pith. sign in

arxiv: 2011.00373 · v3 · submitted 2020-10-31 · 💰 econ.EM · stat.ME

Causal Inference for Spatial Treatments

Michael Pollmann This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 14:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.EM stat.ME
keywords causal inferencespatial treatmentsdesign-based inferencemachine learningtreatment effectsobservational datalocal effects
0
0 comments X

The pith

An experimental perspective on spatial treatments recommends comparing units near realized locations to those near counterfactual candidate locations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper starts from the question of what ideal experiment would identify the causal effects of treatments at specific spatial points. This leads to a method that matches units near actual treatment sites with units near similar but unrealized candidate sites. The resulting estimates come with design-based standard errors that are easy to calculate. Machine learning helps select the candidate locations from observational data when treatment assignment depends on observables. An application to grocery stores shows positive effects on nearby foot traffic only at short distances during shelter-in-place orders.

Core claim

By framing spatial treatment estimation as the comparison of realized treatment locations against counterfactual candidate locations, the approach identifies local causal effects and provides a way to handle spatial correlations in inference, including an extension of double machine learning to this design-based setting.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the use of counterfactual candidate locations to form a comparison group for units near actual treatment sites.

If this is right

  • Design-based standard errors become straightforward to compute.
  • Machine learning methods can select counterfactual locations in observational settings.
  • The framework accommodates high-dimensional data through an extended double machine learning result.
  • Effects can be estimated at varying distances from the treatment location.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Existing spatial studies might need re-examination using candidate location comparisons.
  • The method could extend to non-economic spatial phenomena like environmental impacts.
  • It suggests prioritizing data collection on potential treatment sites even if not chosen.

Load-bearing premise

Observable characteristics rather than potential outcomes determine which candidate locations receive treatment, enabling machine learning to identify suitable counterfactuals.

What would settle it

If estimates of the treatment effect differ significantly when counterfactual locations are chosen differently or when potential outcomes influence selection, the validity of the observational case would be questioned.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2011.00373 by Michael Pollmann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the setup. While typically only relative locations matter, locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The figures show regions with individuals (small circles) and candidate treatment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The estimands 𝜏 (𝑑) and 𝜏 𝐴𝑇 𝑇 −𝑒𝑞(𝑑) can be substantially different. Panel a shows the decay of average treatment effects over distance for two regions with solid lines. The dashed line shows the estimand 𝜏 (𝑑), which weights by the relative number of individuals at distance 𝑑, as given in panel b. The dot-dashed line shows the estimand 𝜏 𝐴𝑇 𝑇 −𝑒𝑞(𝑑), which weights the regions equally if both receive trea… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure illustrates the difference between leaving the parametric treatment effect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Existing estimators focus only on regions that received treatment. In this figure, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of a region with three candidate treatment locations (panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Convolutions in a neural network allow the prediction of a candidate location in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The sample includes businesses in the San Francisco Bay Area between San [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The comparison of businesses on an inner vs. outer ring around a particular grocery. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Panel (a) shows an example of a grocery store (triangle in the center) with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The inner vs. outer ring comparison differences the average outcome at a given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: To estimate the effect of the bottom treatment location (orange triangle) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The neighborhoods of each grocery store are placed in a fine grid ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The propensity score model can still distinguish between some of the false positives / [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Only businesses 0.15 – 0.175 miles away from a real grocery store location have an additional grocery store between 0.15 and 0.175 miles from them. 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Distance from potential grocery store location in miles Share of Businesses That Are Restaurants Realized FALSE TRUE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The composition of businesses near real and counterfactual grocery store locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Weighted mean of inverse hyperbolic sine of visits for businesses near real grocery [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p060_17.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Many events and policies (treatments) occur at specific spatial locations, with researchers interested in their effects on nearby units. I approach the spatial treatment setting from an experimental perspective: What ideal experiment would we design to estimate the causal effects of spatial treatments? This perspective motivates a comparison between units near realized treatment locations and units near counterfactual (unrealized) candidate locations, which differs from current empirical practice. I derive design-based standard errors that are straightforward to compute. For observational data, I propose machine learning methods to find counterfactual candidate locations when observable characteristics, rather than potential outcomes, determine treatment probabilities. To accommodate methods for high-dimensional data in the theory, I extend a double machine learning result to the design-based framework with spatial correlations. I apply the proposed methods to study the causal effects of grocery stores on foot traffic to nearby businesses during COVID-19 shelter-in-place policies, finding a large positive effect at very short distances, with no effect at larger distances.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a design-based framework for causal inference with spatial treatments. It motivates estimating effects by comparing units near realized treatment locations to units near counterfactual (unrealized) candidate locations, which the author argues differs from current practice. The paper derives design-based standard errors, proposes machine learning to select counterfactual locations under selection on observables for observational data, extends a double machine learning result to accommodate spatial correlations in the design-based setting, and applies the approach to estimate the effect of grocery stores on nearby business foot traffic during COVID-19 shelter-in-place policies, reporting a large positive effect at very short distances and no effect at larger distances.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work offers a coherent experimental-design perspective on spatial treatments that could shift empirical practice away from standard distance-based regressions. The design-based standard errors and the extension of double ML to spatial correlations are concrete methodological contributions that address a common inference challenge. The application provides a timely empirical illustration in a policy setting.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (observational case): The claim that machine learning methods can identify counterfactual candidate locations when treatment probabilities are determined by observable characteristics (rather than potential outcomes) is central to the observational extension, but the manuscript does not provide a formal identification argument or simulation evidence showing that the ML step recovers the relevant counterfactual distribution under the stated selection-on-observables assumption; this weakens the link between the design-based motivation and the proposed estimator.
  2. [Theory section] Theory section on the double ML extension: The extension of the double ML result to the design-based framework with spatial correlations is load-bearing for the reported standard errors, yet the paper does not state the precise rate conditions or the form of the spatial dependence (e.g., mixing coefficients or bandwidth) under which the asymptotic normality result continues to hold; without these, it is unclear whether the extension is valid for the spatial setting described.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract and introduction should include a brief comparison table or explicit contrast with the most common existing spatial-treatment estimators (e.g., those using distance to nearest treated unit) to make the claimed departure from current practice more concrete.
  2. [Application section] In the application, the distance bins and the exact ML implementation (features, cross-fitting folds, etc.) should be reported in a table or appendix to allow replication of the short-distance effect finding.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested clarifications and additions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (observational case): The claim that machine learning methods can identify counterfactual candidate locations when treatment probabilities are determined by observable characteristics (rather than potential outcomes) is central to the observational extension, but the manuscript does not provide a formal identification argument or simulation evidence showing that the ML step recovers the relevant counterfactual distribution under the stated selection-on-observables assumption; this weakens the link between the design-based motivation and the proposed estimator.

