Papers › A simple and robust confidence interval for causal effects with possibly invalid instruments
A simple and robust confidence interval for causal effects with possibly invalid instruments
Hyunseung Kang, T. Tony Cai, Dylan S. Small
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Instrumental variables have been widely used to estimate the causal effect of a treatment on an outcome. Existing confidence intervals for causal effects based on instrumental variables assume that all of the putative instrumental variables are valid; a valid instrumental variable is a variable that affects the outcome only by affecting the treatment and is not related to unmeasured confounders. However, in practice, some of the putative instrumental variables are likely to be invalid. This paper presents a simple and general approach to construct a confidence interval that is robust to possibly invalid instruments. The robust confidence interval has theoretical guarantees on having the correct coverage and can also be used to assess the sensitivity of inference when instrumental variables assumptions are violated. The paper also shows that the robust confidence interval outperforms traditional confidence intervals popular in instrumental variables literature when invalid instruments are present. The new approach is applied to a developmental economics study of the causal effect of income on food expenditures.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections