  Can instrumental variables be found from data? While instrumental variable
(IV) methods are widely used to identify causal effect, testing their validity
from observed data remains a challenge. This is because validity of an IV
depends on two assumptions, exclusion and as-if-random, that are largely
believed to be untestable from data. In this paper, we show that under certain
conditions, testing for instrumental variables is possible. We build upon prior
work on necessary tests to derive a test that characterizes the odds of being a
valid instrument, thus yielding the name "necessary and probably sufficient".
The test works by defining the class of invalid-IV and valid-IV causal models
as Bayesian generative models and comparing their marginal likelihood based on
observed data. When all variables are discrete, we also provide a method to
efficiently compute these marginal likelihoods.
  We evaluate the test on an extensive set of simulations for binary data,
inspired by an open problem for IV testing proposed in past work. We find that
the test is most powerful when an instrument follows monotonicity---effect on
treatment is either non-decreasing or non-increasing---and has moderate-to-weak
strength; incidentally, such instruments are commonly used in observational
studies. Among as-if-random and exclusion, it detects exclusion violations with
higher power. Applying the test to IVs from two seminal studies on instrumental
variables and five recent studies from the American Economic Review shows that
many of the instruments may be flawed, at least when all variables are
discretized. The proposed test opens the possibility of data-driven validation
and search for instrumental variables.
