Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 109 references

Endogenous Interference in Randomized Experiments

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in randomized experiments where treatment rewires social networks, direct and network-mediated causal effects can be separated and consistently estimated using two waves of network data, with shift-share instruments…

desk verdict Serious, technically strong paper with a real internal inconsistency in the spillover interpretation of β2 due to the 0/0=0 convention, plus some overstated empirical claims, but the estimation framework is new and deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02183 v1 pith:F2HTDV5X submitted 2024-12-03 econ.EM

Mengsi Gao This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.EM MSC 62D2062F1262P2091D30
keywords causalinferenceinterferencenetworkmediationshift-shareinstrumentpeereffectsrandomgraphsendogeneitytreatment-inducedchange
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that in a randomized experiment where the treatment can rewire the social network, the total treatment effect can be decomposed into a direct effect and an indirect effect that runs through the fraction of treated friends, and that both parts can be consistently estimated from two waves of network data. The key difficulty is that the post-treatment network is endogenous: latent traits shape both who is friends with whom and the outcome, and the treatment itself changes the network. The paper shows that ordinary least squares is consistent when no unobserved confounder is present, and that a shift-share instrumental variable built from the pre-treatment network and the random treatments of others is consistent when the pre- and post-treatment networks are sufficiently sparse. For denser networks, an eigendecomposition-based 'denoised' version of the instrument restores consistency. If correct, the results give applied researchers a concrete recipe for separating direct from network-mediated causal effects instead of estimating only the total intention-to-treat effect.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'fraction of treated friends' mediator $M_i=\sum_j A^{post}_{ij}T_j/\sum_j A^{post}_{ij}$, which the paper decomposes as $M_i=\xi_i+r_i^*$, where $\xi_i$ is the conditional probability that a connected friend is treated given $i$'s latent trait and treatment, and $r_i^*$ is a remainder. The argument works through this decomposition: $\xi_i$ is i.i.d.-like but uncorrelated with the shift-share instrument, so it contributes only noise to the first stage; the signal comes from $r_i^*$. The shift-share instrument $Z_i=\sum_j A^{pre}_{ij}(T_j-\pi)$ combines random treatment shocks $(T_j-\pi)$ with non-exogenous pre-treatment exposure weights $A^{pre}_{ij}$, and its relevance decays as networks densify. The denoised instrument removes the component of $Z_i$ along the leading eigenvectors of $A^{pre}$, which carry the latent variable information, thereby shrinking the noise term while preserving the signal.

What would settle it

Run the same estimation on data generated from a nonlinear response model, for example $Y_i=\beta_0+\beta_1T_i+\beta_2M_i+\beta_3M_i^2+\lambda(w_i)+\varepsilon_i$, or in real data add $M_i^2$ and $T_iM_i$ to the fitted regression; if the added coefficients are significantly nonzero in large samples, the linear decomposition of Corollary 2.1 fails and the claimed $\beta_2$ is not the indirect effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under a linear potential-outcome model $Y_i(t_i,m_i)=\beta_0+\beta_1 t_i+\beta_2 m_i+\lambda(w_i)+\varepsilon_i$, where $m_i$ is the fraction of treated friends measured in the post-treatment network, the paper establishes that $\beta_1$ is the direct effect of treatment and $\beta_2$ is the coefficient driving the indirect and spillover effects. With random treatment assignment and the assumption that unobserved covariates $w_i$ are the only source of confounding between the network mediator and the outcome, the paper proves consistency and asymptotic normality of OLS estimators when endogeneity is absent. When confounding is present, the paper constructs the shift-share instrument $Z_i=\sum_j A^{pre}_{ij}(T_j-\pi)$ and shows the corresponding IV estimator is consistent when $\max\{q_{pre},q_{post}\}=o(n^{-1/2})$; when the network is too dense for this to hold, projecting the instrument onto the leading eigenvectors of the pre-treatment adjacency matrix removes the noise that kills relevance and restores consistency. The empirical application to a savings-account experiment in Nepal illustrates that the direct and network-mediated channels can have different signs and significance.

