agentsclimarketplace

Qe identification strategy

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Quantitative-Economics-Skills/skills/qe-identification-strategy

Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. | 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包,从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程,助你快速发论文。

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill qe-identification-strategy

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when the identification argument is the bottleneck for a Quantitative Economics (QE) manuscript — whether causal identification in an empirical design, parameter identification in a structural/computational model, or treatment-effect identification in an experiment. Stress-tests the strategy to the QE general-interest quantitative bar before exhibits are finalized.

SKILL.md

7.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Identification Strategy (qe-identification-strategy)

When to trigger

  • A structural model's parameters are estimated but it is unclear what in the data identifies them
  • An empirical causal claim rests on OLS + controls, or TWFE on staggered timing
  • An experiment's estimand or its assumptions are not pinned down
  • You are unsure the identification clears QE's quantitative, general-interest bar

The QE identification bar

QE is the Econometric Society's empirical/quantitative general-interest journal, so identification is judged through an ES lens: the mapping from data to the object of interest must be explicit and defended, whatever the method. Because QE spans empirical, structural/computational, experimental, and simulation work, "identification" means different things by branch — pick the branch and make the argument transparent. QE's house norms reinforce this: report standard errors and confidence/coverage sets (never significance asterisks), and make the strategy reproducible for the pre-acceptance ES Data Editor check.

Branch paths

Branch A: Structural / computational identification

  • Name what identifies each parameter. Tie parameters to specific data features / moments; argue identification from the model's structure, not just "the estimator converged."
  • Targeted vs. untargeted moments: report fit to targeted moments and show untargeted-moment validation as out-of-sample discipline.
  • Sensitivity / informativeness: report parameter sensitivity to moments (e.g., a sensitivity matrix) so readers see which data move which parameters.
  • Estimation regularity: state the objective (MLE / GMM / MSM / indirect inference), starting values, tolerances, and that the optimum is global enough (multi-start). Report Monte Carlo evidence that the procedure recovers known parameters.
  • Counterfactual validity: argue the estimated parameters are policy-invariant enough for the counterfactual you run.

Branch B: Empirical causal design (applied micro / finance)

  • DID / event study: with staggered adoption move beyond TWFE (Callaway–Sant'Anna, Sun–Abraham, de Chaisemartin–D'Haultfœuille); show a clean event-study with leads; report a Goodman-Bacon decomposition.
  • IV: strong first stage; with weak instruments use Anderson–Rubin / weak-IV-robust sets; defend the exclusion restriction in theory, institutions, and falsification.
  • RDD: McCrary / Cattaneo–Jansson–Ma density test; optimal bandwidth + robustness; covariate smoothness; bias-corrected CIs.
  • Inference clustered at the assignment level; address few-cluster issues (wild-cluster bootstrap).

Branch C: Experimental

  • Pre-registration in a recognized registry (AEA RCT Registry / AsPredicted / OSF) — required for own-data studies effective Jan 1, 2026; report deviations.
  • Detailed instructions / survey transcripts included at initial submission.
  • Randomization balance; attrition (Lee bounds if differential); multiple-hypothesis adjustment; explicit estimand and external-validity discussion.

Branch D: Simulation / measurement

  • Documented data-generating process; seeds set and reported.
  • Show the measured object is robust to grid/tuning choices and disciplined against measurement error and alternatives.

Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)

Estimate and audit the design, don't only describe it. Full map: execution-with-mcp. Quantitative Economics spans structural and applied micro; the chain serves its reduced-form lane, structural estimation uses its own toolkit.

  • detect_designrecommend → fit with as_handle=trueaudit_result.
  • Observational causal claims: staggered DiD (callaway_santanna / sun_abraham + bacon_decomposition + honest_did_from_result); IV (effective_f_test + anderson_rubin_ci); RDD (rdrobust + mccrary_test).
  • Experiments: randomization-based inference + romano_wolf for many-outcome control.
  • Sensitivity: oster_delta / sensemakr for observational claims.

Report the magnitude in interpretable units; route the full battery to the appendix. A run end-to-end (synthetic data, real returns) is in the JF execution walkthrough.

Checklist

  • Branch chosen; the data-to-object mapping stated in one sentence
  • Structural: each parameter tied to identifying moments; sensitivity + Monte Carlo recovery shown
  • Empirical: design-appropriate diagnostics (pre-trends / density / first-stage / balance); modern estimator where TWFE would bias
  • Experimental: pre-registered; instructions included; balance/attrition/MHT handled
  • Inference reported as SEs / coverage sets (no asterisks); clustering/assignment level correct
  • The claim never exceeds what the identification supports

Anti-patterns

  • "The estimator converged" presented as if it were identification (structural)
  • TWFE on staggered treatment with no heterogeneity-bias discussion (empirical)
  • Calibrating parameters and running a counterfactual without arguing policy-invariance
  • An experiment with no pre-registration or no reported estimand
  • Reporting significance with asterisks instead of standard errors / coverage sets

Worked vignette: identifying a search-cost parameter (illustrative)

A labor-search model is estimated on matched employer–employee data. The referee asks what identifies the search-cost parameter. A weak answer points at the likelihood; a QE answer points at a data moment: the elasticity of the job-finding hazard to local vacancy density pins the cost, because a steeper hazard maps to a lower cost. Suppose the sensitivity matrix shows a 0.4 elasticity moves the estimate from 0.9 to 0.6 — that number makes identification visible. Pair it with Monte Carlo recovery (simulated panels return the true cost within 5%, illustrative).

Referee pushback mapped to the identification fix

  • "Estimates are not credibly identified — calibration in disguise." → Show the sensitivity matrix and which moment moves which parameter; report untargeted fit.
  • "Your counterfactual assumes policy-invariant parameters you never defend." → Argue invariance (Lucas critique); show parameters are not functions of the policy.
  • "Staggered TWFE here is biased." → Re-estimate with Callaway–Sant'Anna or Sun–Abraham; show flat event-study leads.

Output format

【Branch】structural / empirical / experimental / simulation
【Data-to-object mapping】one sentence
【Identification evidence】[moments+sensitivity / pre-trends+density+first-stage / balance / DGP]
【Estimation/inference】objective + SEs/coverage (no asterisks); clustering if any
【What it does NOT identify】[...]
【Next step】qe-data-analysis

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.