跳到正文
← 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。

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:摘要属于一般结构方程识别与工具变量推断,未明确微观结构模型或因果效应目标。

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…

关注这篇论文的作者
Giovanni Forchini
Grant Hillier

可能未识别的结构方程中的条件推断

研究问题
结构方程可能未识别时,观测到的识别检验统计量如何影响参数估计精度,以及 OLS 与 TSLS 的比较?
方法与思路
作者以 Fieller–Creasy 问题为例,主张对观测识别统计量进行条件化,并研究单方程中两类估计量的条件性质。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,条件化显著改变 TSLS 的方差与均方误差比较;作者还指出其论证对 Anderson–Rubin 统计量枢轴性有影响。
阅读关注点
应核对条件化所依据的统计量、模型与抽样假设,以及条件方差、均方误差和非枢轴性结论的准确适用范围。
阅读边界
所给 OpenAlex 摘要未列明完整条件与证明;这些条件比较不能直接推出 OLS 对一般内生性问题更合适。

原文摘要

The possibility that a structural equation may not be identified casts doubt on measures of estimator precision that are usually used. Using the Fieller–Creasy problem for illustration, we argue that an observed identifiability test statistic is directly relevant to the precision with which the structural parameters can be estimated, and hence we argue that inference in such models should be conditioned on the observed value of that statistic (or statistics).We examine in detail the effects of such conditioning on the properties of the ordinary least squares (OLS) and two-stage least squares (TSLS) estimators for the coefficients of the endogenous variables in a single structural equation. We show that (a) conditioning has very little impact on the properties of the OLS estimator but a substantial impact on those of the TSLS estimator; (b) the conditional variance of the TSLS estimator can be very much larger than its unconditional variance (when the identifiability statistic is small) or very much smaller (when the identifiability statistic is large); and (c) conditional mean-square-error comparisons of the two estimators favor the OLS estimator when the sample evidence only weakly supports the identifiability hypothesis but favor TSLS when that evidence moderately supports identifiability.Finally, we note that another consequence of our argument is that the statistic upon which Anderson–Rubin confidence sets are based is in fact nonpivotal.We are grateful for the constructive comments offered by Peter Phillips and three anonymous referees that greatly improved the paper. Giovanni Forchini acknowledges support from ESRC grant NR00429424115.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文