Load-bearing premise

The entire causal interpretation rests on the potential outcome being exactly linear and additive in the fraction of treated friends, together with a cross-world independence condition that the paper itself says can never be validated; if the true response is nonlinear or the unobserved confounder interacts with treatment, $\beta_2$ no longer measures the indirect or spillover effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers with pre- and post-treatment network data can recover the direct effect of an intervention separately from the effect mediated by network rewiring, rather than only the total effect.
  • Using only the pre-treatment network to measure peer exposure recovers the total effect but not the direct/indirect decomposition; post-treatment networks are needed for the mediation channel.
  • The shift-share IV is reliable only in relatively sparse networks ($\max\{q_{pre},q_{post}\}=o(n^{-1/2})$); denser networks require the denoised eigenvector version.
  • Standard heteroskedasticity-consistent variance estimators are valid for OLS, and the paper provides variance estimators for the IV versions that account for cross-unit dependence induced by the instrument.
  • Treatment-induced changes in the network can increase the variation of the mediator and therefore improve convergence rates relative to a fixed network.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same noise-versus-signal mechanism likely threatens any instrument built from pre-treatment network structure in dense networks, including peer-of-peer instruments, so the sparsity threshold may offer insight beyond shift-share designs.
  • The linear and additive response in Assumption 3 is doing heavy lifting; if true effects are nonlinear in the fraction of treated friends or the confounder interacts with treatment, the estimated $\beta_2$ is not the indirect effect, so applied work should report robustness checks that add a quadratic term in $M_i$ or an interaction $T_iM_i$.
  • The denoising recipe suggests a general empirical strategy: before using any network-share instrument in a dense network, regress the instrument on leading eigenvectors of the adjacency matrix and use the residual.
  • When only one wave of network data is available, the identification strategy fails entirely; the paper's reliance on two waves motivates further work on recovering pre-treatment shares from aggregated relational data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies randomized experiments with post-treatment network interference. It defines direct, indirect, and spillover effects within a linear model whose mediator is the fraction of treated friends, and it develops OLS, shift-share IV, and eigendecomposition-based denoised IV estimators. The main theoretical results are consistency and asymptotic normality theorems under various sparsity regimes for pre- and post-treatment random graph models, supported by Monte Carlo simulations and an empirical reanalysis of Prina (2015).

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes a useful contribution by extending shift-share IV ideas to network-mediated causal effects in RCTs with two waves of network data, and by providing a denoising modification that restores consistency in denser networks. The paper ships formal proofs, clearly stated asymptotic regimes, and simulation evidence that track the predicted boundaries, including the SSIV break-down at q_n = n^{-1/5} and the restoration of consistency by the denoised estimator. The interpretation of β2 as the spillover effect is, however, currently compromised by an internal inconsistency related to the 0/0=0 convention for the mediator, and the OVB formulas in Section 3.2 are incorrect as stated. These issues do not necessarily invalidate the estimation machinery for β2 itself, but they affect the causal interpretation and the empirical claims in Section 6, so the paper requires substantial revision before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Corollary 2.1(4) and the paragraph following it] The claim that with M_i as in (1), E(M_i | T_i=t, T_-i=1_{n-1}) - E(M_i | T_i=t, T_-i=0_{n-1}) = 1 is false under the paper's stated convention 0/0=0. For a unit with no post-treatment friends, the mediator equals 0 regardless of the treatments of others, so the counterfactual difference is 1{Σ_j A^post_ij > 0}, not 1. Consequently SE(t) = β2 · P(Σ_j A^post_ij > 0 | T_i=t), not β2. This is an internal inconsistency, not an external misspecification: Assumption 1 explicitly allows bounded-degree networks where a non-vanishing fraction of units is isolated, and in the paper's own application with roughly 329 links among 915 households (average degree about 0.72), the true spillover effect is approximately β2 · P(degree>0), which is about half of the reported β2. The empirical interpretations in Section 6, including the statement that assigning others to treatment increases fish consumption by Rs. 252.91, therefore overstate the spillover effect by the factor 1/P(degree>0). The causal interpretation section and the empirical discussion need to be corrected, e.g., by redefining the parameter or by reporting the scaling factor.
  2. [Section 3.2] The omitted variable bias formulas for the pre-network regression are incorrect. The paper states that in a regression with X_pre = (1, T_i, M_pre_i), the coefficient on T_i is β1 + β2 · Cov(T_i, M_i)/Var(T_i) = ToE. That formula applies only when M_i is omitted from the regression entirely. When M_pre_i is included as a regressor, the coefficient on T_i is β1 plus β2 times the partial regression coefficient of M_i on T_i given M_pre_i, which is generally not Cov(T_i, M_i)/Var(T_i) and is not equal to ToE; similarly, the coefficient on M_pre_i is not β2 · Cov(M_pre_i, M_i)/Var(M_pre_i) unless T_i and M_pre_i are uncorrelated. A concrete counterexample is M_pre_i = M_i, in which case including M_pre_i yields β_pre_1 = β1, not ToE. The claims in this section about what pre-network regressions recover should be corrected or qualified.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, text after Table 1] The text says 'I use Designs 1 and 2 to represent Case (a) with non-degenerate ξi, and Designs 3 and 4 to represent Case (a) with constant ξi,' but Section 3.1 defines Case (a) as Var(ξ_i)>0 and Case (b) as Var(ξ_i)=0. The intended reference for Designs 3 and 4 appears to be Case (b); please correct this labeling to avoid confusion.
  2. [Equation (14)] In the definition of the IV variance estimator ˆV_iv_num, the (2,3) element is written as π(1-π) Σ_i Σ_j A^pre_ij ˆu^iv_j ˆu^iv_j; the second residual index should be i, i.e., A^pre_ij ˆu^iv_i ˆu^iv_j, matching the population quantity in (13).
  3. [Notation, Section 4.2] The condition q_pre ≻ log(n)/log(log(n))/n is written ambiguously; it should be clarified as q_pre ≻ log(n)/(n log log n) or with explicit parentheses so that the intended sparsity threshold is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivations are self-contained; the flagged 0/0 mediator scaling issue is an internal correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

