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:摘要专门检验模糊断点回归的识别有效性,并讨论其可检验含义及政策应用,直接对应因果推断方向。

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…

关注这篇论文的作者
Yoichi Arai
Yu-Chin Hsu
Toru Kitagawa
Ismael Mourifié
Yuanyuan Wan

模糊断点回归识别假设的检验

研究问题
如何利用断点处结果变量与处理状态的联合分布检验模糊断点设计的有效性,并补充运行变量和基线协变量连续性检验?
方法与思路
作者推导刻画设计有效性可检验含义的一组分布不等式,并构造检验,研究一致尺寸控制、固定备择一致性与部分局部备择功效。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称新刻画利用全部有助于发现有效性违背的数据;两个应用中的检验结论与既有密度连续性检验的提示方向相反。
阅读关注点
应核对有效性包含哪些识别假设、不等式限制的推导与实施、统一尺寸控制的条件,以及不同检验为何在应用中出现分歧。
阅读边界
仅依据所给 Crossref 摘要;完整假设、统计量和样本细节未说明,不拒绝可检验限制不能证明所有识别假设成立,也不推断版本变化。

原文摘要

We propose a new specification test for assessing the validity of fuzzy regression discontinuity designs (FRD‐validity). We derive a new set of testable implications, characterized by a set of inequality restrictions on the joint distribution of observed outcomes and treatment status at the cut‐off. We show that this new characterization exploits all of the information in the data that is useful for detecting violations of FRD‐validity. Our approach differs from and complements existing approaches that test continuity of the distributions of running variables and baseline covariates at the cut‐off in that we focus on the distribution of the observed outcome and treatment status. We show that the proposed test has appealing statistical properties. It controls size in a large sample setting uniformly over a large class of data generating processes, is consistent against all fixed alternatives, and has non‐trivial power against some local alternatives. We apply our test to evaluate the validity of two FRD designs. The test does not reject FRD‐validity in the class size design studied by Angrist and Lavy (1999) but rejects it in the insurance subsidy design for poor households in Colombia studied by Miller, Pinto, and Vera‐Hernández (2013) for some outcome variables. Existing density continuity tests suggest the opposite in each of the two cases.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文