What should researchers do when their baseline model is falsified? We recommend reporting the set of parameters that are consistent with minimally nonfalsified models. We call this the falsification adaptive set (FAS). This set generalizes the standard baseline estimand to account for possible falsification. Importantly, it does not require the researcher to select or calibrate sensitivity parameters. In the classical linear IV model with multiple instruments, we show that the FAS has a simple closed‐form expression that only depends on a few 2SLS coefficients. We apply our results to an empirical study of roads and trade. We show how the FAS complements traditional overidentification tests by summarizing the variation in estimates obtained from alternative nonfalsified models.

Conditional independence of treatment assignment from potential outcomes is a commonly used but nonrefutable assumption. We derive identified sets for various treatment effect parameters under nonparametric deviations from this conditional independence assumption. These deviations are defined via a conditional treatment assignment probability, which makes it straightforward to interpret. Our results can be used to assess the robustness of empirical conclusions obtained under the baseline conditional independence assumption.

We show that, depending on how the impact of omitted variables is measured, it can be substantially easier for omitted variables to flip coefficient signs than to drive them to zero. This behavior occurs with “Oster's delta” (Oster 2019a), a widely reported robustness measure. Consequently, any time this measure is large—suggesting omitted variables may be unimportant—a much smaller value reverses the sign of the parameter of interest. We propose a modified measure of robustness to address this concern. We illustrate our results in four empirical applications and two meta-analyses. We implement our methods in the companion Stata module “regsensitivity.” (JEL C18, C21, C52)