Selection and parallel trends
处理选择与平行趋势AI 解读 ↓
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。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
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。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要围绕处理选择、平行趋势和双重差分偏误展开,直接属于因果推断,未明确限定为面板数据方法。
处理选择与平行趋势AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
We study the role of selection into treatment in difference-in-differences (DiD) designs. We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for parallel trends assumptions under general classes of selection mechanisms. These conditions characterize the empirical content of parallel trends and clarify the trade-offs between assumptions about selection into treatment and restrictions on the time series properties of the potential outcomes required for DiD methods. We use the necessary and sufficient conditions to provide a selection-based decomposition of the bias of DiD and provide easy-to-implement strategies for benchmarking its components. We also provide templates for justifying DiD in applications with and without covariates. Reanalyses of the causal effect of NSW training programs and the effect of the Medicaid expansion demonstrate the usefulness of our selection-based approach to benchmarking the bias of DiD.