跳到主要内容
知仓学习社ZHICANG

aeja-robustness

Use when an American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) manuscript's headline estimate must be shown to survive specification, sampl…

不碰外部(只输出文字)无严重或高危命中brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

它会碰到什么

扫了多少1 个文本文件,7 KB
它会碰到什么不碰外部(只输出文字)
命中总数0 处
命中统计严重 0 · 高 0 · 中 0 · 低 0

这一栏是扫描器报的事实,不是结论。命中多不等于有毒(安全工具、规则库、示例脚本本来就会包含危险写法),命中少也不等于干净。它和你手上的凭据、文件、网络有什么关系,需要你自己看。

技能内容

Robustness Suite (aeja-robustness)

When to trigger

  • The main estimate is in hand and you need to show it is not an artifact of one specification
  • A referee asks "is this robust to [alternative controls / sample / functional form / inference]?"
  • The result depends on a bandwidth, a clustering choice, or a sample-selection rule that could be questioned
  • You suspect specification-search concerns and want to pre-empt them

The AEJ: Applied robustness bar

AEJ: Applied referees probe whether the headline number is stable, honestly inferred, and not the product of researcher degrees of freedom. Robustness here is not a wall of regressions — it is a targeted set of checks each tied to a specific threat to the design. Map every plausible objection to the one check that answers it, and report the checks so the reader sees the estimate barely moves.

| Threat to the result | The check that answers it |

|----------------------|---------------------------|

| Omitted confounders | Oster δ / coefficient-stability bounds; added controls in steps |

| Specification search | a specification curve / multiverse; pre-registered primary spec |

| Functional form | levels vs logs, alternative outcome definitions, nonparametric version |

| Sample selection | drop influential units, alternative inclusion rules, balanced vs unbalanced panel |

| Inference too narrow | clustered SEs at the right level, wild-cluster bootstrap (few clusters), randomization inference |

| Design-specific fragility | DID: honest-DID bounds; RD: bandwidth/donut; IV: weak-IV-robust set |

| Multiple outcomes/subgroups | Romano–Wolf / List–Shaikh–Wooldridge MHT adjustment |

Robustness craft

  1. Lock the primary specification first. Everything else is a perturbation around it; do not present five co-equal specs and let the reader guess which is preferred.
  2. One threat → one check. A robustness table should read as "here is the worry, here is the evidence it is not a problem."
  3. Show stability, not just significance. The persuasive object is that the point estimate barely moves, not that it stays starred.
  4. Be honest about where it weakens. A check that shifts the estimate is information; report it and bound the implication rather than hiding it.
  5. Match inference to the data structure (clustering, spatial dependence, few clusters) — wrong SEs are the most common AEJ: Applied robustness failure.

Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)

Run the battery, don't just enumerate it. Full map:

[execution-with-mcp](../../../shared-resources/empirical-methods/execution-with-mcp.md). AEJ: Applied is applied microeconomics — labor, health, education, and development field settings where a clean research design is the entry ticket.

  • Many outcomes / specifications: romano_wolf (step-down FWER, accounts for

cross-test correlation) or benjamini_hochberg — report the adjusted threshold.

  • OVB sensitivity: oster_delta / sensemakr — the confounder strength that would

overturn the headline.

  • Inference: wild_cluster_bootstrap (few clusters), twoway_cluster / conley.
  • Re-fit off one handle: audit_result(result_id) lists the missing checks and the

exact suggest_function for each — no guessing the battery.

  • Exhibits: etable / did_summary_to_latex from the handle — no retyped numbers.

Keep the decisive checks in the body and the exhaustive (now actually-run) battery in

the appendix. See the executed chain in the [JF execution walkthrough](../../../Journal-of-Finance-Skills/resources/worked-examples/02-execution-walkthrough.md).

Checklist

  • [ ] Primary specification declared (ideally pre-registered) before perturbations
  • [ ] Each robustness check mapped to a specific threat, not added for volume
  • [ ] Coefficient-stability evidence (Oster δ or stepwise controls) for selection-on-unobservables
  • [ ] Inference stress-tested: correct clustering level + wild-cluster/randomization inference where relevant
  • [ ] Design-specific sensitivity included (honest-DID / RD bandwidth / weak-IV set)
  • [ ] Multiple-hypothesis adjustment if many outcomes/subgroups
  • [ ] Stability of the point estimate shown, and any check that moves it reported honestly

Anti-patterns

  • A 20-column robustness table with no map from check to threat ("kitchen-sink robustness")
  • Reporting only that significance survives while the point estimate wanders
  • Hiding the specification that breaks the result
  • Clustering at the wrong level or ignoring few-cluster bias, then claiming robustness
  • Treating "added more controls and it survived" as sufficient for selection on unobservables
  • Subgroup p-hacking with no MHT correction

Worked vignette (illustrative)

An IV estimate of the return to a training program is 0.11 (s.e. 0.04). The robustness suite: (i) effective F of 23 rules out weak instruments; (ii) the Anderson–Rubin 95% set is [0.04, 0.19], so inference is not weak-IV-fragile; (iii) Oster δ implies selection on unobservables would need to be 1.8× selection on observables to nullify it; (iv) wild-cluster bootstrap with 14 clusters keeps the CI away from zero; (v) dropping the largest region moves the estimate to 0.10. The point estimate barely moves — the AEJ: Applied target.

Referee pushback mapped to the robustness fix

  • "This looks like specification search." → Declare the pre-registered or primary spec; show a

specification curve in which the point estimate barely moves.

  • "Did you cluster correctly?" → Cluster at the assignment level; with few clusters report a wild-cluster

bootstrap or randomization-inference p-value.

  • "Could selection on unobservables explain this?" → Report Oster δ; state how strong selection on

unobservables would have to be (relative to observables) to nullify the result.

Output format

【Primary spec】declared / pre-registered? [Y/N] — estimate: ___ (s.e. ___)
【Threat → check map】selection: ___ | spec-search: ___ | form: ___ | sample: ___ | inference: ___ | design: ___
【Inference】clustering level: ___; few-cluster/randomization: ___
【Design sensitivity】honest-DID / RD bandwidth / weak-IV set: ___
【Estimate stability】range across checks: [___, ___]; checks that move it: ___
【Next step】aeja-tables-figures

想直接用这个技能?

本站把开放许可(MIT / Apache 等)的技能按仓库打包整理到网盘,点一下转存到你自己的网盘,不用一个个从 GitHub 拉。许可未声明的技能只给原始仓库链接,不打包。