BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Alexandre Poirier

Alexandre Poirier contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
econ.EMMethodologycond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.soft

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Choosing Exogeneity Assumptions in Potential Outcome Models

There are many kinds of exogeneity assumptions. How should researchers choose among them? When exogeneity is imposed on an unobservable like a potential outcome, we argue that the form of exogeneity should be chosen based on the kind of selection on unobservables it allows. Consequently, researchers can assess the plausibility of any exogeneity assumption by studying the distributions of treatment given the unobservables that are consistent with that assumption. We use this approach to study two common exogeneity assumptions: quantile and mean independence. We show that both assumptions require a kind of non-monotonic relationship between treatment and the potential outcomes. We discuss how to assess the plausibility of this kind of treatment selection. We also show how to define a new and weaker version of quantile independence that allows for monotonic treatment selection. We then show the implications of the choice of exogeneity assumption for identification. We apply these results in an empirical illustration of the effect of child soldiering on wages.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Energy Landscape of Sugar Conformation Controls the Sol-to-Gel Transition in Self-assembled Bola Glycolipid Hydrogels

Self-assembled fibrillar network (SAFIN) hydrogels and organogels are commonly obtained by a crystallization process into fibers induced by external stimuli like temperature or pH. The gel-to-sol-to-gel transition is generally readily reversible and the change rate of the stimulus determines the fiber homogeneity and eventual elastic properties of the gels. However, recent work shows that in some specific cases, fibrillation occurs for a given molecular conformation and the sol-to-gel transition depends on the relative energetic stability of one conformation over the other, and not on the rate of change of the stimuli. We observe such a phenomenon on a class of bolaform glycolipids, sophorosides, similar to the well-known sophorolipid biosurfactants, but composed of two symmetric sophorose units. A combination of oscillatory rheology, small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) cryogenic transmission electron microscopy (cryo-TEM) and in situ rheo-SAXS using synchrotron radiation shows that below 14$^\circ$C, twisted nanofibers are the thermodynamic phase. Between 14$^\circ$C and about 33$^\circ$C, nanofibers coexist with micelles and a strong hydrogel forms, the sol-to-gel transition being readily reversible in this temperature range. However, above the annealing temperature of about 40$^\circ$C, the micelle morphology becomes kinetically-trapped over hours, even upon cooling, whichever the rate, to 4$^\circ$C. A combination of solution and solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) suggests two different conformations of the 1'', 1' and 2' carbon stereocenters of sophorose, precisely at the $β(1,2)$ glycosidic bond, for which several combinations of the dihedral angles are known to provide at least three energetic minima of comparable magnitude and each corresponding to a given sophorose conformation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Assessing Sensitivity to Unconfoundedness: Estimation and Inference

This paper provides a set of methods for quantifying the robustness of treatment effects estimated using the unconfoundedness assumption (also known as selection on observables or conditional independence). Specifically, we estimate and do inference on bounds on various treatment effect parameters, like the average treatment effect (ATE) and the average effect of treatment on the treated (ATT), under nonparametric relaxations of the unconfoundedness assumption indexed by a scalar sensitivity parameter c. These relaxations allow for limited selection on unobservables, depending on the value of c. For large enough c, these bounds equal the no assumptions bounds. Using a non-standard bootstrap method, we show how to construct confidence bands for these bound functions which are uniform over all values of c. We illustrate these methods with an empirical application to effects of the National Supported Work Demonstration program. We implement these methods in a companion Stata module for easy use in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Salvaging Falsified Instrumental Variable Models

What should researchers do when their baseline model is refuted? We provide four constructive answers. First, researchers can measure the extent of falsification. To do this, we consider continuous relaxations of the baseline assumptions of concern. We then define the falsification frontier: The smallest relaxations of the baseline model which are not refuted. This frontier provides a quantitative measure of the extent of falsification. Second, researchers can present the identified set for the parameter of interest under the assumption that the true model lies somewhere on this frontier. We call this the falsification adaptive set. This set generalizes the standard baseline estimand to account for possible falsification. Third, researchers can present the identified set for a specific point on this frontier. Finally, as a sensitivity analysis, researchers can present identified sets for points beyond the frontier. To illustrate these four ways of salvaging falsified models, we study overidentifying restrictions in two instrumental variable models: a homogeneous effects linear model, and heterogeneous effect models with either binary or continuous outcomes. In the linear model, we consider the classical overidentifying restrictions implied when multiple instruments are observed. We generalize these conditions by considering continuous relaxations of the classical exclusion restrictions. By sufficiently weakening the assumptions, a falsified baseline model becomes non-falsified. We obtain analogous results in the heterogeneous effect models, where we derive identified sets for marginal distributions of potential outcomes, falsification frontiers, and falsification adaptive sets under continuous relaxations of the instrument exogeneity assumptions. We illustrate our results in four different empirical applications.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access