Finite sample evidence of IV estimators under weak instruments
弱工具变量下 IV 估计量的有限样本证据AI 解读 ↓
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。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要讨论通用线性 IV 与弱识别,未说明应用领域或特定因果、面板及金融研究对象。
弱工具变量下 IV 估计量的有限样本证据AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Abstract We present finite sample evidence on different IV estimators available for linear models under weak instruments; explore the application of the bootstrap as a bias reduction technique to attenuate their finite sample bias; and employ three empirical applications to illustrate and provide insights into the relative performance of the estimators in practice. Our evidence indicates that the random‐effects quasi‐maximum likelihood estimator outperforms alternative estimators in terms of median point estimates and coverage rates, followed by the bootstrap bias‐corrected version of LIML and LIML. However, our results also confirm the difficulty of obtaining reliable point estimates in models with weak identification and moderate‐size samples. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.