  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.