I find no circularity in the paper's derivation chain. The causal parameters DE, IE, and SE are defined in Definition 1 through nested potential outcomes, and Assumption 3 then imposes a linear potential outcome model. Corollary 2.1 obtains the coefficient interpretations by substituting this model into the mediation formulas of Theorem 2.1; it does not define beta_1 or beta_2 as those effects, so there is no self-definitional reduction. The consistency and asymptotic normality theorems for OLS, SSIV, and the denoised SSIV are proven from stated sparsity and graphon assumptions using standard asymptotic arguments; none of the reported estimators is fitted to a subset of the data and then relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing step is justified by a self-citation. The only self-citation (Gao and Ding, 2023) appears in the related-literature discussion and is not used in any proof or identification result. The reviewer's objection to Corollary 2.1(4) concerns the paper's convention 0/0 = 0: under that convention the mediator contrast equals P(degree_i > 0 | T_i = t), not 1, so the empirical spillover magnitude is scaled by 1/P(degree > 0). This is an internal inconsistency in the causal interpretation of beta_2, not a circular step in which an output is equivalent to an input by construction; therefore it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest almost entirely on assumptions imported from the prior literature: graphon random-graph models (Assumption 1), mediation-analysis ignorability including non-validable cross-world independence (Assumption 2), linear-in-means outcome structure (Assumption 3), and low-rank graphon structure (Assumption 4). None of these are derived in the paper, and the estimators' consistency regimes in Theorems 3.1, 4.1, and 4.3 depend on the unverifiable Case (a)/(b) partition of xi_i. The only hand-chosen numeric input is the rank r for the denoised estimator, whose empirical value is not reported. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Rank r of the graphon approximation in the denoised SSIV = not specified; chosen by researcher; not reported for the application
    The modified SSIV (Section 4.2) projects the instrument onto the leading r eigenvectors of the pre-treatment network; no data-driven rule for r is provided, and the Prina application in Section 6 never states which r was used.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: pre- and post-treatment networks are inhomogeneous Erdos-Renyi graphs generated by latent i.i.d. characteristics w_i and shared pair-specific noise eta_ij (equations (2) and (3)).
    This random-graph model is the engine of all asymptotic results; the shared eta_ij is what makes the pre-treatment network predictive of the post-treatment network and thus relevant as an instrument (Remark 2.2).
  • domain assumption Assumption 2(a)-(b): treatment assignment is independent of potential mediators and potential outcomes, i.e., randomization without confounding.
    Holds by design in an RCT; standard in the mediation literature, and necessary for the mediation formula in Theorem 2.1.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2(c)-(d): w_i captures all mediator-outcome confounding, plus cross-world independence of potential mediators and potential outcomes.
    Assumption 2(d) is explicitly non-validable per the text at Section 2.2; it is load-bearing for Theorem 2.1 and all identification results.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: linear additive potential outcome model Y_i(t_i, m_i) = beta0 + beta1 t_i + beta2 m_i + lambda(w_i) + epsilon_i with E(epsilon_i | T_i, T_-i, A^post) = 0.
    Defines beta1 and beta2 as the causal targets; if false, the coefficients lose their stated causal meaning (Corollary 2.1).
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: the pre-treatment graphon is approximately low-rank with sufficiently large eigen-gaps (Section 4.2).
    Needed for the denoised SSIV to be consistent; the paper notes the assumption is satisfied by stochastic block models and random dot product graphs but not by general latent space or smooth graphon models.
  • domain assumption Case (b) partition: the post-treatment network is conditionally mean-independent of others' treatments given (T_i, w_i), so xi_i = pi.
    Under this case E[M_i u_i] = 0 exactly (Section 3.1) and OLS is consistent even with lambda(w_i) non-zero; the case is not testable from data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Endogenous Interference in Randomized Experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F2HTDV5X

