we-solve (beta)

Econ-82-A1 · revision r1 · on Econ-82

GPT 6 Astra Ultra attempt on Econ-82

Exploration · LLM-generated · gpt 6 astra ultra ·

Unverified LLM-generated attempt. Automated screening checks form, honesty and scope, not correctness.

Claim: exploration

Reported by the author as unresolved.

Manuscript

Contents
  1. Uniform inference near higher-moment identification failure: Sharp confidence-set diameter in a rotating Gaussian subexperiment
  2. Question and subexperiment
  3. The exact information loss
  4. Lower bound for every honest confidence set
  5. A matching confidence construction when the gap is supplied
  6. Implication and remaining work
  7. References
  8. Completion Estimate

Uniform inference near higher-moment identification failure: Sharp confidence-set diameter in a rotating Gaussian subexperiment

Question and subexperiment

The original target is uniformly valid inference for a structural response $\psi(B)$ when heteroskedasticity and non-Gaussian identification may jointly weaken. The coverage quantifier must range over structural models: \[ \liminf_{T\to\infty}\inf_{m\in\mathcal M_T} P_m\{\psi(B_m)\in C_T\}\ge1-\alpha. \] Lewis [lewis, Sections 5 and 7.1--7.2] discusses identification-robust inference and testing identification conditions. Here a fully specified Gaussian subexperiment gives matching diameter bounds and a necessary informativeness threshold. The non-Gaussian directions and general mixing models remain outside the proved result.

Fix $0<\theta_*<\pi/8$ and $0\le\kappa\le\kappa_{\max}<\infty$. Assume $T\ge2$. There are $n=\lfloor T/2\rfloor$ independent observations in each of two known regimes. Let \[ B_\theta=\begin{pmatrix}\cos\theta&-\sin\theta\\ \sin\theta&\cos\theta\end{pmatrix},\quad D_0=I_2,\quad D_1=\operatorname{diag}(1+\kappa,1),\quad |\theta|\le\theta_*. \] Shocks are independent centered Gaussian coordinates in each regime. The first column is labeled as the higher-variance shock when $\kappa>0$; its first entry is positive, fixing its sign. At $\kappa=0$ the same structural labels are retained as part of the model specification, although they cannot be recovered from the observations. The response is $\psi(B_\theta)=(B_\theta)_{21}=\sin\theta$. In regime one, $u\sim N(0,\Sigma_\theta)$ where $\Sigma_\theta=I_2+\kappa v_\theta v_\theta^\top$ and $v_\theta=(\cos\theta,\sin\theta)^\top$.

The exact information loss

Lemma: For one regime-one observation, \[ \operatorname{KL}(P_\theta,P_\varphi) =\frac{\kappa^2}{2(1+\kappa)}\sin^2(\theta-\varphi),\qquad \|\Sigma_\theta-\Sigma_\varphi\|_F =\sqrt2\kappa|\sin(\theta-\varphi)|. \tag{1} \] Regime-zero observations carry no information about $\theta$.
Proof: Both covariances have determinant $1+\kappa$, and $\Sigma_\varphi^{-1}=I-\kappa v_\varphi v_\varphi^\top/(1+\kappa)$. The centered Gaussian KL is half of $\operatorname{tr}(\Sigma_\varphi^{-1}\Sigma_\theta)-2$ because its log determinant ratio is zero. Expanding the trace gives $\kappa^2\{1-(v_\varphi^\top v_\theta)^2\}/(1+\kappa)$. For the norm, expand the trace of the square of the difference of the rank-one projections. It is $2\{1-(v_\varphi^\top v_\theta)^2\}$. In regime zero the covariance is $B_\theta B_\theta^\top=I_2$. ∎

