The instrumental variable (IV) method is widely used to infer causal effects in observational studies with unmeasured confounding, but invalid instruments can compromise both population identification and finite-sample inference. This paper studies linear IV models with multiple endogenous treatments and possibly invalid instruments. Identification is more delicate than in the single-treatment setting because a single instrument no longer identifies a scalar candidate effect; instead, each relevant instrument defines a hyperplane in the multidimensional effect space. For identification of multiple treatment effects, we introduce generalized plurality and majority rules which require a sufficiently large number of IVs to be valid. For inference, data-dependent instrument selection may fail to separate certain invalid IVs from valid ones, leading to undercoverage of confidence intervals when these invalid instruments are mistakenly selected as valid. We propose a sampling confidence interval for each treatment effect, which is robust to IV selection errors. We establish asymptotic coverage and parametric-rate length of our sampling confidence interval under regularity conditions and illustrate this method in a Mendelian randomization application.
Instrumental variable analyses often rely on the assumption that instruments affect the outcome only through the endogenous regressor. In many applications, researchers can defend only a plausible range for direct effects of instruments, while conventional sensitivity analyses may be unreliable when instruments are wea...
Instrumental variable (IV) methods are powerful for causal effect estimation with unmeasured confounding, but in practice researchers often face a set of candidate IVs whose validity is difficult to determine from observational data. This paper studies the problem of testing the validity of IV sets under Causal Additiv...
Xi-Chen Guo, Feng Xie, Bingbing Tang et al.· 0 citations
We develop a bias-robust causal inference method for observational panel data settings. Such methods typically impute untreated outcomes, so counterfactual error passes straight into the estimated treatment effect while conventional standard errors ignore it. We adapt bias-aware minimax methods, developed for estimatin...
Most empirical economists have encountered the warning that instrumental variables can be “weak,” but the underlying issues—what makes an instrument weak, why weakness distorts inference, and what to do about it—are less widely understood. This article offers an accessible introduction to the weak instruments problem f...
David S. Lee, Jack R. Porter· Journal of Economic Perspect...· 0 citations
Two frequent approaches for identifying structural VARs are external instruments, which carry economic content but are often weak, and non-Gaussianity of the shocks which provides statistical identification but carries no economic meaning. We combine the two strategies in a single generalized method of moments framewor...
Causal questions have long been central to psychological research, particularly in randomized experiments, while formal causal-inference methods are increasingly being applied to observational and quasi-experimental data. Common outcome-regression and propensity-score approaches can be sensitive to nuisance-model missp...
Devansh Pandey· Acta Psychologica· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.