Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
184 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Negative Control Falsification Tests for Instrumental Variable Designs (2312.15624v3)

Published 25 Dec 2023 in econ.EM and stat.ME

Abstract: The validity of instrumental variable (IV) designs is typically tested using two types of falsification tests. We characterize these tests as conditional independence tests between negative control variables -- proxies for unobserved variables posing a threat to the identification -- and the IV or the outcome. We describe the conditions that variables must satisfy in order to serve as negative controls. We show that these falsification tests examine not only independence and the exclusion restriction, but also functional form assumptions. Our analysis reveals that conventional applications of these tests may flag problems even in valid IV designs. We offer implementation guidance to address these issues.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (45)
  1. Abadie, Alberto, “Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models,” Journal of Econometrics, 2003, 113 (2), 231–263.
  2. Abramitzky, Ran, Philipp Ager, Leah Boustan, Elior Cohen, and Casper W Hansen, “The effect of immigration restrictions on local labor markets: Lessons from the 1920s border closure,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2023, 15 (1), 164–191.
  3. Altonji, Joseph G, Todd E Elder, and Christopher R Taber, “Selection on observed and unobserved variables: Assessing the effectiveness of Catholic schools,” Journal of political economy, 2005, 113 (1), 151–184.
  4. Angrist, Joshua D and Alan B Krueger, “Does compulsory school attendance affect schooling and earnings?,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, 106 (4), 979–1014.
  5.    and Guido W Imbens, “Two-stage least squares estimation of average causal effects in models with variable treatment intensity,” Journal of the American statistical Association, 1995, 90 (430), 431–442.
  6. Arnold, Benjamin F and Ayse Ercumen, “Negative control outcomes: a tool to detect bias in randomized trials,” JAMA, 2016, 316 (24), 2597–2598.
  7. Ashraf, Quamrul and Oded Galor, “The “Out of Africa” hypothesis, human genetic diversity, and comparative economic development,” American Economic Review, 2013, 103 (1), 1–46.
  8. Athey, Susan and Guido W Imbens, “The state of applied econometrics: Causality and policy evaluation,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2017, 31 (2), 3–32.
  9. Autor, David H, David Dorn, and Gordon H Hanson, “The China syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the United States,” American Economic Review, 2013, 103 (6), 2121–68.
  10. Bilinski, Alyssa and Laura A Hatfield, “Nothing to see here? Non-inferiority approaches to parallel trends and other model assumptions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03273, 2018.
  11. Blandhol, Christine, John Bonney, Magne Mogstad, and Alexander Torgovitsky, “When is TSLS actually LATE?,” Technical Report, National Bureau of Economic Research 2022.
  12. Chernozhukov, Victor and Christian Hansen, “Instrumental variable quantile regression: A robust inference approach,” Journal of Econometrics, 2008, 142 (1), 379–398.
  13. Chetty, Raj, John N Friedman, and Jonah E Rockoff, “Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates,” American economic review, 2014, 104 (9), 2593–2632.
  14. Davies, Neil M, Kyla H Thomas, Amy E Taylor, Gemma MJ Taylor, Richard M Martin, Marcus R Munafò, and Frank Windmeijer, “How to compare instrumental variable and conventional regression analyses using negative controls and bias plots,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 2017, 46 (6), 2067–2077.
  15. Deming, David J, “Using school choice lotteries to test measures of school effectiveness,” American Economic Review, 2014, 104 (5), 406–11.
  16. Diegert, Paul, Matthew A Masten, and Alexandre Poirier, “Assessing omitted variable bias when the controls are endogenous,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02303, 2022.
  17. Eggers, Andrew C, Guadalupe Tuñón, and Allan Dafoe, “Placebo tests for causal inference,” Unpublished manuscript. https://pelg. ucsd. edu/Eggers_2021. pdf, 2021.
  18. Fukumizu, Kenji, Arthur Gretton, Xiaohai Sun, and Bernhard Schölkopf, “Kernel measures of conditional dependence,” Advances in neural information processing systems, 2007, 20.
  19. Guidetti, Bruna, Paula Pereda, and Edson Severnini, ““Placebo Tests” for the Impacts of Air Pollution on Health: The Challenge of Limited Health Care Infrastructure,” in “AEA Papers and Proceedings,” Vol. 111 2021, pp. 371–75.
