IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2303.11418.html

When Is Neyman-Orthogonal Inference Feasible? Existence and Relevance

Author

Listed:
  • Facundo Arga~naraz
  • Juan Carlos Escanciano

Abstract

Neyman-orthogonal moments underpin debiased and double machine learning, yet their existence and informativeness are typically presumed. We ask three questions: when do nontrivial orthogonal moments exist, which target directions contain first-order information, and does a proposed moment detect all such directions? Restricted local overidentification characterizes existence under attainability. Effective Fisher information determines relevance; its rank counts informative target directions. A rank sandwich combines moment Jacobians with target changes offset by nuisance perturbations, distinguishing information missed by a moment from information absent from the experiment. In sample selection without covariate exclusions, this yields identification-robust inference under rank deficiency. In latent-variable models, the informative target space is an RKHS. For Gaussian repeated measurements, additional measurements enlarge the class of smoothed distributional targets that are regularly learnable, while CDFs, quantiles, and threshold-policy functionals remain uninformative at the parametric rate for every finite number of measurements.

Suggested Citation

  • Facundo Arga~naraz & Juan Carlos Escanciano, 2023. "When Is Neyman-Orthogonal Inference Feasible? Existence and Relevance," Papers 2303.11418, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2303.11418
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.11418
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chamberlain, Gary, 1986. "Asymptotic efficiency in semi-parametric models with censoring," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 189-218, July.
    2. James Heckman, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Campbell, Randall C. & Nagel, Gregory L., 2016. "Private information and limitations of Heckman's estimator in banking and corporate finance research," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 186-195.
    2. Breunig, Christoph & Mammen, Enno & Simoni, Anna, 2018. "Nonparametric estimation in case of endogenous selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 202(2), pages 268-285.
    3. Casey B. Mulligan & Yona Rubinstein, 2004. "The Closing of the Gender Gap as a Roy Model Illusion," NBER Working Papers 10892, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Zhewen Pan & Zhengxin Wang & Junsen Zhang & Yahong Zhou, 2024. "Marginal treatment effects in the absence of instrumental variables," Papers 2401.17595, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
    5. Victor Chernozhukov & Iván Fernández-Val & Siyi Luo, 2025. "Distribution Regression with Sample Selection and UK Wage Decomposition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 133(12), pages 3952-3992.
    6. Victor Chernozhukov & Ivan Fernandez-Val & Siyi Luo, 2018. "Distribution regression with sample selection, with an application to wage decompositions in the UK," CeMMAP working papers CWP68/18, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    7. Gayle, George-Levi & Viauroux, Christelle, 2007. "Root-N consistent semiparametric estimators of a dynamic panel-sample-selection model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 179-212, November.
    8. Katrin Hussinger, 2008. "R&D and subsidies at the firm level: an application of parametric and semiparametric two-step selection models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 729-747.
    9. Honoré, Bo E. & Hu, Luojia, 2024. "Sample selection models without exclusion restrictions: Parameter heterogeneity and partial identification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 243(1).
    10. Zhewen Pan, 2023. "On semiparametric estimation of the intercept of the sample selection model: a kernel approach," Papers 2302.05089, arXiv.org.
    11. Francine D. Blau & Lawrence M. Kahn & Nikolai Boboshko & Matthew Comey, 2024. "The Impact of Selection into the Labor Force on the Gender Wage Gap," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(4), pages 1093-1133.
    12. Valentina Corradi & Daniel Gutknecht, 2019. "Testing for Quantile Sample Selection," Papers 1907.07412, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2021.
    13. repec:jss:jstsof:27:i07 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Zeynep Elitas & Hakan Ercan & Semih Tumen, 2015. "Reassessing the trends in the relative supply of college-equivalent workers in the U.S.: a selection-correction approach," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 13(2), pages 249-273, June.
    15. Nobel Prize Committee, 2021. "Answering causal questions using observational data," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2021-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    16. Puhani, Patrick A., 1997. "Foul or Fair? The Heckman Correction for Sample Selection and Its Critique. A Short Survey," ZEW Discussion Papers 97-07, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Arulampalam, Wiji & Corradi, Valentina & Gutknecht, Daniel, 2024. "Intercept Estimation In Nonlinear Selection Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(6), pages 1311-1363, December.
    18. Jeffrey A. Dubin & Douglas Rivers, 1989. "Selection Bias in Linear Regression, Logit and Probit Models," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 18(2-3), pages 360-390, November.
    19. Zhewen Pan & Yifan Zhang, 2024. "Locally robust semiparametric estimation of sample selection models without exclusion restrictions," Papers 2412.01208, arXiv.org.
    20. Angrist, Joshua D., 1997. "Conditional independence in sample selection models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 103-112, February.
    21. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2303.11418. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.