How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Binary instrumental-variable potential-outcome setup
Definition
Let be a probability space for a target population of units. A real random variable is a measurable map to with its Borel sigma-algebra (Random elements and real random variables); expectations are integrals with respect to (Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable). A unit's potential outcomes depend only on that unit's treatment receipt and instrument assignment; this is the no-interference and single-treatment-version scope used here.
An IV potential-outcome setup consists of binary random variables , an outcome , binary potential treatments for , and real potential outcomes for . Each potential outcome is integrable. The instrument has positive assignment probability at both levels, .
All of are measurable random variables, with the discrete sigma-algebra on and the Borel sigma-algebra on .
Consistency means and almost surely. The exclusion restriction means almost surely for each ; under this condition write the common value as . Joint instrument independence means that is independent of the random element , using the independence definition in Independent random elements. Under exclusion this is equivalent to independence of and . Thus joint instrument independence is defined even when exclusion fails. Relevance means Monotonicity means almost surely. These are distinct model conditions: a setup need not satisfy all of them.
For an integrable real random variable and a measurable event with , define its event-conditioned mean by In particular means . This is the finite-atom conditional mean used throughout this pair. The indicator is on and off .
Depends on
Used by
- Core IV conditions alone do not identify the population ATE Counterexample
- Binary-instrument principal strata and LATE Definition
- Binary-instrument Wald ratio Definition
- A direct encouragement effect changes the Wald ratio Example
- A finite randomized encouragement example Example
- Defiers can make the Wald ratio differ from the complier effect Example
- With heterogeneous effects, LATE can differ from ATE Example
- Binary monotonicity excludes defiers Lemma
- IV observed contrasts as potential-outcome contrasts Lemma
- The monotone IV first stage is the complier proportion Lemma
- The monotone IV reduced form is a complier-weighted effect Lemma
- A constant additive effect is identified by the Wald ratio Theorem
- The Wald ratio identifies the complier average treatment effect Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
10 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Hernán and Robins, Causal Inference: What If, Chapter 16, §§16.1–16.6 and Technical Points 16.1–16.7, printed pp. 209–225 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Hyunseung Kang, Causal Inference: Identification Under Unmeasured Confounding (Instrumental Variables), randomized encouragement and monotonicity/LATE sections (standard reference, not scraped)
- Judea Pearl, Causal Inference in Statistics: An Overview, §3.5.2, journal pp. 122–123 (standard reference, not scraped)