@misc{pith2026241202183,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Endogenous Interference in Randomized Experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F2HTDV5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02183}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the identification and inference of treatment effects in randomized controlled trials with social interactions. Two key network features characterize the setting and introduce endogeneity: (1) latent variables may affect both network formation and outcomes, and (2) the intervention may alter network structure, mediating treatment effects. I make three contributions. First, I define parameters within a post-treatment network framework, distinguishing direct effects of treatment from indirect effects mediated through changes in network structure. I provide a causal interpretation of the coefficients in a linear outcome model. For estimation and inference, I focus on a specific form of peer effects, represented by the fraction of treated friends. Second, in the absence of endogeneity, I establish the consistency and asymptotic normality of ordinary least squares estimators. Third, if endogeneity is present, I propose addressing it through shift-share instrumental variables, demonstrating the consistency and asymptotic normality of instrumental variable estimators in relatively sparse networks. For denser networks, I propose a denoised estimator based on eigendecomposition to restore consistency. Finally, I revisit Prina (2015) as an empirical illustration, demonstrating that treatment can influence outcomes both directly and through network structure changes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02183 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Causal mechanism. which measures the fraction of treated friends after the intervention. This mediator depends solely on the number of (treated) friends, regardless of their identity. It is a specific form of the anonymous interference assumption proposed by Hudgens and Halloran (2008), also referred to as the anonymous interactions assumption by Manski (2013). Other examples of anonymous interference include: (1) M… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Athey, G

    Abadie, A., S. Athey, G. W. Imbens, and J. M. Wooldridge (2020): Sampling- Based versus Design-Based Uncertainty in Regression Analysis , Econometrica, 88, 265--296

    2020

  2. [2]

    Koles \'a r, and E

    Ad \ a o, R., M. Koles \'a r, and E. Morales (2019): Shift- Share Designs : Theory and Inference *, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134, 1949--2010

    2019

  3. [3]

    Aldous, D. J. (1981): Representations for Partially Exchangeable Arrays of Random Variables, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 11, 581--598

    1981

  4. [4]

    Auerbach, and M

    Alidaee, H., E. Auerbach, and M. P. Leung (2020): Recovering Network Structure from Aggregated Relational Data Using Penalized Regression ,

    2020

  5. [5]

    Ducatez, and A

    Alt, J., R. Ducatez, and A. Knowles (2021): Extremal Eigenvalues of Critical Erd o s -- R \'e nyi Graphs, The Annals of Probability, 49, 1347--1401

    2021

  6. [6]

    Angrist, J. D. (2014): The Perils of Peer Effects, Labour Economics, 30, 98--108

    2014

  7. [7]

    Foster, N

    Arcidiacono, P., G. Foster, N. Goodpaster, and J. Kinsler (2012): Estimating Spillovers Using Panel Data, with an Application to the Classroom, Quantitative Economics, 3, 421--470

    2012

  8. [8]

    Patacchini, and E

    Arduini, T., E. Patacchini, and E. Rainone (2020): Treatment Effects With Heterogeneous Externalities , Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 38, 826--838

    2020

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    Arellano, M. and S. Bond (1991): Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data : Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations , The Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277--297

    1991

  2. [10]

    Armstrong, T. B. (2016): Large Market Asymptotics for Differentiated Product Demand Estimators With Economic Models of Supply , Econometrica, 84, 1961--1980

    2016

  3. [11]

    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, 1912--1947

    2017

  4. [12]

    Athreya, A., D. E. Fishkind, M. Tang, C. E. Priebe, Y. Park, J. T. Vogelstein, K. Levin, V. Lyzinski, and Y. Qin (2017): Statistical Inference on Random Dot Product Graphs: A Survey, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 18, 8393--8484

    2017

  5. [13]

    (2022 a ): Identification and Estimation of a Partially Linear Regression Model Using Network Data , Econometrica, 90, 347--365

    Auerbach, E. (2022 a ): Identification and Estimation of a Partially Linear Regression Model Using Network Data , Econometrica, 90, 347--365

    2022

  6. [14]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2022 b ): Testing for Differences in Stochastic Network Structure , Econometrica, 90, 1205--1223

    2022

  7. [15]

    Auerbach, E. and Y. Cai (2023): Identifying Socially Disruptive Policies ,

    2023

  8. [16]

