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:摘要聚焦一般线性 IV 模型中的检验功效和置信集最优性,没有足够文本依据归入所列具体应用领域。

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
Vadim Marmer
Zhengfei Yu

线性工具变量模型中的最优推断

研究问题
在同方差正态误差、单个内生解释变量的线性 IV 模型中,CLR 检验与置信集距离可达到的最优推断界限有多远?
方法与思路
作者推导置信集无限长度概率的有限样本下界,分析误差相关系数趋于正负一时的功效最优性,并进行数值比较。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,CLR 并非始终十分接近双侧功效包络,但在特定相关系数极限下达到包络,且指定网格上的平均功效表现较好。
阅读关注点
应核对不变相似检验的比较类别、无限长度与功效的联系,以及极限最优性和网格平均功效接近程度的不同含义。
阅读边界
仅据所给 RePEc 出版社摘要,不能把总体表现较好解释为处处最优;数值接近程度受网格及工具变量数量范围限制。

原文摘要

This paper considers tests and confidence sets (CSs) concerning the coefficient on the endogenous variable in the linear IV regression model with homoskedastic normal errors and one right‐hand side endogenous variable. The paper derives a finite‐sample lower bound function for the probability that a CS constructed using a two‐sided invariant similar test has infinite length and shows numerically that the conditional likelihood ratio (CLR) CS of Moreira (2003) is not always “very close,” say 0.005 or less, to this lower bound function. This implies that the CLR test is not always very close to the two‐sided asymptotically‐efficient (AE) power envelope for invariant similar tests of Andrews, Moreira, and Stock (2006) (AMS). On the other hand, the paper establishes the finite‐sample optimality of the CLR test when the correlation between the structural and reduced‐form errors, or between the two reduced‐form errors, goes to 1 or −1 and other parameters are held constant, where optimality means achievement of the two‐sided AE power envelope of AMS. These results cover the full range of (nonzero) IV strength. The paper investigates in detail scenarios in which the CLR test is not on the two‐sided AE power envelope of AMS. Also, theory and numerical results indicate that the CLR test is close to having the greatest average power, where the average is over a specified grid of concentration parameter values and over a pair of alternative hypothesis values of the parameter of interest, uniformly over all such pairs of alternative hypothesis values and uniformly over the correlation between the structural and reduced‐form errors. Here, “close” means 0.015 or less for k ≤ 20, where k denotes the number of IVs, and 0.025 or less for 0 < k ≤ 40. The paper concludes that, although the CLR test is not always very close to the two‐sided AE power envelope of AMS, CLR tests and CSs have very good overall properties.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文