IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2601.14464.html

On the falsification of instrumental variable models for heterogeneous treatment effects

Author

Listed:
  • Ricardo E. Miranda

Abstract

In this paper I derive a set of testable implications for econometric models defined by three assumptions: (i) the existence of strictly exogenous discrete instruments, (ii) restrictions on how the instruments affect adoption of a finite number of treatment types (such as monotonicity), and (iii) the assumption that the instruments only affect outcomes through their effect on treatment adoption (i.e. an exclusion restriction). The testable implications aggregate (via integration) an otherwise potentially infinite set of inequalities that must hold for every measurable subset of the outcome's support. For binary instruments the testable implications are sharp. Furthermore, I propose an implementation that links restrictions on latent response types to a generalization of first-order stochastic dominance and random utility models, allowing to distinguish violations of the exclusion restriction from violations of monotonicity-type assumptions. The testable implications extend naturally to the many instruments case.

Suggested Citation

  • Ricardo E. Miranda, 2026. "On the falsification of instrumental variable models for heterogeneous treatment effects," Papers 2601.14464, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2601.14464
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.14464
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sun, Zhenting, 2023. "Instrument validity for heterogeneous causal effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 237(2).
    2. Ivar Ekeland & Alfred Galichon & Marc Henry, 2010. "Optimal transportation and the falsifiability of incompletely specified economic models," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 42(2), pages 355-374, February.
    3. Beresteanu, Arie & Molchanov, Ilya & Molinari, Francesca, 2012. "Partial identification using random set theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 17-32.
    4. Désiré Kédagni & Ismael Mourifié, 2020. "Generalized instrumental inequalities: testing the instrumental variable independence assumption," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 107(3), pages 661-675.
    5. Isaiah Andrews & Jonathan Roth & Ariel Pakes, 2023. "Inference for Linear Conditional Moment Inequalities," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(6), pages 2763-2791.
    6. Zheng Fang & Andres Santos & Azeem M. Shaikh & Alexander Torgovitsky, 2023. "Inference for Large‐Scale Linear Systems With Known Coefficients," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(1), pages 299-327, January.
    7. Zhenting Sun, 2020. "Instrument Validity for Heterogeneous Causal Effects," Papers 2009.01995, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    8. Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Christopher R. Walters, 2021. "The Causal Interpretation of Two-Stage Least Squares with Multiple Instrumental Variables," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(11), pages 3663-3698, November.
    9. 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.
    10. JoonHwan Cho & Thomas M. Russell, 2024. "Simple Inference on Functionals of Set-Identified Parameters Defined by Linear Moments," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 563-578, April.
    11. Alfred Galichon & Marc Henry, 2011. "Set Identification in Models with Multiple Equilibria," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(4), pages 1264-1298.
    12. Gregory Cox & Xiaoxia Shi, 2023. "Simple Adaptive Size-Exact Testing for Full-Vector and Subvector Inference in Moment Inequality Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(1), pages 201-228.
    13. Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2015. "Testing Instrument Validity for LATE Identification Based on Inequality Moment Constraints," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(2), pages 398-411, May.
    14. Huber, Martin, 2014. "Sensitivity checks for the local average treatment effect," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 220-223.
    15. Luther Yap, 2025. "Sensitivity of Policy‐Relevant Treatment Parameters to Violations of Monotonicity," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(6), pages 627-638, September.
    16. Patrick Kline & Christopher R. Walters, 2016. "Evaluating Public Programs with Close Substitutes: The Case of HeadStart," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(4), pages 1795-1848.
    17. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5rkqqmvrn4tl22s9mc4ao8ocg is not listed on IDEAS
    18. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5rkqqmvrn4tl22s9mc4ao8ocg is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Evan K. Rose & Yotam Shem-Tov, 2021. "On Recoding Ordered Treatments as Binary Indicators," Papers 2111.12258, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    20. Fusejima, Koki, 2024. "Identification of multi-valued treatment effects with unobserved heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 238(1).