    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, 2121--2168

    2013

  9. [17]

    Baird, S., J. A. Bohren, C. McIntosh, and B. \"O zler (2018): Optimal Design of Experiments in the Presence of Interference , The Review of Economics and Statistics, 100, 844--860

    2018

  10. [18]

    Breza, A

    Banerjee, A., E. Breza, A. G. Chandrasekhar, E. Duflo, M. O. Jackson, and C. Kinnan (2023): Changes in Social Network Structure in Response to Exposure to Formal Credit Markets , The Review of Economic Studies

    2023

  11. [19]

    Banerjee, A., A. G. Chandrasekhar, E. Duflo, and M. O. Jackson (2013): The Diffusion of Microfinance , Science, 341, 1236498

    2013

  12. [20]

    Field, and R

    Barnhardt, S., E. Field, and R. Pande (2017): Moving to Opportunity or Isolation ? Network Effects of a Randomized Housing Lottery in Urban India , American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9, 1--32

    2017

  13. [21]

    Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny (1986): The Moderator--Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual , Strategic, and Statistical Considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173--1182

    1986

  14. [22]

    (1991): Who Benefits from State and Local Economic Development Policies ? Upjohn Press

    Bartik, T. (1991): Who Benefits from State and Local Economic Development Policies ? Upjohn Press

    1991

  15. [23]

    Bordenave, and A

    Benaych-Georges , F., C. Bordenave, and A. Knowles (2019): Largest Eigenvalues of Sparse Inhomogeneous Erd o s -- R \'e nyi Graphs , The Annals of Probability, 47, 1653--1676

    2019

  16. [24]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2020): Spectral Radii of Sparse Random Matrices, Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincar \'e , Probabilit \'e s et Statistiques , 56, 2141--2161

    2020

  17. [25]

    Levinsohn, and A

    Berry, S., J. Levinsohn, and A. Pakes (1995): Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium , Econometrica, 63, 841--890

    1995

  18. [26]

    Bickel, P. J. and A. Chen (2009): A Nonparametric View of Network Models and Newman -- Girvan and Other Modularities, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 21068--21073

    2009

  19. [27]

    Bickel, P. J., A. Chen, and E. Levina (2011): The Method of Moments and Degree Distributions for Network Models, The Annals of Statistics, 39, comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/11-AOS904 the Annals of Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aos/) by the Institute of...

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Blume, L. E., W. A. Brock, S. N. Durlauf, and R. Jayaraman (2015): Linear Social Interactions Models , Journal of Political Economy, 123, 444--496

    2015

  21. [29]

    Borusyak, K. and P. Hull (2023): Nonrandom Exposure to Exogenous Shocks , Econometrica, 91, 2155--2185

    2023

  22. [30]

    Hull, and X

    Borusyak, K., P. Hull, and X. Jaravel (2022): Quasi- Experimental Shift-Share Research Designs , The Review of Economic Studies, 89, 181--213

    2022

  23. [31]

    She, and A

    Bourveau, T., G. She, and A. Z aldokas (2020): Corporate Disclosure as a Tacit Coordination Mechanism : Evidence from Cartel Enforcement Regulations , Journal of Accounting Research, 58, 295--332

    2020

  24. [32]

    Djebbari, and B

    Bramoull \'e , Y., H. Djebbari, and B. Fortin (2009): Identification of Peer Effects through Social Networks, Journal of Econometrics, 150, 41--55

    2009

  25. [33]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2020): Peer Effects in Networks : A Survey , Annual Review of Economics, 12, 603--629

    2020

  26. [34]

    (2022): Bartik Instruments : An Applied Introduction , Journal of Financial Reporting, 7, 49--67

    Breuer, M. (2022): Bartik Instruments : An Applied Introduction , Journal of Financial Reporting, 7, 49--67

    2022

  27. [35]

    Breza, E., A. G. Chandrasekhar, T. H. McCormick, and M. Pan (2020): Using Aggregated Relational Data to Feasibly Identify Network Structure without Network Data , American Economic Review, 110, 2454--2484

    2020

  28. [36]

    Bun, M. and V. Sarafidis (2015): Dynamic Panel Data Models, in The Oxford Handbook of Panel Data , Oxford University Press, 76--110

    2015

  29. [37]

    Pouget-Abadie , and E

    Cai, C., J. Pouget-Abadie , and E. M. Airoldi (2022): Optimizing Randomized and Deterministic Saturation Designs under Interference ,

    2022

  30. [38]

    Cai, J., A. D. Janvry, and E. Sadoulet (2015): Social Networks and the Decision to Insure , American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7, 81--108

