一个深刻影响计量经济学发展的哈佛天才, 获得了2021年小诺贝尔奖！

凡是搞计量经济的，都关注这个号了

稿件：econometrics666@126.com

以下是美国经济协会对其学术贡献的评价：

Isaiah Andrews’ contributions to econometric theory and empirical practice have improved the quality, credibility, and communication of quantitative research in economics. He is playing a key role in the recent turn of econometrics back toward the study of the most important problems faced in empirical research. Andrews’ contributions fall in three main areas. The first is to provide ways to make the sensitivity of parameter estimates to the features of the data used to estimate them more transparent. The second concerns the problem of publication bias and related problems concerning how to draw inferences from estimates that have been selected. The third concerns estimation and inference in the presence of weak identification.

Tools to characterize the sensitivity of parameter estimates to estimation moments and model assumptions.

In “Measuring the Sensitivity of Parameter Estimates to Estimation Moments” (with Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro, QJE, 2017) he shows how to quantify the sensitivity of parameter estimates to the assumptions that determine the relationship between the estimator and features of the data. The first ingredient is the “sensitivity matrix”. This matrix determines how the parameter of interest changes as the true model deviates from the assumed model. The second ingredient is the size of the departure. In the case of least squares regression, these are the ingredients of the omitted variables bias formula. Andrews and his co-authors generalize the formula to a broad class of models and demonstrate its usefulness with compelling empirical examples. The methods are becoming a standard part of the toolkit of applied researchers.

Equally important is “On the Informativeness of Descriptive Statistics for Structural Estimates” (with Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro, Econometrica, 2020). Researchers informally discuss what statistics drive the sampling distribution of their estimator. But whether they are correct is not clear. Researchers also attempt to validate structural models by comparing predictions based on the model, with descriptive statistics (means, regression coefficients, etc.). However, it is often hard to know whether the comparisons researchers make are informative about the suitability of the model for counterfactual predictions.

Andrews and his co-authors provide an intuitive and theoretically grounded way to quantify the degree to which particular statistics discipline model estimates of a particular object of interest, such as the effect of a counterfactual policy. Their approach can be applied to a broad class of models, and the empirical examples in the paper show how.

The two papers hold the promise of fundamentally changing the way economists assess and communicate their results.

Publication Bias and Inference after Selection

“Identification of and Correction for Publication Bias” (with M. Kasy, AER, 2019) is a major contribution to the growing literature on publication bias. The paper proposes models of selective reporting behavior and selection into publication. It shows that replication studies with the same design as the published studies can be used to obtain the unconditional distribution of a parameter of interest. This distribution, along with the distribution of the parameter estimates in the published studies, can be used to correct for publication bias. The same idea can be used in a meta-study that includes both published papers and unpublished papers. The paper has important implications for empirical practice and for rules about publishing studies.

Andrews’ recent working paper, “Inference on Winners” (with Toru Kitagawa and Adam McCloskey, 2020) shows how to conduct inference about a parameter that is chosen as the “best” out of a set of choices, where the choice must be based on sample estimates. For example, one might run an experiment with multiple treatments with the aim of identifying the treatment to recommend to a policy maker. Choosing the best treatment based on the treatment effect estimates, which contain sampling error, leads to bias from a “winner’s curse” problem. Andrews and his co-authors provide estimators that eliminate this bias.

Inference with Weak Identification

In a series of papers, Andrews has provided better ways to perform statistical inference when weak identification is a possibility for a broad class of nonlinear models. And he has provided procedures that can be applied without knowing in advance whether identification is weak and which perform well if identification is strong.

For example, “Conditional Inference with a Functional Nuisance Parameter” (with Anna Mikusheva, Econometrica, 2016) considers statistical inference for a broad class of moment condition models when the moment conditions used may not be sufficient to identify the parameter of interest. In contrast to the linear IV model, the GMM model is essentially a semi-parametric model. One can think of the distribution of the moment equations as involving a nuisance functional parameter that arises from the nonparametric part of the model. The key idea of the paper is to condition the distribution of a test statistic on a sufficient statistic for the nuisance functional parameter. This provides the basis for a test with correct size and good power properties. The paper is influencing both empirical practice and how econometricians study GMM models.