    Authors: We agree that a formal identification argument and simulation evidence would strengthen the observational extension. Under the selection-on-observables assumption, treatment assignment depends solely on observables, so the ML procedure for selecting counterfactual locations with similar observable characteristics recovers the relevant counterfactual distribution. In the revision, we will add a proposition in Section 4 formally deriving this identification result and include Monte Carlo simulations demonstrating that the ML step recovers the counterfactual distribution when the assumption holds. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Theory section] Theory section on the double ML extension: The extension of the double ML result to the design-based framework with spatial correlations is load-bearing for the reported standard errors, yet the paper does not state the precise rate conditions or the form of the spatial dependence (e.g., mixing coefficients or bandwidth) under which the asymptotic normality result continues to hold; without these, it is unclear whether the extension is valid for the spatial setting described.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the precise rate conditions and form of spatial dependence were not fully specified. The extension adapts double ML to allow spatial dependence in the scores while preserving asymptotic normality, but the manuscript does not detail the required mixing coefficients, bandwidth, or convergence rates. In the revised version, we will add explicit assumptions on the spatial dependence process (e.g., alpha-mixing with sufficient decay) and the adapted rate conditions on the nuisance estimators to ensure the result holds in the spatial design-based setting. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper motivates a design-based framework for spatial treatments by comparing realized and counterfactual locations, derives standard errors directly from that design, and extends double ML to accommodate spatial correlations under selection on observables. These steps are presented as independent methodological contributions without any reduction of predictions to fitted parameters by construction, without load-bearing self-citations that substitute for external verification, and without ansatzes or uniqueness claims imported from prior author work. The central claims remain self-contained against the stated experimental-design motivation and observable-selection assumption.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that observables determine treatment probabilities for the ML step, plus standard design-based inference assumptions; no free parameters or invented entities are described.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Observable characteristics, rather than potential outcomes, determine treatment probabilities
    Explicitly invoked in the abstract for the observational data case.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5680 in / 1065 out tokens · 31680 ms · 2026-05-24T14:43:21.879709+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 130 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Athey, G

    Abadie, A., S. Athey, G. W. Imbens, and J. M. Wooldridge (2017). When should you adjust standard errors for clustering? NBER Working Paper Series\/ (24003)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Athey, G

    Abadie, A., S. Athey, G. W. Imbens, and J. M. Wooldridge (2020). Sampling-based vs. design-based uncertainty in regression analysis. Econometrica\/ 88\/ (1), 265--296