    2015

  31. [39]

    (2022): Linear Regression with Centrality Measures ,

    Cai, Y. (2022): Linear Regression with Centrality Measures ,

    2022

  32. [40]

    (2009): Immigration and Inequality , American Economic Review, 99, 1--21

    Card, D. (2009): Immigration and Inequality , American Economic Review, 99, 1--21

    2009

  33. [41]

    Carrell, S. E., B. I. Sacerdote, and J. E. West (2013): From Natural Variation to Optimal Policy ? The Importance of Endogenous Peer Group Formation , Econometrica, 81, 855--882

    2013

  34. [42]

    Laajaj, and D

    Carter, M., R. Laajaj, and D. Yang (2021): Subsidies and the African Green Revolution : Direct Effects and Social Network Spillovers of Randomized Input Subsidies in Mozambique , American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 13, 206--229

    2021

  35. [43]

    Che, C., I. H. Jin, and Z. Zhang (2021): Network Mediation Analysis Using Model-Based Eigenvalue Decomposition , Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28, 148--161

    2021

  36. [44]

    Wei, and Y

    Cheng, C., Y. Wei, and Y. Chen (2021): Tackling Small Eigen-Gaps: Fine-grained Eigenvector Estimation and Inference under Heteroscedastic Noise, Comment: accepted to IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 2021; 69 pages

    2021

  37. [45]

    Guo, and H

    Cheng, L., R. Guo, and H. Liu (2022): Causal Mediation Analysis with Hidden Confounders , in Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, WSDM '22, 113--122

    2022

  38. [46]

    Comola, M. and S. Prina (2021): Treatment Effect Accounting for Network Changes , The Review of Economics and Statistics, 103, 597--604

    2021

  39. [47]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2023): The Interplay Among Savings Accounts and Network-Based Financial Arrangements : Evidence from a Field Experiment , The Economic Journal, 133, 516--535

    2023

  40. [48]

    Cox, D. R. (1958): Planning of Experiments, Planning of Experiments, Oxford, England: Wiley

    1958

  41. [49]

    Frederiksen, and L

    De Giorgi, G., A. Frederiksen, and L. Pistaferri (2020): Consumption Network Effects , The Review of Economic Studies, 87, 130--163

    2020

  42. [50]

    Pellizzari, and S

    De Giorgi, G., M. Pellizzari, and S. Redaelli (2010): Identification of Social Interactions through Partially Overlapping Peer Groups , American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 241--275

    2010

  43. [51]

    Rasul, and P

    de Paula , A., I. Rasul, and P. Souza (2023): Identifying Network Ties from Panel Data : Theory and an Application to Tax Competition ,

    2023

  44. [52]

    Abbruzzo, and G

    Di Maria, C., A. Abbruzzo, and G. Lovison (2022): Networks as Mediating Variables: A Bayesian Latent Space Approach, Statistical Methods & Applications, 31, 1015--1035

    2022

  45. [53]

    Djebbari, and F

    Dieye, R., H. Djebbari, and F. Barrera-Osorio (2014): Accounting for Peer Effects in Treatment Response ,

    2014

  46. [54]

    Lu, and H

    Gao, C., Y. Lu, and H. H. Zhou (2015): Rate- Optimal Graphon Estimation , The Annals of Statistics, 43, 2624--2652

    2015

  47. [55]

    Gao, M. and P. Ding (2023): Causal Inference in Network Experiments: Regression-Based Analysis and Design-Based Properties, https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07476v2

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Goldsmith-Pinkham , P. and G. W. Imbens (2013): Social Networks and the Identification of Peer Effects , Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 31, 253--264

    2013

  49. [57]

    Sorkin, and H

    Goldsmith-Pinkham , P., I. Sorkin, and H. Swift (2020): Bartik Instruments : What , When , Why , and How , American Economic Review, 110, 2586--2624

    2020

  50. [58]

    Graham, B. S. (2015): Methods of Identification in Social Networks , Annual Review of Economics, 7, 465--485

    2015

  51. [59]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2017): An Econometric Model of Network Formation With Degree Heterogeneity , Econometrica, 85, 1033--1063

    2017

  52. [60]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2020): Chapter 2 - Network Data, in Handbook of Econometrics , ed. by S. N. Durlauf, L. P. Hansen, J. J. Heckman, and R. L. Matzkin, Elsevier, vol. 7 of Handbook of Econometrics , Volume 7A , 111--218

    2020

  53. [61]

