(Visualizing) Plausible Treatment Effect Paths
合理处理效应路径的估计与可视化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:摘要明确列举动态处理效应和宏观脉冲响应函数,并研究这些效应路径的估计与推断。
合理处理效应路径的估计与可视化AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
We consider point estimation and inference for the treatment effect path of a policy. Examples include dynamic treatment effects in microeconomics, impulse response functions in macroeconomics, and event study paths in finance. We present two sets of plausible bounds to quantify and visualize the uncertainty associated with this object. Both plausible bounds are often substantially tighter than traditional confidence intervals, and can provide useful insights even when traditional (uniform) confidence bands appear uninformative. Our bounds can also lead to markedly different conclusions when there is significant correlation in the estimates, reflecting the fact that traditional confidence bands can be ineffective at visualizing the impact of such correlation. Our first set of bounds covers the average (or overall) effect rather than the entire treatment path. Our second set of bounds imposes data-driven smoothness restrictions on the treatment path. Post-selection Inference (Berk et al. [2013]) provides formal coverage guarantees for these bounds. The chosen restrictions also imply novel point estimates that perform well across our simulations.