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Diamond, and J

    Abadie, A., A. Diamond, and J. Hainmueller (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of california’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American statistical Association\/ 105\/ (490), 493--505

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Abadie, A. and G. W. Imbens (2011). Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics\/ 29\/ (1), 1--11

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Koles \'a r, and E

    Adao, R., M. Koles \'a r, and E. Morales (2019). Shift-share designs: Theory and inference. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 134\/ (4), 1949--2010

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Aliprantis, D. and D. Hartley (2015). Blowing it up and knocking it down: The local and city-wide effects of demolishing high concentration public housing on crime. Journal of Urban Economics\/ 88 , 67--81

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Andrews, D. W. K. (2005). Cross-section regression with common shocks. Econometrica\/ 73\/ (5), 1551--1585

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Angrist, J. D., G. W. Imbens, and D. B. Rubin (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American statistical Association\/ 91\/ (434), 444--455

    work page 1996

  9. [9]

    Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models . Studies in Operational Regional Science. Springer

    work page 1988

  10. [10]

    Anselin, L., R. J. G. M. Florax, and S. J. Rey (2004). Advances in Spatial Econometrics: Methodology, Tools and Applications . New Directions in Spatial Econometrics. Springer

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    Anselin, L. and S. J. Rey (2010). Perspectives on Spatial Data Analysis . Advances in Spatial Science. Springer

    work page 2010

  12. [12]

    Arbia, G. (2014). A Primer for Spatial Econometrics . Palgrave Texts in Econometrics. Palgrave MacMillan

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    Arjovsky, M. and L. Bottou (2017). Towards principled methods for training generative adversarial networks. arXiv\/ (1701.04862)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Wasserstein GAN

    Arjovsky, M., S. Chintala, and L. Bottou (2017). Wasserstein gan. arXiv\/ (1701.07875)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Aronow, P. M. and C. Samii (2017). Estimating average causal effects under general interference, with application to a social network experiment. The Annals of Applied Statistics\/ 11\/ (4), 1912--1947

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Aronow, P. M., C. Samii, and Y. Wang (2020). Design-based inference for spatial experiments with interference. arXiv\/ (2010.13599)

    work page arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Athey, S. (2018). The Impact of Machine Learning on Economics , Chapter 21, pp.\ 507--547. University of Chicago Press

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Athey, S., D. Blei, R. Donnelly, F. Ruiz, and T. Schmidt (2018). Estimating heterogeneous consumer preferences for restaurants and travel time using mobile location data. AEA Papers and Proceedings\/ 108 , 64--67

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Eckles, and G

    Athey, S., D. Eckles, and G. W. Imbens (2018). Exact p-values for network interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 113\/ (521), 230--240

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Ferguson, M

    Athey, S., B. Ferguson, M. Gentzkow, and T. Schmidt (2019). Experienced segregation. Stanford University Working Paper\/

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Athey, S. and G. W. Imbens (2019). Machine learning methods that economists should know about. Annual Review of Economics\/ 11 , 685--725

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Athey, S., G. W. Imbens, J. Metzger, and E. M. Munro (2019). Using wasserstein generative adversarial networks for the design of monte carlo simulations. NBER Working Paper Series\/ (26566)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Athey, S., G. W. Imbens, and S. Wager (2018). Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)\/ 80\/ (4), 597--623

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Autor, D. H., D. Dorn, and G. H. Hanson (2013). The china syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the united states. American Economic Review\/ 103\/ (6), 2121--68

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    Shaikh, and J

    Bai, Y., A. Shaikh, and J. P. Romano (2019). Inference in experiments with matched pairs. University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper\/ (2019-63)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Diamond, G

    Barrios, T., R. Diamond, G. W. Imbens, and M. Koles \'a r (2012). Clustering, spatial correlations, and randomization inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 107\/ (498), 578--591

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    Bartik, T. J. (1991). Who benefits from state and local economic development policies? WE Upjohn Institute for Employment Research\/

    work page 1991

  28. [28]

    Feller, and P

    Basse, G., A. Feller, and P. Toulis (2019). Randomization tests of causal effects under interference. Biometrika\/ 106\/ (2), 487--494

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Bayer, P., S. L. Ross, and G. Topa (2008). Place of work and place of residence: Informal hiring networks and labor market outcomes. Journal of political Economy\/ 116\/ (6), 1150--1196

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    Bellemare, M. F. and C. J. Wichman (2020). Elasticities and the inverse hyperbolic sine transformation. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics\/ 82\/ (1), 50--61

