On the Identifying Power of Generalized Monotonicity for Average Treatment Effects
广义单调性对平均处理效应的识别能力AI 解读 ↓
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本；arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历，都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对，只展示已核实例，档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要围绕工具变量、潜在结果和平均处理效应的识别集展开，明确属于因果推断方向。
反馈分类问题
正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
广义单调性对平均处理效应的识别能力
- 研究问题
- 研究在结果、处理和工具变量均可多值的情形中，广义单调性及更强的处理响应限制，能否额外缩小平均效应的识别集。
- 方法与思路
- 作者将二元情形的识别结论推广到多值设定，比较工具变量外生性与附加处理响应限制下的识别集，并构造反例说明边界。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称在限制与观测分布相容时，广义单调性不增加平均效应的识别力；不限制潜在结果的更强处理响应限制也有此性质。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对广义单调性的正式定义、相容性条件和识别集等价证明，以及违反该条件的处理响应限制如何提供额外识别信息。
- 阅读边界
- 这是 arXiv 预印本，同行评审或期刊接收未经核实；摘要未给出广义单调性的数学定义，结论不能直接推广到其他效应参数。
原文摘要
In the context of a binary outcome, treatment, and instrument, Balke and Pearl (1993, 1997) es- tablish that the monotonicity condition of Imbens and Angrist (1994) has no identifying power beyond instrument exogeneity for average potential outcomes and average treatment effects in the sense that adding it to instrument exogeneity does not decrease the identified sets for those parameters whenever those restrictions are consistent with the distribution of the observable data. This paper shows that this phenomenon holds in a broader setting with a multi-valued outcome, treatment, and instrument, under an extension of the monotonicity condition that we refer to as generalized monotonicity. We further show that this phenomenon holds for any restriction on treatment response that is stronger than generalized monotonicity provided that these stronger restrictions do not restrict potential outcomes. Importantly, many models of potential treatments previously considered in the literature imply generalized monotonic- ity, including the types of monotonicity restrictions considered by Kline and Walters (2016), Kirkeboen et al. (2016), and Heckman and Pinto (2018), and the restriction that treatment selection is determined by particular classes of additive random utility models. We show through a series of examples that restrictions on potential treatments can provide identifying power beyond instrument exogeneity for av- erage potential outcomes and average treatment effects when the restrictions imply that the generalized monotonicity condition is violated. In this way, our results shed light on the types of restrictions required for help in identifying average potential outcomes and average treatment effects.