joe-identification-strategy
GitHub针对计量经济学期刊方法论论文，审查识别策略、正则条件及渐近理论的形式严谨性。确保估计量唯一可识别、假设原始可验证、推导路径清晰且结果具有一般性，符合数学证明标准。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill joe-identification-strategy -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "joe-identification-strategy",
"description": "Use when the assumptions, regularity conditions, identification result, and asymptotic theory of a Journal of Econometrics (JoE) methodological paper are the bottleneck. Stress-tests the formal core — what is assumed, what is proved, and how general it is — before tables are drafted."
}
Identification & Asymptotic Strategy (joe-identification-strategy)
When to trigger
- The estimand is not formally identified, or identification is asserted not proved
- Regularity conditions are stated loosely or are non-primitive (they smuggle in the conclusion)
- The limiting distribution / convergence rate is claimed without a derivation path
- You are unsure the result is general enough, or whether the conditions are verifiable
The JoE formal bar
At the Journal of Econometrics, "identification strategy" means the formal core: the assumptions under which the estimand is identified, the estimator is consistent, and inference is valid. The house norm is mathematical rigor — proofs and asymptotic derivations are expected, and referees probe whether conditions are primitive and verifiable, whether the asymptotics are honest, and whether the result generalizes beyond a convenient special case. This is methodology, not applied causal design: the deliverable is theorems plus the Monte Carlo that shows the asymptotics bite in finite samples.
The formal-core checklist
1. Identification
- State the estimand and the model precisely. Prove identification (the map from the distribution of observables to the parameter is unique) before estimation. Distinguish point vs. partial identification.
- If identification is weak or fails on a boundary (weak instruments, near-unit-root, near-singular Jacobian), say so and provide identification-robust inference rather than hiding it.
2. Assumptions / regularity conditions
- List each assumption and label it (moment existence, smoothness, mixing/dependence, bandwidth/rate conditions, rank/full-rank, parameter-space compactness).
- For each: is it primitive (on the DGP/data) or high-level (on objects derived from the estimator)? Prefer primitive; justify any high-level condition and verify it for a leading example.
- Check none of them silently assume the conclusion (e.g., assuming the very uniform convergence you need).
3. Asymptotic theory
- Lay out the proof path: consistency (ULLN / argmax) → rate → asymptotic distribution (CLT / Delta method / empirical-process tools) → variance estimator.
- State the convergence rate and the limiting distribution; derive or cite the standard-error / variance estimator and prove it is consistent.
- Handle nuisance parameters, tuning (bandwidth, lag length, penalty), and any first-stage estimation (Neyman-orthogonality / influence-function corrections) explicitly.
4. Generality
- State the class of models/DGPs the result covers; flag what is excluded and why.
- Show the result nests or extends known cases (a sanity check and a positioning device).
5. Proof exposition
- Map theorems → lemmas; keep the main text's intuition, push routine algebra to an appendix.
- Make each step auditable; a referee should reconstruct the argument without guessing.
Numerical / Monte Carlo confirmation (light here, full in joe-data-analysis)
- Cross-check a derived asymptotic variance against a high-replication Monte Carlo; a mismatch usually signals an algebra error. The full size/power design lives in
joe-data-analysis.
Assumption audit
Turn the formal core into an assumption audit table:
| Assumption | Primitive or high-level? | Used in which theorem step? | How it can fail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moment / tail condition | Prefer primitive | ULLN, CLT, variance consistency | Heavy tails, weak moments |
| Dependence / mixing | Primitive where possible | LLN/CLT under panels or time series | Persistent shocks, clustering |
| Rank / identification | Primitive if stated on observables | Identification, invertibility, asymptotic linearity | Weak instruments, singular Jacobian |
| Smoothness / tuning rate | Often high-level unless verified | Expansion, bias control, bandwidth/penalty | Boundary points, bad bandwidth |
Use the table to police the paper's language. If an assumption is high-level, either verify it for a leading example or state clearly that it is a sufficient technical condition. If a theorem relies on an assumption that is never invoked in the proof map, delete or relocate it.
Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
Estimate and audit the design, don't only describe it. Full map:
execution-with-mcp. Journal of Econometrics is a methods venue — estimator validity + simulation evidence are the contribution; pair estimates with diagnostics and Monte-Carlo where relevant.
detect_design→recommend→ fit withas_handle=true→audit_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_wolffor many-outcome control. - Sensitivity:
oster_delta/sensemakrfor 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.
Anti-patterns
- "Under standard regularity conditions" with no list and no verification
- High-level assumptions chosen so the theorem is one line — but unverifiable in any real model
- Asserting asymptotic normality with no derivation or no consistent variance estimator
- Ignoring weak/partial identification when the design is on its boundary
- Treating assumptions as a preamble rather than linking each one to a theorem step
Output format
【Estimand & model】...
【Identification】point/partial; proof sketch
【Assumptions】[A1 primitive, A2 high-level (justified), ...]
【Assumption audit】primitive/high-level, theorem use, failure mode
【Asymptotics】rate + limiting distribution + variance estimator
【Generality】class covered; what is excluded; nested cases
【Proof plan】theorems → lemmas → appendix
【Next step】joe-data-analysis
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:31