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Chernozhukov, I

    Belloni, A., V. Chernozhukov, I. Fern \'a ndez-Val, and C. Hansen (2017). Program evaluation and causal inference with high-dimensional data. Econometrica\/ 85\/ (1), 233--298

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Chernozhukov, and C

    Belloni, A., V. Chernozhukov, and C. Hansen (2014). Inference on treatment effects after selection among high-dimensional controls. The Review of Economic Studies\/ 81\/ (2), 608--650

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    Bester, C. A., T. G. Conley, and C. B. Hansen (2011). Inference with dependent data using cluster covariance estimators. Journal of Econometrics\/ 165\/ (2), 137--151

    work page 2011

  34. [34]

    Bilal, A. (2019). The geography of unemployment. Job Market Paper\/

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Borusyak, K. and P. Hull (2020). Non-random exposure to exogenous shocks: Theory and applications. NBER Working Paper\/ (27845)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Hull, and X

    Borusyak, K., P. Hull, and X. Jaravel (2019). Quasi-experimental shift-share research designs. working paper\/

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    DiNardo, and J

    Busso, M., J. DiNardo, and J. McCrary (2014). New evidence on the finite sample properties of propensity score reweighting and matching estimators. Review of Economics and Statistics\/ 96\/ (5), 885--897

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    Cameron, A. C. and D. L. Miller (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources\/ 50\/ (2), 317--372

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    Case, A. C. (1991). Spatial patterns in household demand. Econometrica\/ 59\/ (4), 953--965

    work page 1991

  40. [40]

    Hansen, J

    Chalfin, A., B. Hansen, J. Lerner, and L. Parker (2019). Reducing crime through environmental design: Evidence from a randomized experiment of street lighting in new york city. NBER Working Paper Series\/ (25798)

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Chetverikov, M

    Chernozhukov, V., D. Chetverikov, M. Demirer, E. Duflo, C. Hansen, W. Newey, and J. Robins (2018, 01). Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. The Econometrics Journal\/ 21\/ (1), C1--C68

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Chetty, R. and N. Hendren (2018). The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility i: Childhood exposure effects. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 133\/ (3), 1107--1162

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    Hendren, P

    Chetty, R., N. Hendren, P. Kline, and E. Saez (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? the geography of intergenerational mobility in the united states. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 129\/ (4), 1553--1623

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    Cohen, J. and P. Dupas (2010). Free distribution or cost-sharing? evidence from a randomized malaria prevention experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 125\/ (1), 1--45

    work page 2010

  45. [45]

    Conley, T. G. (1999). Gmm estimation with cross sectional dependence. Journal of Econometrics\/ 92\/ (1), 1--45

    work page 1999

  46. [46]

    Cressie, N. and C. K. Wikle (2011). Statistics for Spatio-Temporal Data . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley

    work page 2011

  47. [47]

    Cressie, N. A. C. (1993). Statistics for Spatial Data\/ (Rev. ed. ed.). Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Wiley

    work page 1993

  48. [48]

    Davis, M

    Currie, J., L. Davis, M. Greenstone, and R. Walker (2015). Environmental health risks and housing values: evidence from 1,600 toxic plant openings and closings. American Economic Review\/ 105\/ (2), 678--709

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    Delgado, M. S. and R. J. G. M. Florax (2015). Difference-in-differences techniques for spatial data: Local autocorrelation and spatial interaction. Economics Letters\/ 137 , 123--126

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Dell, M. and B. A. Olken (2020). The development effects of the extractive colonial economy: The dutch cultivation system in java. The Review of Economic Studies\/ 87\/ (1), 164--203

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Diamond, R. and T. McQuade (2019). Who wants affordable housing in their backyard? an equilibrium analysis of low-income property development. Journal of Political Economy\/ 127\/ (3), 1063--1117

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    Donald, S. G. and K. Lang (2007). Inference with difference-in-differences and other panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics\/ 89\/ (2), 221--233

    work page 2007

  53. [53]

    Donaldson, D. and A. Storeygard (2016). The view from above: Applications of satellite data in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives\/ 30\/ (4), 171--98

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Druckenmiller, H. and S. Hsiang (2019). Accounting for unobservable heterogeneity in cross section using spatial first differences. NBER Working Paper Series\/ (25177)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Duflo, E. (2001). Schooling and labor market consequences of school construction in indonesia: Evidence from an unusual policy experiment. American Economic Review\/ 91\/ (4), 795--813

    work page 2001

  56. [56]

    Hersh, and D

    Engstrom, R., J. Hersh, and D. Newhouse (2017). Poverty from space: using high-resolution satellite imagery for estimating economic well-being