    21. Claudia Noack, 2021. "Sensitivity of LATE Estimates to Violations of the Monotonicity Assumption," Papers 2106.06421, arXiv.org.
    22. Nadja van ’t Hoff & Arthur Lewbel & Giovanni Mellace, 2023. "Limited Monotonicity and the Combined Compliers LATE," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1059, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 20 Jan 2025.
    23. Ivar Ekeland & Alfred Galichon & Marc Henry, 2010. "Optimal transportation and the falsifiability of incompletely specified economic models," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 42(2), pages 355-374, February.
    24. Ismael Mourifié & Yuanyuan Wan, 2017. "Testing Local Average Treatment Effect Assumptions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(2), pages 305-313, May.
    25. Christian M Dahl & Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2023. "It is never too LATE: a new look at local average treatment effects with or without defiers," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 26(3), pages 378-404.
    26. Leonard Goff & Eric Mbakop, 2025. "Inference on the value of a linear program," Papers 2506.06776, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
    27. Clément de Chaisemartin, 2017. "Tolerating defiance? Local average treatment effects without monotonicity," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(2), pages 367-396, July.
    28. Evan K. Rose & Yotam Shem-Tov, 2024. "On Recoding Ordered Treatments as Binary Indicators," NBER Working Papers 32234, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Sun, Zhenting & Wüthrich, Kaspar, 2025. "Pairwise valid instruments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    2. Mogstad, Magne & Torgovitsky, Alexander, 2024. "Instrumental variables with unobserved heterogeneity in treatment effects," Handbook of Labor Economics,, Elsevier.
    3. Yuehao Bai & Shunzhuang Huang & Max Tabord-Meehan, 2024. "Sharp Testable Implications of Encouragement Designs," Papers 2411.09808, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2025.
    4. Zhenting Sun & Kaspar Wuthrich, 2022. "Pairwise Valid Instruments," Papers 2203.08050, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2025.
    5. Johann Caro-Burnett, 2026. "Toggling the Defiers to Relax Monotonicity: The Difference-in-Instrumental-Variables Estimand," Papers 2602.12504, arXiv.org.
    6. Sokbae Lee & Bernard Salani'e, 2020. "Treatment Effects with Targeting Instruments," Papers 2007.10432, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2026.
    7. Bhuller, Manudeep & Sigstad, Henrik, 2024. "2SLS with multiple treatments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 242(1).
    8. Leonard Goff, 2024. "When does IV identification not restrict outcomes?," Papers 2406.02835, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2025.
    9. Lukáš Lafférs, 2019. "Identification in Models with Discrete Variables," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(2), pages 657-696, February.
    10. Kitagawa, Toru, 2021. "The identification region of the potential outcome distributions under instrument independence," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 231-253.
    11. Thomas M. Russell, 2020. "Policy Transforms and Learning Optimal Policies," Papers 2012.11046, arXiv.org.
    12. Hongyi Jiang & Zhenting Sun, 2023. "Testing Partial Instrument Monotonicity," Papers 2308.08390, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    13. Claudia Noack, 2021. "Sensitivity of LATE Estimates to Violations of the Monotonicity Assumption," Papers 2106.06421, arXiv.org.
    14. Thomas Carr & Toru Kitagawa, 2021. "Testing Instrument Validity with Covariates," Papers 2112.08092, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    15. Jiang, Hongyi & Sun, Zhenting, 2023. "Testing partial instrument monotonicity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    16. Santiago Acerenza & Otávio Bartalotti & Désiré Kédagni, 2023. "Testing identifying assumptions in bivariate probit models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(3), pages 407-422, April.
    17. Leonard Goff & Eric Mbakop, 2025. "Inference on the value of a linear program," Papers 2506.06776, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
    18. Kédagni, Désiré, 2023. "Identifying treatment effects in the presence of confounded types," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 479-511.
    19. Nadja van ’t Hoff & Arthur Lewbel & Giovanni Mellace, 2023. "Limited Monotonicity and the Combined Compliers LATE," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1059, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 20 Jan 2025.
    20. Mario Fiorini & Katrien Stevens, 2021. "Scrutinizing the Monotonicity Assumption in IV and fuzzy RD designs," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(6), pages 1475-1526, December.

    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:2601.14464. 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: http://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.