Robust Difference-in-differences Models
稳健双重差分模型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:摘要围绕双重差分、平行趋势、选择偏差和处理组平均处理效应的部分识别展开,文本直接支持因果推断分类。
稳健双重差分模型AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
The difference-in-differences (DID) method identifies the average treatment effects on the treated (ATT) under mainly the so-called parallel trends (PT) assumption. The most common and widely used approach to justify the PT assumption is the pre-treatment period examination. If a null hypothesis of the same trend in the outcome means for both treatment and control groups in the pre-treatment periods is rejected, researchers believe less in PT and the DID results. This paper develops a robust generalized DID method that utilizes all the information available not only from the pre-treatment periods but also from multiple data sources. Our approach interprets PT in a different way using a notion of selection bias, which enables us to generalize the standard DID estimand by defining an information set that may contain multiple pre-treatment periods or other baseline covariates. Our main assumption states that the selection bias in the post-treatment period lies within the convex hull of all selection biases in the pre-treatment periods. We provide a sufficient condition for this assumption to hold. Based on the baseline information set we construct, we provide an identified set for the ATT that always contains the true ATT under our identifying assumption, and also the standard DID estimand. We extend our proposed approach to multiple treatment periods DID settings. We propose a flexible and easy way to implement the method. Finally, we illustrate our methodology through some numerical and empirical examples.
诚实置信区间的局部渐近功效
Confidence intervals that are conservative against an untestable bias, called bias-aware or honest, are now standard in DiD, IV, RD, and factor-model settings. This paper characterises the local power of the tests they induce. Power is governed by the rate of the bias bound relative to the sampling rate, giving three regimes: when the bound vanishes faster than the standard error, conservatism is asymptotically free; when the two are of the same order it costs a bounded,…
对提前反应与平行趋势违背的联合敏感性分析
Two key identifying assumptions used to justify difference-in-differences are parallel trends and no anticipation, yet both may fail in practice. I propose a class of assumptions that constitute deviations from no anticipation and derive closed-form, sharp bounds for several common treatment effect parameters while simultaneously relaxing parallel trends. Deviations from both assumptions are jointly disciplined using observed pre-trends. When some anticipation is imposed,…
合成平行趋势
Popular empirical strategies for policy evaluation in the panel data literature -- including difference-in-differences (DID), synthetic control (SC) methods, and their variants -- rely on key identifying assumptions that can be expressed through a specific choice of weights $ω$ relating pre-treatment trends to the counterfactual outcome. While each choice of $ω$ may be defensible in empirical contexts that motivate a particular method, it relies on fundamentally untestable…
双重差分中构造效应界限的负相关策略
The method of difference-in-differences (DID) is widely used to study the causal effect of policy interventions in observational studies. DID employs a before and after comparison of the treated and control units to remove bias due to time-invariant unmeasured confounders under the parallel trends assumption. Estimates from DID, however, will be biased if the outcomes for the treated and control units evolve differently in the absence of treatment, namely if the parallel…
Abstract This paper proposes tools for robust inference in difference-in-differences and event-study designs where the parallel trends assumption may be violated. Instead of requiring that parallel trends holds exactly, we impose restrictions on how different the post-treatment violations of parallel trends can be from the pre-treatment differences in trends (“pre-trends”). The causal parameter of interest is partially identified under these restrictions. We introduce two…
存在预期行为时处理效应的界限
In program evaluations, units can often anticipate the implementation of a new policy before it occurs. Such anticipatory behavior can lead to units' outcomes becoming dependent on their future treatment assignments. In this paper, I employ a potential-outcomes framework to analyze the treatment effect with anticipation. I start with a classical difference-in-differences model with two time periods and provide identified sets with easy-to-implement estimation and inference…