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    Farrell, M. H. (2015). Robust inference on average treatment effects with possibly more covariates than observations. Journal of Econometrics\/ 189\/ (1), 1--23

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    Mansur, and B

    Feyrer, J., E. Mansur, and B. Sacerdote (2020, June). Geographic dispersion of economic shocks: Evidence from the fracking revolution: Reply. American Economic Review\/ 110\/ (6), 1914--1920

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Feyrer, J., E. T. Mansur, and B. Sacerdote (2017, April). Geographic dispersion of economic shocks: Evidence from the fracking revolution. American Economic Review\/ 107\/ (4), 1313--1334

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    Gentzkow, and H

    Finkelstein, A., M. Gentzkow, and H. Williams (2016). Sources of geographic variation in health care: Evidence from patient migration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 131\/ (4), 1681--1726

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    Gentzkow, and H

    Finkelstein, A., M. Gentzkow, and H. Williams (2019). Place-based drivers of mortality: Evidence from migration. NBER Working Paper Series\/ (25975)

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    Hansen, and J

    Freyaldenhoven, S., C. Hansen, and J. M. Shapiro (2019). Pre-event trends in the panel event-study design. American Economic Review\/ 109\/ (9), 3307--38

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    Fr \"o lich, M. (2004a). Finite-sample properties of propensity-score matching and weighting estimators. Review of Economics and Statistics\/ 86\/ (1), 77--90

    work page

  64. [64]

    Fr \"o lich, M. (2004b). A note on the role of the propensity score for estimating average treatment effects. Econometric Reviews\/ 23\/ (2), 167--174

    work page

  65. [65]

    Kelly, and M

    Gentzkow, M., B. Kelly, and M. Taddy (2019). Text as data. Journal of Economic Literature\/ 57\/ (3), 535--74

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    Glaeser, E. L., S. D. Kominers, M. Luca, and N. Naik (2018). Big data and big cities: The promises and limitations of improved measures of urban life. Economic Inquiry\/ 56\/ (1), 114--137

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    Sorkin, and H

    Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., I. Sorkin, and H. Swift (2020). Bartik instruments: What, when, why, and how. American Economic Review\/ 110\/ (8), 2586--2624

    work page 2020

  68. [68]

    Pouget-Abadie, M

    Goodfellow, I., J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio (2014). Generative adversarial nets. In Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, and K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 , pp.\ 2672--2680. Curran Associates, Inc

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    Greene, W. (2009). Discrete Choice Modeling , pp.\ 473--556. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK

    work page 2009

  70. [70]

    Hornbeck, and E

    Greenstone, M., R. Hornbeck, and E. Moretti (2010). Identifying agglomeration spillovers: Evidence from winners and losers of large plant openings. Journal of Political Economy\/ 118\/ (3), 536--598

    work page 2010

  71. [71]

    Greenstone, M. and E. Moretti (2003). Bidding for industrial plants: Does winning a 'million dollar plant' increase welfare? NBER Working Paper Series\/ (9844)

    work page 2003

  72. [72]

    Van Nieuwerburgh, and C

    Gupta, A., S. Van Nieuwerburgh, and C. E. Kontokosta (2020). Take the q train: Value capture of public infrastructure projects. NBER Working Paper Series\/ (26789)

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    Hahn, J. (1998). On the role of the propensity score in efficient semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects. Econometrica\/ 66\/ (2), 315--331

    work page 1998

  74. [74]

    Hansen, C. B. (2007). Generalized least squares inference in panel and multilevel models with serial correlation and fixed effects. Journal of Econometrics\/ 140\/ (2), 670--694

    work page 2007

  75. [75]

    Hastie, T. J., R. J. Tibshirani, and J. H. Friedman (2001). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference and Prediction . Springer Series in Statistics. Springer

    work page 2001

  76. [76]

    Hinton, G. E., A. Krizhevsky, and S. D. Wang (2011). Transforming auto-encoders. International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks\/ , 44--51

    work page 2011

  77. [77]

    Hirano, K., G. W. Imbens, and G. Ridder (2003). Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica\/ 71\/ (4), 1161--1189

    work page 2003

  78. [78]

    Hoff, P. D., A. E. Raftery, and M. S. Handcock (2002). Latent space approaches to social network analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 97\/ (460), 1090--1098

    work page 2002

  79. [79]

    Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. The Economic Journal\/ 39\/ (153), 41--57

    work page 1929

  80. [80]

    Hudgens, M. G. and M. E. Halloran (2008). Toward causal inference with interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 103\/ (482), 832--842

    work page 2008

Showing first 80 references.