Normal Distribution
nothing is called 95% until it has been counted
Concept

Consistency — where it appears

Convergence on the right value as the sample grows without limit. It is a statement about a limit and not about any sample, so a consistent estimator can be badly biased at a stated sample size and there is no size at which the two claims become the same.

Named by 5 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The first stage an instrument needs is set by the violation nobody can see. The error each estimator converges on when the instrument has a direct effect of 0.05 on the outcome — a path the exclusion restriction asserts is zero and no sample can check. The instrument's error is δ/π exactly, so it is the reciprocal of the very quantity that made the method work: 1.0000 at a first stage of 0.05 and 0.0833 at 0.60. Least squares carries the confounding instead, at 0.3440 at a first stage of 0.30. The two cross at π = 0.1389, and the crossing is exactly δ times 2.7778 — the first stage an instrument needs is proportional to the violation it is assumed not to have, and below that line the method being corrected is the better estimator.

The assumption nothing tests

An instrument buys a causal effect with an assumption no sample can check, and the price is set by the same quantity that made the method work. The first stage it needs is 2.7778 times the violation it is assumed not to have, so a direct effect of 0.05 demands a first stage of 0.1389 and least squares wins below it.

instrument · Exclusion One wrong model, four designs, four slopes. The slope a straight line converges to when the truth is a quadratic, under four covariate distributions, by two routes: the population projection in closed form, and the mean of 2500 fitted slopes at 200 rows apiece. The even spread over [0, 2] gives 1.6000 and the same spread moved to [1, 3] gives 2.6000, while widening it to [0, 4] gives 2.6000 — the same number as the shifted one, because a symmetric design's target is the truth's tangent slope at the design's own mean and does not read the spread at all. An exponential spread with the SAME mean as the first gives 2.6000. So two studies of one world, each fitting the same wrong model, honestly report slopes 1.0000 apart, and neither is making an error.

What a wrong model estimates

A straight line fitted to a curved truth converges on the tangent at its own design's mean. Two honest studies of one world, fitting the same wrong model, report 2.600000 and 1.600000, and neither is in error.

sandwich · Misspecification A weak instrument gives back the problem it was hired for. The counted mean bias of two-stage least squares at 4 instruments and 200 rows, over 2000 draws a setting, against the standard approximation and against the least-squares inconsistency the instrument was brought in to remove. At π = 0.02 the counted bias is 0.3220 ± 0.0142 where least squares is out by 0.3594 — 89.6% of the way back. At π = 0.3 it is 0.0118 against 0.2647. The approximation, the inconsistency over the population first-stage F, tracks the count at the weak end and sits above it in the middle: 0.968, 0.971, 0.918, 0.810, 0.740, 0.722, 0.846 as the ratio of counted to approximated bias.

Weak, and back where it started

A consistent instrumental estimate at two hundred rows and a concentration parameter of 0.32 is biased by 0.3220 ± 0.0142 against a least-squares inconsistency of 0.3594 — 89.6% of the way back to the problem it was hired to solve. Just identified, it has no mean at all, and that is measured as a rate rather than assumed.

instrument · Exclusion The estimator has no upper bound on what it costs. What a thinning overlap does to a stabilised inverse-probability estimate of an average effect of 1.0000, over 600 samples of 600 at each of six settings. The spread rises from 0.1965 to 0.8122 and the root mean square error from 0.1964 to 0.9219, so at the thin end the error is very nearly the whole of the quantity being estimated. The lower line is the share of the arm's weighted total the single largest observation owns, averaged over the same draws: 0.69% to 9.78%, and in the worst single draw of the sweep 82.75%. Coverage of the 95% interval goes from 93.7% to 55.5%.

The region with no comparison

A trimmed interval covers the average effect over everybody 90.8% of the time at six hundred rows and 41.0% at nine thousand six hundred, while covering the average effect over the units it kept 94.3% and 96.0% throughout. An interval that gets worse as the sample grows is an interval about something else.

weights · Weighting One estimator, three answers, and only the reference changes. Coverage of the cluster-robust 95% interval for the slope against the number of clusters, at 30 rows in each. The estimator is identical in all three curves; what differs is the number it is compared against. At 5 clusters it covers 75.05% against a normal, 85.30% against a t on 4 degrees of freedom and 87.95% against a t on 3. At 80 clusters the three agree to within a point. The correction costs nothing: the same standard error, a different table.

The reference the sandwich is read against

The cluster-robust interval covers 75.05% at five clusters and 93.58% at eighty. The same estimate read against a t on G − 2 covers 87.95% at five, and the estimator is unchanged — three hundred rows grouped into five clusters cover 74.28% where the same three hundred grouped into seventy-five cover 94.63%.

sandwich · Misspecification

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Asymptotic biasLeast squaresMonte CarloClosed formEndogeneityEstimandFirst stageHeavy tailInstrumental-variableWald ratioApproximation errorAverage treatment effect

All concepts