independent subsamples, which is used when deriving the asymptotic distribution of the test-sample objective.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Ridge Path Estimator for Linear Instrumental Variables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YK2YXMNT

@misc{pith2026190809237,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Ridge Path Estimator for Linear Instrumental Variables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YK2YXMNT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09237}
}

read the original abstract

This paper presents the asymptotic behavior of a linear instrumental variables (IV) estimator that uses a ridge regression penalty. The regularization tuning parameter is selected empirically by splitting the observed data into training and test samples. Conditional on the tuning parameter, the training sample creates a path from the IV estimator to a prior. The optimal tuning parameter is the value along this path that minimizes the IV objective function for the test sample. The empirically selected regularization tuning parameter becomes an estimated parameter that jointly converges with the parameters of interest. The asymptotic distribution of the tuning parameter is a nonstandard mixture distribution. Monte Carlo simulations show the asymptotic distribution captures the characteristics of the sampling distributions and when this ridge estimator performs better than two-stage least squares.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09237 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

APACrefauthors \ 2002

andrews2002generalized APACrefauthors Andrews, D W K. APACrefauthors \ 2002 . Generalized method of moments estimation when a parameter is on a boundary Generalized method of moments estimation when a parameter is on a boundary . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 20 4 530--544

work page 2002
[2]

\ Renault, E

10.2307/23116599 APACrefauthors Antoine, B. \ Renault, E. APACrefauthors \ 2009 . Efficient GMM with nearly-weak instruments Efficient gmm with nearly-weak instruments . The Econometrics Journal 12 S1 S135--S171 . APACrefURL http://www.jstor.org/stable/23116599 APACrefURL

work page arXiv 2009
[3]

\ Imbens, G W

10.1257/jep.31.2.3 APACrefauthors Athey, S. \ Imbens, G W. APACrefauthors \ 2017 May . The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation The state of applied econometrics: Causality and policy evaluation . Journal of Economic Perspectives 31 2 3-32 . APACrefURL http://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.31.2.3 APACrefURL APACrefDOI doi...

doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.3 2017
[4]

bickel2006regularization APACrefauthors Bickel, P J. , Li, B. , Tsybakov, A B. , van de Geer, S A. , Yu, B. , Vald \'e s, T. van der Vaart, A. APACrefauthors \ 2006 . Regularization in statistics Regularization in statistics . Test 15 2 271--344

work page 2006
[5]

APACrefauthors \ 2009

Caner_2009 APACrefauthors Caner, M. APACrefauthors \ 2009 . Lasso-Type GMM Estimator Lasso-type gmm estimator . Econometric Theory 25 1 270--290 . APACrefURL http://www.jstor.org/stable/20532439 APACrefURL

work page arXiv 2009
[6]

\ Fan, Q

caner2010adaptive APACrefauthors Caner, M. \ Fan, Q. APACrefauthors \ 2010 . The adaptive lasso method for instrumental variable selection. The adaptive lasso method for instrumental variable selection. Working paper

work page 2010
[8]

APACrefauthors \ 2012

carrasco2012regularization APACrefauthors Carrasco, M. APACrefauthors \ 2012 . A regularization approach to the many instruments problem A regularization approach to the many instruments problem . Journal of Econometrics 170 2 383--398

work page 2012
[9]

\ Florens, J P

carrasco2000generalization APACrefauthors Carrasco, M. \ Florens, J P. APACrefauthors \ 2000 . Generalization of GMM to a continuum of moment conditions Generalization of gmm to a continuum of moment conditions . Econometric Theory 16 06 797--834

work page 2000

Show all 24 references

[10]

, Florens, J P

carrasco2007linear APACrefauthors Carrasco, M. , Florens, J P. \ Renault, E. APACrefauthors \ 2007 . Linear inverse problems in structural econometrics estimation based on spectral decomposition and regularization Linear inverse problems in structural econometrics estimation b...

2007
[11]

\ Tchuente, G

doi:10.1080/07474938.2015.1092806 APACrefauthors Carrasco, M. \ Tchuente, G. APACrefauthors \ 2016 . Efficient Estimation with Many Weak Instruments Using Regularization Techniques Efficient estimation with many weak instruments using regularization techniques . Econometric Re...

2015
[12]

\ Newey, W K

10.2307/2692218 APACrefauthors Donald, S G. \ Newey, W K. APACrefauthors \ 2001 . Choosing the Number of Instruments Choosing the number of instruments . Econometrica 69 5 1161--1191 . APACrefURL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2692218 APACrefURL

2001
[13]

, Demirer, M

10.1111/ectj.12097 APACrefauthors Duflo, E. , Demirer, M. , Chernozhukov, V. , Newey, W. , Chetverikov, D. , Hansen, C. \ Robins, J. APACrefauthors \ 2018 01 . Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters Double/debiased machine learning for treatme...

2018 doi
[14]

, Heaton, J

hansen1996finite APACrefauthors Hansen, L P. , Heaton, J. \ Yaron, A. APACrefauthors \ 1996 . Finite-sample properties of some alternative GMM estimators Finite-sample properties of some alternative gmm estimators . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 14 3 262--280

1996
[15]

, Tibshirani, R

hastie2009unsupervised APACrefauthors Hastie, T. , Tibshirani, R. \ Friedman, J. APACrefauthors \ 2009 . Unsupervised learning Unsupervised learning . The elements of statistical learning The elements of statistical learning \ ( \ 485--585). Springer

2009
[16]

, Horowitz, J L

huang2008 APACrefauthors Huang, J. , Horowitz, J L. \ Ma, S. APACrefauthors \ 2008 04 . Asymptotic properties of bridge estimators in sparse high-dimensional regression models Asymptotic properties of bridge estimators in sparse high-dimensional regression models . Ann. Statis...