    Guha, S. and A. Rodriguez (2021): Bayesian Regression With Undirected Network Predictors With an Application to Brain Connectome Data , Journal of the American Statistical Association, 116, 581--593

    2021

  54. [62]

    Hansen, B. E. and S. Lee (2019): Asymptotic Theory for Clustered Samples, Journal of Econometrics, 210, 268--290

    2019

  55. [63]

    Hayes, A., M. M. Fredrickson, and K. Levin (2023): Estimating Network-Mediated Causal Effects via Spectral Embeddings, Comment: 85 pages, 18 figures

    2023

  56. [64]

    Heckman, J. J. and R. Pinto (2015): Econometric Mediation Analyses : Identifying the Sources of Treatment Effects from Experimentally Estimated Production Technologies with Unmeasured and Mismeasured Inputs , Econometric Reviews, 34, 6--31

    2015

  57. [65]

    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, 1090--1098

    2002

  58. [66]

    Holland, P. W., K. B. Laskey, and S. Leinhardt (1983): Stochastic Blockmodels: First Steps, Social Networks, 5, 109--137

    1983

  59. [67]

    Hsieh, C.-S. and L. F. Lee (2016): A Social Interactions Model with Endogenous Friendship Formation and Selectivity , Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31, 301--319

    2016

  60. [68]

    Lee, and V

    Hsieh, C.-S., L.-F. Lee, and V. Boucher (2019): Specification and Estimation of Network Formation and Network Interaction Models with the Exponential Probability Distribution ,

    2019

  61. [69]

    Li, and S

    Hu, Y., S. Li, and S. Wager (2022): Average Direct and Indirect Causal Effects under Interference, Biometrika, 109, 1165--1172

    2022

  62. [70]

    Hudgens, M. G. and M. E. Halloran (2008): Toward Causal Inference With Interference , Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 832--842

    2008

  63. [71]

    Imbens, G. W. and D. B. Rubin (2015): Causal Inference for Statistics , Social , and Biomedical Sciences : An Introduction , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    2015

  64. [72]

    Jackson, M. O. (2021): Inequality's Economic and Social Roots : The Role of Social Networks and Homophily ,

    2021

  65. [73]

    Johnsson, I. and H. R. Moon (2019): Estimation of Peer Effects in Endogenous Social Networks : Control Function Approach ,

    2019

  66. [74]

    Le, C. M. and T. Li (2022): Linear Regression and Its Inference on Noisy Network-Linked Data , Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 84, 1851--1885

    2022

  67. [75]

    Lei, J. and A. Rinaldo (2015): Consistency of Spectral Clustering in Stochastic Block Models , The Annals of Statistics, 43, 215--237

    2015

  68. [76]

    (2020): Treatment and Spillover Effects Under Network Interference , The Review of Economics and Statistics, 102, 368--380

    Leung, M. (2020): Treatment and Spillover Effects Under Network Interference , The Review of Economics and Statistics, 102, 368--380

    2020

  69. [77]

    Leung, M. P. (2022): Causal Inference Under Approximate Neighborhood Interference , Econometrica, 90, 267--293

    2022

  70. [78]

    Li, G., C. Cai, H. V. Poor, and Y. Chen (2022): Minimax Estimation of Linear Functions of Eigenvectors in the Face of Small Eigen-Gaps ,

    2022

  71. [79]

    Li, S. and S. Wager (2022): Random Graph Asymptotics for Treatment Effect Estimation under Network Interference, The Annals of Statistics, 50, 2334--2358

    2022

  72. [80]

    Li, X. and P. Ding (2020): Rerandomization and Regression Adjustment , Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 82, 241--268

    2020

  73. [81]

    Liu, H., I. H. Jin, Z. Zhang, and Y. Yuan (2021): Social Network Mediation Analysis : A Latent Space Approach , Psychometrika, 86, 272--298

    2021

  74. [82]

    Liu, L., M. G. Hudgens, B. Saul, J. D. Clemens, M. Ali, and M. E. Emch (2019): Doubly Robust Estimation in Observational Studies with Partial Interference , Stat (International Statistical Institute), 8, e214

    2019

  75. [83]

    Lov \'a sz, L. and B. Szegedy (2006): Limits of Dense Graph Sequences, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 96, 933--957

    2006

  76. [84]

    Manski, C. F. (1993): Identification of Endogenous Social Effects : The Reflection Problem , The Review of Economic Studies, 60, 531--542

    1993

  77. [85]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2013): Identification of Treatment Response with Social Interactions, The Econometrics Journal, 16, S1--S23

    2013

  78. [86]

    Miguel, E. and M. Kremer (2004): Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities , Econometrica, 72, 159--217

