We introduce the class of conditional linear combination tests, which reject null hypotheses concerning model parameters when a data‐dependent convex combination of two identification‐robust statistics is large. These tests control size under weak identification and have a number of optimality properties in a conditional problem. We show that the conditional likelihood ratio test of Moreira, 2003 is a conditional linear combination test in models with one endogenous regressor, and that the class of conditional linear combination tests is equivalent to a class of quasi‐conditional likelihood ratio tests. We suggest using minimax regret conditional linear combination tests and propose a computationally tractable class of tests that plug in an estimator for a nuisance parameter. These plug‐in tests perform well in simulation and have optimal power in many strongly identified models, thus allowing powerful identification‐robust inference in a wide range of linear and nonlinear models without sacrificing efficiency if identification is strong.

In models with potentially weak identification, researchers often decide whether to report a robust confidence set based on an initial assessment of model identification. Two-step procedures of this sort can generate large coverage distortions for reported confidence sets, and existing procedures for controlling these distortions are quite limited. This paper introduces a generally applicable approach to detecting weak identification and constructing two-step confidence sets in GMM. This approach controls coverage distortions under weak identification and indicates strong identification, with probability tending to 1 when the model is well identified.

Conventional tests for composite hypotheses in minimum distance models can be unreliable when the relationship between the structural and reduced‐form parameters is highly nonlinear. Such nonlinearity may arise for a variety of reasons, including weak identification. In this note, we begin by studying the problem of testing a “curved null” in a finite‐sample Gaussian model. Using the curvature of the model, we develop new finite‐sample bounds on the distribution of minimum‐distance statistics. These bounds allow us to construct tests for composite hypotheses which are uniformly asymptotically valid over a large class of data generating processes and structural models.

In this paper we connect the discrepancy between two estimates of Fisher information, one based on the quadratic variation of the score and the other based on the negative Hessian of the log-likelihood, to weak identification. Classical asymptotic approximations assume that these two estimates are asymptotically equivalent, but we show that this equivalence fails in many weakly identified models, which can distort the behavior of the MLE. Using a stylized DSGE model we show that the discrepancy between information estimates is large when identification is weak.

We propose a positive model of empirical science in which an analyst makes a report to an audience after observing some data. Agents in the audience may differ in their beliefs or objectives, and may therefore update or act differently following a given report. We contrast the proposed model with a classical model of statistics in which the report directly determines the payoff. We identify settings in which the predictions of the proposed model differ from those of the classical model, and seem to better match practice.

We show that moment inequalities in a wide variety of economic applications have a particular linear conditional structure. We use this structure to construct uniformly valid confidence sets that remain computationally tractable even in settings with nuisance parameters. We first introduce least-favorable critical values which deliver non-conservative tests if all moments are binding. Next, we introduce a novel conditional inference approach which ensures a strong form of insensitivity to slack moments. Our recommended approach is a hybrid technique which combines desirable aspects of the least favorable and conditional methods. The hybrid approach performs well in simulations calibrated to Wollmann (2018, American Economic Review, 108, 1364–1406), with favorable power and computational time comparisons relative to existing alternatives.

Some empirical results are more likely to be published than others. Selective publication leads to biased estimates and distorted inference. We propose two approaches for identifying the conditional probability of publication as a function of a study’s results, the first based on systematic replication studies and the second on meta-studies. For known conditional publication probabilities, we propose bias-corrected estimators and confidence sets. We apply our methods to recent replication studies in experimental economics and psychology, and to a meta-study on the effect of the minimum wage. When replication and meta-study data are available, we find similar results from both.

Policy makers, firms, and researchers often choose among multiple options based on estimates. Sampling error in the estimates used to guide choice leads to a winner’s curse, since we are more likely to select a given option precisely when we overestimate its effectiveness. This winner’s curse biases our estimates for selected options upward and can invalidate conventional confidence intervals. This article develops estimators and confidence intervals that eliminate this winner’s curse. We illustrate our results by studying selection of job-training programs based on estimated earnings effects and selection of neighborhoods based on estimated economic opportunity. We find that our winner’s curse corrections can make an economically significant difference to conclusions but still allow informative inference.

We propose a way to formalize the relationship between descriptive analysis and structural estimation. A researcher reports an estimate ĉ of a structural quantity of interest c that is exactly or asymptotically unbiased under some base model. The researcher also reports descriptive statistics<a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><a:mover accent="true"><a:mi>γ</a:mi><a:mo>ˆ</a:mo></a:mover></a:math>that estimate features γ of the distribution of the data that are related to c under the base model. A reader entertains a less restrictive model that is local to the base model, under which the estimate ĉ may be biased. We study the reduction in worst‐case bias from a restriction that requires the reader's model to respect the relationship between c and γ specified by the base model. Our main result shows that the proportional reduction in worst‐case bias depends only on a quantity we call the informativeness of<d:math xmlns:d="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><d:mover accent="true"><d:mi>γ</d:mi><d:mo>ˆ</d:mo></d:mover></d:math>for ĉ . Informativeness can be easily estimated even for complex models. We recommend that researchers report estimated informativeness alongside their descriptive analyses, and we illustrate with applications to three recent papers.