2008 doi
[17]

APACrefauthors \ 1993

ICHIMURA199371 APACrefauthors Ichimura, H. APACrefauthors \ 1993 . Semiparametric least squares (SLS) and weighted SLS estimation of single-index models Semiparametric least squares (sls) and weighted sls estimation of single-index models . Journal of Econometrics 58 1 71 - 12...

1993
[18]

knight2000 APACrefauthors Knight, K. \ Fu, W. APACrefauthors \ 2000 10 . Asymptotics for lasso-type estimators Asymptotics for lasso-type estimators . Ann. Statist. 28 5 1356--1378 . APACrefURL https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1015957397 APACrefURL APACrefDOI doi:10.1214/aos/101595...

2000
[19]

\ Pötscher, B M

10.2307/3533623 APACrefauthors Leeb, H. \ Pötscher, B M. APACrefauthors \ 2005 . Model Selection and Inference: Facts and Fiction Model selection and inference: Facts and fiction . Econometric Theory 21 1 21--59 . APACrefURL http://www.jstor.org/stable/3533623 APACrefURL

2005
[20]

APACrefauthors \ 2013

liao2013adaptive APACrefauthors Liao, Z. APACrefauthors \ 2013 . Adaptive GMM shrinkage estimation with consistent moment selection Adaptive gmm shrinkage estimation with consistent moment selection . Econometric Theory 29 5 857–904 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1017/S0266466612000783 A...

2013 doi
[21]

\ Inoue, A

rossi2012out APACrefauthors Rossi, B. \ Inoue, A. APACrefauthors \ 2012 . Out-of-sample forecast tests robust to the choice of window size Out-of-sample forecast tests robust to the choice of window size . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 30 3 432--453

2012
[22]

\ Windmeijer, F

SANDERSON2016212 APACrefauthors Sanderson, E. \ Windmeijer, F. APACrefauthors \ 2016 . A weak instrument F-test in linear IV models with multiple endogenous variables A weak instrument f-test in linear iv models with multiple endogenous variables . Journal of Econometrics 190 ...

2016 doi
[23]

\ Stock, J H

RePEc:ecm:emetrp:v:65:y:1997:i:3:p:557-586 APACrefauthors Staiger, D. \ Stock, J H. APACrefauthors \ 1997 May . Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments . Econometrica 65 3 557-586 . APACrefURL https://idea...

1997
[24]

\ Wright, J H

stock2000gmm APACrefauthors Stock, J H. \ Wright, J H. APACrefauthors \ 2000 . GMM with weak identification Gmm with weak identification . Econometrica 68 5 1055--1096

2000
[25]

, Wright, J H

stock2012survey APACrefauthors Stock, J H. , Wright, J H. \ Yogo, M. APACrefauthors \ 2012 . A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments . Journal of...

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

APACrefauthors \ 2002

andrews2002generalized APACrefauthors Andrews, D W K. APACrefauthors \ 2002 . Generalized method of moments estimation when a parameter is on a boundary Generalized method of moments estimation when a parameter is on a boundary . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 20 4 530--544

work page 2002

[2] [2]

\ Renault, E

10.2307/23116599 APACrefauthors Antoine, B. \ Renault, E. APACrefauthors \ 2009 . Efficient GMM with nearly-weak instruments Efficient gmm with nearly-weak instruments . The Econometrics Journal 12 S1 S135--S171 . APACrefURL http://www.jstor.org/stable/23116599 APACrefURL

work page arXiv 2009

[3] [3]

\ Imbens, G W

10.1257/jep.31.2.3 APACrefauthors Athey, S. \ Imbens, G W. APACrefauthors \ 2017 May . The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation The state of applied econometrics: Causality and policy evaluation . Journal of Economic Perspectives 31 2 3-32 . APACrefURL http://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.31.2.3 APACrefURL APACrefDOI doi...

doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.3 2017

[4] [4]

bickel2006regularization APACrefauthors Bickel, P J. , Li, B. , Tsybakov, A B. , van de Geer, S A. , Yu, B. , Vald \'e s, T. van der Vaart, A. APACrefauthors \ 2006 . Regularization in statistics Regularization in statistics . Test 15 2 271--344

work page 2006

[5] [5]

APACrefauthors \ 2009

Caner_2009 APACrefauthors Caner, M. APACrefauthors \ 2009 . Lasso-Type GMM Estimator Lasso-type gmm estimator . Econometric Theory 25 1 270--290 . APACrefURL http://www.jstor.org/stable/20532439 APACrefURL

work page arXiv 2009

[6] [6]

\ Fan, Q

caner2010adaptive APACrefauthors Caner, M. \ Fan, Q. APACrefauthors \ 2010 . The adaptive lasso method for instrumental variable selection. The adaptive lasso method for instrumental variable selection. Working paper

work page 2010

[7] [8]

APACrefauthors \ 2012

carrasco2012regularization APACrefauthors Carrasco, M. APACrefauthors \ 2012 . A regularization approach to the many instruments problem A regularization approach to the many instruments problem . Journal of Econometrics 170 2 383--398

work page 2012

[8] [9]

\ Florens, J P

carrasco2000generalization APACrefauthors Carrasco, M. \ Florens, J P. APACrefauthors \ 2000 . Generalization of GMM to a continuum of moment conditions Generalization of gmm to a continuum of moment conditions . Econometric Theory 16 06 797--834

work page 2000