    2004

  79. [87]

    Nakamura, E. and J. Steinsson (2014): Fiscal Stimulus in a Monetary Union : Evidence from US Regions , American Economic Review, 104, 753--792

    2014

  80. [88]

    Nicoletti, C., K. G. Salvanes, and E. Tominey (2018): The Family Peer Effect on Mothers ' Labor Supply , American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10, 206--234

    2018

  81. [89]

    Paluck, E. L., H. Shepherd, and P. M. Aronow (2016): Changing Climates of Conflict: A Social Network Experiment in 56 Schools, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 566--571

    2016

  82. [90]

    Parise, F. and A. Ozdaglar (2023): Graphon Games : A Statistical Framework for Network Games and Interventions , Econometrica, 91, 191--225

    2023

  83. [91]

    Pearl, J. (2001): Direct and Indirect Effects, in Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., UAI '01, 411--420

    2001

  84. [92]

    Shih, and C

    Peri, G., K. Shih, and C. Sparber (2015): STEM Workers , H-1B Visas , and Productivity in US Cities , Journal of Labor Economics, 33, S225--S255

    2015

  85. [93]

    (2015): Banking the Poor via Savings Accounts: Evidence from a Field Experiment, Journal of Development Economics, 115, 16--31

    Prina, S. (2015): Banking the Poor via Savings Accounts: Evidence from a Field Experiment, Journal of Development Economics, 115, 16--31

    2015

  86. [94]

    Robins, J. M. and S. Greenland (1992): Identifiability and Exchangeability for Direct and Indirect Effects, Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 3, 143--155

    1992

  87. [95]

    (2011): Fundamentals of Stein 's Method, Probability Surveys, 8, 210--293

    Ross, N. (2011): Fundamentals of Stein 's Method, Probability Surveys, 8, 210--293

    2011

  88. [96]

    Rubin, D. B. (1980): Randomization Analysis of Experimental Data : The Fisher Randomization Test Comment , Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 591--593

    1980

  89. [97]

    (2001): Peer Effects with Random Assignment : Results for Dartmouth Roommates , The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 681--704

    Sacerdote, B. (2001): Peer Effects with Random Assignment : Results for Dartmouth Roommates , The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 681--704

    2001

  90. [98]

    Sobel, M. E. (2006): What Do Randomized Studies of Housing Mobility Demonstrate ?: Causal Inference in the Face of Interference , Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 1398--1407

    2006

  91. [99]

    Su, F. and P. Ding (2021): Model- Assisted Analyses of Cluster-Randomized Experiments , Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 83, 994--1015

    2021

  92. [100]

    Sweet, T. and S. Adhikari (2020): A Latent Space Network Model for Social Influence , Psychometrika, 85, 251--274

    2020

  93. [101]

    Sweet, T. M. (2018): Modeling Social Networks as Mediators : A Mixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodel for Mediation , Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics

    2018

  94. [102]

    Tchetgen, E. J. T. and T. J. VanderWeele (2012): On Causal Inference in the Presence of Interference, Statistical methods in medical research, 21, 55--75

    2012

  95. [103]

    (1996): Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

    Tibshirani, R. (1996): Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 58, 267--288

    1996

  96. [104]

    Vanderweele, T. J., G. Hong, S. M. Jones, and J. L. Brown (2013): Mediation and Spillover Effects in Group-Randomized Trials : A Case Study of the 4Rs Educational Intervention , Journal of the American Statistical Association, 108, 469--482

    2013

  97. [105]

    (2023 a ): Policy Design in Experiments with Unknown Interference, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2011.08174 http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.08174

    Viviano, D. (2023 a ): Policy Design in Experiments with Unknown Interference, ArXiv preprint arXiv:2011.08174 http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.08174

    2023 arXiv

  98. [106]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2023 b ): Policy Targeting under Network Interference , ArXiv preprint arXiv:1906.10258 http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.10258

    2023 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Young, S. J. and E. R. Scheinerman (2007): Random Dot Product Graph Models for Social Networks , in Algorithms and Models for the Web-Graph , ed. by A. Bonato and F. R. K. Chung, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 138--149

    2007

  100. [108]

    Wang, and R

    Yu, Y., T. Wang, and R. J. Samworth (2015): A Useful Variant of the Davis --- Kahan Theorem for Statisticians, Biometrika, 102, 315--323

    2015

  101. [109]

    Levina, and J

    Zhang, Y., E. Levina, and J. Zhu (2017): Estimating Network Edge Probabilities by Neighbourhood Smoothing, Biometrika, 104, 771--783

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.