-
Selecting invalid instruments to improve Mendelian randomization with two-sample summary data
Authors:
Ashish Patel,
Francis J. DiTraglia,
Verena Zuber,
Stephen Burgess
Abstract:
Mendelian randomization (MR) is a widely-used method to estimate the causal relationship between a risk factor and disease. A fundamental part of any MR analysis is to choose appropriate genetic variants as instrumental variables. Genome-wide association studies often reveal that hundreds of genetic variants may be robustly associated with a risk factor, but in some situations investigators may ha…
▽ More
Mendelian randomization (MR) is a widely-used method to estimate the causal relationship between a risk factor and disease. A fundamental part of any MR analysis is to choose appropriate genetic variants as instrumental variables. Genome-wide association studies often reveal that hundreds of genetic variants may be robustly associated with a risk factor, but in some situations investigators may have greater confidence in the instrument validity of only a smaller subset of variants. Nevertheless, the use of additional instruments may be optimal from the perspective of mean squared error even if they are slightly invalid; a small bias in estimation may be a price worth paying for a larger reduction in variance. For this purpose, we consider a method for "focused" instrument selection whereby genetic variants are selected to minimise the estimated asymptotic mean squared error of causal effect estimates. In a setting of many weak and locally invalid instruments, we propose a novel strategy to construct confidence intervals for post-selection focused estimators that guards against the worst case loss in asymptotic coverage. In empirical applications to: (i) validate lipid drug targets; and (ii) investigate vitamin D effects on a wide range of outcomes, our findings suggest that the optimal selection of instruments does not involve only a small number of biologically-justified instruments, but also many potentially invalid instruments.
△ Less
Submitted 25 April, 2023; v1 submitted 3 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
A Generalized Focused Information Criterion for GMM
Authors:
Minsu Chang,
Francis J. DiTraglia
Abstract:
This paper proposes a criterion for simultaneous GMM model and moment selection: the generalized focused information criterion (GFIC). Rather than attempting to identify the "true" specification, the GFIC chooses from a set of potentially mis-specified moment conditions and parameter restrictions to minimize the mean-squared error (MSE) of a user-specified target parameter. The intent of the GFIC…
▽ More
This paper proposes a criterion for simultaneous GMM model and moment selection: the generalized focused information criterion (GFIC). Rather than attempting to identify the "true" specification, the GFIC chooses from a set of potentially mis-specified moment conditions and parameter restrictions to minimize the mean-squared error (MSE) of a user-specified target parameter. The intent of the GFIC is to formalize a situation common in applied practice. An applied researcher begins with a set of fairly weak "baseline" assumptions, assumed to be correct, and must decide whether to impose any of a number of stronger, more controversial "suspect" assumptions that yield parameter restrictions, additional moment conditions, or both. Provided that the baseline assumptions identify the model, we show how to construct an asymptotically unbiased estimator of the asymptotic MSE to select over these suspect assumptions: the GFIC. We go on to provide results for post-selection inference and model averaging that can be applied both to the GFIC and various alternative selection criteria. To illustrate how our criterion can be used in practice, we specialize the GFIC to the problem of selecting over exogeneity assumptions and lag lengths in a dynamic panel model, and show that it performs well in simulations. We conclude by applying the GFIC to a dynamic panel data model for the price elasticity of cigarette demand.
△ Less
Submitted 13 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
Identifying Causal Effects in Experiments with Spillovers and Non-compliance
Authors:
Francis J. DiTraglia,
Camilo Garcia-Jimeno,
Rossa O'Keeffe-O'Donovan,
Alejandro Sanchez-Becerra
Abstract:
This paper shows how to use a randomized saturation experimental design to identify and estimate causal effects in the presence of spillovers--one person's treatment may affect another's outcome--and one-sided non-compliance--subjects can only be offered treatment, not compelled to take it up. Two distinct causal effects are of interest in this setting: direct effects quantify how a person's own t…
▽ More
This paper shows how to use a randomized saturation experimental design to identify and estimate causal effects in the presence of spillovers--one person's treatment may affect another's outcome--and one-sided non-compliance--subjects can only be offered treatment, not compelled to take it up. Two distinct causal effects are of interest in this setting: direct effects quantify how a person's own treatment changes her outcome, while indirect effects quantify how her peers' treatments change her outcome. We consider the case in which spillovers occur within known groups, and take-up decisions are invariant to peers' realized offers. In this setting we point identify the effects of treatment-on-the-treated, both direct and indirect, in a flexible random coefficients model that allows for heterogeneous treatment effects and endogenous selection into treatment. We go on to propose a feasible estimator that is consistent and asymptotically normal as the number and size of groups increases. We apply our estimator to data from a large-scale job placement services experiment, and find negative indirect treatment effects on the likelihood of employment for those willing to take up the program. These negative spillovers are offset by positive direct treatment effects from own take-up.
△ Less
Submitted 4 January, 2023; v1 submitted 13 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
Using Invalid Instruments on Purpose: Focused Moment Selection and Averaging for GMM
Authors:
Francis J. DiTraglia
Abstract:
In finite samples, the use of a slightly endogenous but highly relevant instrument can reduce mean-squared error (MSE). Building on this observation, I propose a novel moment selection procedure for GMM -- the Focused Moment Selection Criterion (FMSC) -- in which moment conditions are chosen not based on their validity but on the MSE of their associated estimator of a user-specified target paramet…
▽ More
In finite samples, the use of a slightly endogenous but highly relevant instrument can reduce mean-squared error (MSE). Building on this observation, I propose a novel moment selection procedure for GMM -- the Focused Moment Selection Criterion (FMSC) -- in which moment conditions are chosen not based on their validity but on the MSE of their associated estimator of a user-specified target parameter. The FMSC mimics the situation faced by an applied researcher who begins with a set of relatively mild "baseline" assumptions and must decide whether to impose any of a collection of stronger but more controversial "suspect" assumptions. When the (correctly specified) baseline moment conditions identify the model, the FMSC provides an asymptotically unbiased estimator of asymptotic MSE, allowing us to select over the suspect moment conditions. I go on to show how the framework used to derive the FMSC can address the problem of inference post-moment selection. Treating post-selection estimators as a special case of moment-averaging, in which estimators based on different moment sets are given data-dependent weights, I propose simulation-based procedures for inference that can be applied to a variety of formal and informal moment-selection and averaging procedures. Both the FMSC and confidence interval procedures perform well in simulations. I conclude with an empirical example examining the effect of instrument selection on the estimated relationship between malaria and income per capita.
△ Less
Submitted 14 November, 2020; v1 submitted 4 August, 2014;
originally announced August 2014.