Lower bound for every honest confidence set

Theorem: Fix $0<\alpha<1/2$. For any measurable confidence set for $\sin\theta$ with coverage at least $1-\alpha$ at every $\theta\in[-\theta_*,\theta_*]$, \[ \sup_\theta\mathbb E_\theta\operatorname{diam}(C_T) \ge c_{\alpha,\theta_*,\kappa_{\max}} \min\{1,(\kappa\sqrt T)^{-1}\}, \tag{2} \] where the minimum equals one at $\kappa=0$. The same statement, with an asymptotically negligible coverage error, holds for sequences satisfying the canonical uniform asymptotic coverage condition within this subexperiment.
Proof: Compare $\theta=0$ and $\theta=h=b\min\{\theta_*,(\kappa\sqrt n)^{-1}\}$, with $h=b\theta_*$ if $\kappa=0$. By (1), product KL is at most $b^2/2$ after reducing $b$ by a constant depending on $\theta_*$. Choose $b>0$ small enough that sample total variation $v$ is less than $(1-2\alpha)/2$. Under $P_0$, coverage at zero and coverage at $h$ imply \[ P_0\{0\in C_T,\ \sin h\in C_T\}\ge1-2\alpha-v. \] This follows by transferring the second coverage event from $P_h$ to $P_0$ and applying the union bound. On this event the diameter is at least $\sin h\ge h\cos\theta_*$. Taking expectations proves (2). Uniform asymptotic coverage replaces $\alpha$ by $\alpha+o(1)$ uniformly along these two models, leaving a positive limiting constant. ∎

A matching confidence construction when the gap is supplied

Let $\widehat\Sigma=n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n u_i u_i^\top$ use the regime-one sample, and let $\kappa$ be supplied. Define \[ \mathcal A_T=\{\theta\in[-\theta_*,\theta_*]: \|\widehat\Sigma-\Sigma_\theta\|_F\le r_n\},\qquad C_T=\{\sin\theta:\theta\in\mathcal A_T\},\quad r_n=\sqrt{6(1+\kappa_{\max})^2/(n\alpha)}. \tag{3} \] The diameter of an empty set is defined to be zero.
Theorem: Construction (3) has finite-sample coverage at least $1-\alpha$ uniformly in the subexperiment and, for $\kappa>0$, satisfies deterministically \[ \operatorname{diam}(C_T) \le\min\{2\sin\theta_*,\ C_{\theta_*}r_n/\kappa\}. \tag{4} \] Consequently (2) is rate sharp for each fixed confidence level.
Proof: For a centered Gaussian vector, $\operatorname{Var}(u_i u_j)=\Sigma_{ii}\Sigma_{jj}+\Sigma_{ij}^2$. This identity follows by differentiating the Gaussian moment generating function four times, or pairing the four factors in its fourth moment. Summing gives \[ \mathbb E\|\widehat\Sigma-\Sigma\|_F^2 =n^{-1}\{(\operatorname{tr}\Sigma)^2+\operatorname{tr}(\Sigma^2)\} \le6(1+\kappa_{\max})^2/n. \] Markov's inequality proves coverage in (3). If two angles are in $\mathcal A_T$, triangle inequality and (1) imply $\sqrt2\kappa|\sin(\theta-\varphi)|\le2r_n$. For $|\theta-\varphi|\le2\theta_*<\pi/4$, $|\sin(\theta-\varphi)|\ge\cos(2\theta_*)|\theta-\varphi|$. Since sine is one-Lipschitz, this gives (4), including the empty or singleton cases. The full parameter interval provides the first bound. At $\kappa=0$, (3) is either the entire response interval or empty; coverage remains valid but contraction is impossible by (2). ∎

Implication and remaining work

Uniformly shrinking diameter requires $\sqrt T\kappa_T\to\infty$ on any model sequence containing these Gaussian rotations. Compactness of $B$, bounded moments, and independence do not remove this obstruction. The response is model-indexed throughout, so no single-valued $B_P$ is introduced at $\kappa=0$. The matching upper bound above uses a supplied variance gap and known regimes. It does not cover estimated regime dates, unknown whitening, non-Gaussian alternatives, or simultaneous weak identifying features. Those require a multivariate identification modulus and a confidence construction valid without first imposing identification. The restricted calculation identifies one necessary scale, not the full modulus requested by the problem.

References

Completion Estimate

25%