  20. Heinze-Deml, Christina, Jonas Peters, and Nicolai Meinshausen, “Invariant causal prediction for nonlinear models,” Journal of Causal Inference, 2018, 6 (2).
  21. Heller, Ruth, Yair Heller, and Malka Gorfine, “A consistent multivariate test of association based on ranks of distances,” Biometrika, 2013, 100 (2), 503–510.
  22. Huber, Martin and Giovanni Mellace, “Testing instrument validity for LATE identification based on inequality moment constraints,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 2015, 97 (2), 398–411.
  23. Imbens, Guido W, “Potential outcome and directed acyclic graph approaches to causality: Relevance for empirical practice in economics,” Journal of Economic Literature, 2020, 58 (4), 1129–79.
  24. Jäger, S and J Heining, “How substitutable are workers? evidence from worker deaths. Evidence from Worker Deaths,” Working Paper, 2019.
  25. Kitagawa, Toru, “A test for instrument validity,” Econometrica, 2015, 83 (5), 2043–2063.
  26. Kling, Jeffrey R, “Incarceration length, employment, and earnings,” American Economic Review, 2006, 96 (3), 863–876.
  27. Lee, Jinyoung and Matthieu Schapira, “The promise and peril of chemical probe negative controls,” ACS Chemical Biology, 2021, 16 (4), 579–585.
  28. Lipsitch, Marc, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, and Ted Cohen, “Negative controls: a tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies,” Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2010, 21 (3), 383.
  29. Ludwig, Jens, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Jann Spiess, “Machine-learning tests for effects on multiple outcomes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01473, 2017.
  30. Mackie, John L, “Causes and conditions,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 1965, 2 (4), 245–264.
  31. Moretti, Enrico, “The effect of high-tech clusters on the productivity of top inventors,” American Economic Review, 2021, 111 (10), 3328–3375.
  32. Mourifié, Ismael and Yuanyuan Wan, “Testing local average treatment effect assumptions,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 2017, 99 (2), 305–313.
  33. Nunn, Nathan and Nancy Qian, “US food aid and civil conflict,” American economic review, 2014, 104 (6), 1630–1666.
  34. Oster, Emily, “Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 2019, 37 (2), 187–204.
  35. Power, Jonathan D, Kelly A Barnes, Abraham Z Snyder, Bradley L Schlaggar, and Steven E Petersen, “Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion,” Neuroimage, 2012, 59 (3), 2142–2154.
  36. Ramsey, James Bernard, “Tests for specification errors in classical linear least-squares regression analysis,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 1969, 31 (2), 350–371.
  37. Roth, Jonathan, Pedro HC Sant’Anna, Alyssa Bilinski, and John Poe, “What’s trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature,” Journal of Econometrics, 2023.
  38. Shah, Rajen D. and Jonas Peters, “The hardness of conditional independence testing and the generalised covariance measure,” The Annals of Statistics, 2020, 48 (3), 1514 – 1538.
  39. Shi, Xu, Wang Miao, and Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, “A selective review of negative control methods in epidemiology,” Current Epidemiology Reports, 2020, 7 (4), 190–202.
  40. Sofer, Tamar, David B Richardson, Elena Colicino, Joel Schwartz, and Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen, “On negative outcome control of unobserved confounding as a generalization of difference-in-differences,” Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2016, 31 (3), 348.
  41. Strobl, Eric V., Kun Zhang, and Shyam Visweswaran, “Approximate Kernel-Based Conditional Independence Tests for Fast Non-Parametric Causal Discovery,” Journal of Causal Inference, 2019, 7 (1), 20180017.
  42. Székely, Gábor J, Maria L Rizzo, and Nail K Bakirov, “Measuring and testing dependence by correlation of distances,” The Annals of Statistics, 2007, 35 (6), 2769–2794.
  43. Tanida, Isei, Toshiyuki Yamaji, Takashi Ueno, Shoichi Ishiura, Eiki Kominami, and Kentaro Hanada, “Consideration about negative controls for LC3 and expression vectors for four colored fluorescent protein-LC3 negative controls,” Autophagy, 2008, 4 (1), 131–134.
  44. Tchetgen, Eric J Tchetgen, Andrew Ying, Yifan Cui, Xu Shi, and Wang Miao, “An introduction to proximal causal learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10982, 2020.
  45. Zhang, Kun, Jonas Peters, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Schölkopf, “Kernel-based conditional independence test and application in causal discovery,” in “Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence” 2011, pp. 804–813.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now