Many empirical papers in economics estimate the structural parameters by choosing them to minimize the distance between model predictions about reduced form parameters and sample estimates of those parameters. Statistical inference and based on standard asymptotic theory is justified only if the sampling distribution of the reduced form parameters is tight enough relative to the degree of nonlinearity in the model predictions as a function of the structural parameters. In “A Geometric Approach to Weakly Identified Econometric Models” (with Anna Mikusheva, Econometrica, 2016), Andrews and Mikusheva use differential geometry to derive uniformly asymptotically valid minimum distance tests. The tests are applicable for a wide range of data generating processes and structural models. This creative paper offers deep insights into the nature of weak identification and provides a better tool for situations in which standard asymptotic inference may not apply.

Source: https://www.aeaweb.org/about-aea/honors-awards/bates-clark/isaiah-andrews

“Transparency in Structural Research” with Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro (invited discussion paper) Forthcoming at Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

“Inference After Estimation of Breaks” with Toru Kitagawa and Adam McCloskey Forthcoming at Journal of Econometrics “

On the Informativeness of Descriptive Statistics for Structural Estimates” with Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro (Matthew Gentzkow’s Fisher-Schultz Lecture) Econometrica (2020), 88, 2231-2258 “

A Simple Approximation for Evaluating External Validity Bias” with Emily Oster Economics Letters (2019), 178, 58-62

“Weak Instruments in IV Regression: Theory and Practice” with James Stock and Liyang Sun Annual Review of Economics (2019), 11, 727-753.

“Identification of and Correction for Publication Bias” with Maximilian Kasy American Economic Review (2019), 109(8), 2766-2794 “On the Structure of IV Estimands” Journal of Econometrics (2019), 211(1), 294-307

“Valid Two-Step Identification-Robust Confidence Sets for GMM” Review of Economics and Statistics (2018), 100(2), 337-348

“Measuring the Sensitivity of Parameter Estimates to Estimation Moments” with Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro Quarterly Journal of Economics (2017), 132(4), 1553-1592

“Unbiased Instrumental Variables Estimation Under Known First-Stage Sign” with Timothy B. Armstrong Quantitative Economics (2017), 8(2), 479-503 “Conditional Linear Combination Tests for Weakly Identified Models” Econometrica (2016), 84(6), 2155-2182

“The Allocation of Future Business: Dynamic Relational Contracts with Multiple Agents” with Daniel Barron American Economic Review (2016), 106(9), 2742-2759

“Conditional Inference with a Functional Nuisance Parameter” with Anna Mikusheva Econometrica (2016), 84(4), 1571-1612

“A Geometric Approach to Weakly Identified Econometric Models” with Anna Mikusheva Econometrica (2016), 84(3), 1249-1264

“Maximum Likelihood Inference in Weakly Identified DSGE Models” with Anna Mikusheva Quantitative Economics (2015), 6(1),123-152

“Weak Identification in Maximum Likelihood: A Question of Information” with Anna Mikusheva American Economic Reviews: Papers and Proceedings (2014), 104(5), 195-199

有些学术神器，推荐给各位：①找合适的英文期刊发表的神器! 亲测太好用了！②神器! SSCI分区及影响因子查询, 还有国人发表比例，③学术神器Endnote的最详尽使用方法，④一数学神器诞生! 手写公式和符号, 竟免费转成LaTex，⑤让LaTeX排版流行起来, 让效率助你奔跑助你飞。

拓展性阅读：①"实证研究13篇"功夫秘笈, 中青年学者研究必备锦囊！①关于各种因果识别方法的120份经典实证文献汇总”，②哈佛大学新修订完成的因果推断经典大作免费下载！附数据和code，③因果推断的统计方法总结, 177份文献，④政策评估的计量方法综述, 包括最新因果推断方法，⑤在教育领域使用IV, RDD, DID, PSM多吗? 使用具体文献，⑥看完顶级期刊文章后, 整理了内生性处理小册子，⑤工具变量精辟解释, 保证你一辈子都忘不了，⑦DID, 合成控制, 匹配, RDD四种方法比较, 适用范围和特征，⑧关于双重差分法DID的32篇精选Articles专辑！⑨关于(模糊)断点回归设计的100篇精选Articles专辑！⑩匹配方法(matching)操作指南, 值得收藏的16篇文章等，⑪MIT广为流传的政策"处理效应"读本，⑫DID的研究动态和政策评估中应用的文献综述，⑬最新政策效应评估的四种方法，⑭政策效应评估的基本问题。