Randomized experiments from non-random selection in U.S. House elections
美国众议院选举中非随机选择产生的局部随机实验AI 解读 ↓
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要直接论证 RD 阈值附近的局部随机性，并用于在任优势的因果估计，明确属于因果推断。
反馈分类问题
正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
关注这篇论文的作者
美国众议院选举中非随机选择产生的局部随机实验
- 研究问题
- 即使运行变量受到个体特征和选择影响，哪些条件仍能使阈值附近的处理近似随机，并支持 RD 因果推断与基线检验？
- 方法与思路
- 作者允许个体运行变量分布异质，以各个体密度连续及随机机会成分为基础分析局部随机性，并用众议院选举说明。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称，论文建立阈值邻域处理近似随机的结果，提出检查预定变量断点的思路，并据险胜选举估计在任者选举优势。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对个体层面密度连续性及其他条件、局部随机化的精确定义，以及预定变量检验与在任优势估计的实施方式。
- 阅读边界
- 依据所给作者版本摘要，不能推断刊本变化；摘要未完整列出条件或效应数值，基线检验通过也不能排除所有识别威胁。
原文摘要
This paper establishes the relatively weak conditions under which causal inferences from a regression-discontinuity (RD) analysis can be as credible as those from a randomized experiment, and hence under which the validity of the RD design can be tested by examining whether or not there is a discontinuity in any pre-determined (or “baseline”) variables at the RD threshold. Specifically, consider a standard treatment evaluation problem in which treatment is assigned to an individual if and only if V > v0, but where v0 is a known threshold, and V is observable. V can depend on the individual’s characteristics and choices, but there is also a random chance element: for each individual, there exists a well-defined probability distribution for V. The density function – allowed to differ arbitrarily across the population – is assumed to be continuous. It is formally established that treatment status here is as good as randomized in a local neighborhood of V = v0. These ideas are illustrated in an analysis of U.S. House elections, where the inherent uncertainty in the final vote count is plausible, which would imply that the party that wins is essentially randomized among elections decided by a narrow margin. The evidence is consistent with this prediction, which is then used to generate “near-experimental” causal estimates of the electoral advantage to incumbency.