An Automatic Finite-Sample Robustness Metric: Can Dropping a Little Data Change Conclusions?
Authors: Tamara Broderick, Ryan Giordano, Rachael Meager
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Authors: Tamara Broderick, Ryan Giordano, Rachael Meager
- Proposed method: Approximate Maximum Influence Perturbation
- Purpose: Evaluate sensitivity of econometric analyses to exclusion of small sample portion
- Applicability: OLS, IV, GMM, MLE, variational Bayes estimators
- Benefits:
- Automatically computable
- Provides finite-sample error bounds for linear and instrumental variables regressions
- Identifies influential observations that can impact study conclusions if omitted
Abstract: We propose a method to assess the sensitivity of econometric analyses to the removal of a small fraction of the sample. Analyzing all possible data subsets of a certain size is computationally prohibitive, so we provide a finite-sample metric to approximately compute the number (or fraction) of observations that has the greatest influence on a given result when dropped. We call our resulting metric the Approximate Maximum Influence Perturbation. Our approximation is automatically computable and works for common estimators (including OLS, IV, GMM, MLE, and variational Bayes). We provide explicit finite-sample error bounds on our approximation for linear and instrumental variables regressions. At minimal computational cost, our metric provides an exact finite-sample lower bound on sensitivity for any estimator, so any non-robustness our metric finds is conclusive. We demonstrate that the Approximate Maximum Influence Perturbation is driven by a low signal-to-noise ratio in the inference problem, is not reflected in standard errors, does not disappear asymptotically, and is not a product of misspecification. Several empirical applications show that even 2-parameter linear regression analyses of randomized trials can be highly sensitive. While we find some applications are robust, in others the sign of a treatment effect can be changed by dropping less than 1% of the sample even when standard errors are small.
Tools for this paper
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm compares the title and abstract of this paper with all the papers of the same arXiv category that we have summarized, and finds the closest ones. You can rerun it from time to time: the results improve as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.