Estimating Outcome Distributions for Compliers in Instrumental Variables Models
工具变量模型中服从者结果分布的估计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。
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：摘要将工具变量的局部因果解释扩展至服从者边际结果分布，并研究密度约束对效应估计的影响。
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
工具变量模型中服从者结果分布的估计
- 研究问题
- 在赋予工具变量局部平均处理效应解释的条件下，能否进一步识别服从者在不同处理状态下的完整边际结果分布？
- 方法与思路
- 作者将局部平均处理效应框架扩展到服从者结果分布，分析标准工具变量隐含密度的非负性问题，并以出生季度工具变量说明。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称服从者各处理状态的边际分布原则上可估计；标准工具变量的隐含密度可能为负，施加非负约束可明显改变效应估计。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对分布识别所需假设、服从者总体的界定与非负约束实施方式，并区分边际结果分布和个体处理效应分布。
- 阅读边界
- 摘要未完整列明识别条件或估计细节；识别不同处理状态的边际分布，并不据此识别两种潜在结果的联合分布。
原文摘要
In Imbens and Ingrist (1994), Angrist, Imbens and Rubin (1996) and Imbens and Rubin (1997), assumptions have been outlined under which instrumental variables estimands can be given a causal interpretation as a local average treatment effect without requiring functional form or constant treatment effect assumptions. We extend these results by showing that under these assumptions one can estimate more from the data than the average causal effect for the subpopulation of compliers; one can, in principle, estimate the entire marginal distribution of the outcome under different treatments for this subpopulation. These distributions might be useful for a policy maker who wishes to take into account not only differences in average of earnings when contemplating the merits of one job training programme vs. another. We also show that the standard instrumental variables estimator implicitly estimates these underlying outcome distributions without imposing the required nonnegativity on these implicit density estimates, and that imposing non-negativity can substantially alter the estimates of the local average treatment effect. We illustrate these points by presenting an analysis of the returns to a high school education using quarter of birth as an instrument. We show that the standard instrumental variables estimates implicitly estimate the outcome distributions to be negative over a substantial range, and that the estimates of the local average treatment effect change considerably when we impose nonnegativity in any of a variety of ways.