Extrapolation in Regression Discontinuity Design Using Comonotonicity

Ben Deaner; Soonwoo Kwon

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Extrapolation in Regression Discontinuity Design Using Comonotonicity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In multivariate regression discontinuity designs, comonotonicity identifies treatment effects away from the frontier: match an interior point to a frontier point with the same conditional mean observed outcome, then read off the…

desk verdict Clean identification idea, honest about its limits, but the global comonotonicity assumption is exactly the part of the model the data can't check and the asymptotics need more than a sketch. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00289 v1 pith:EWRTWSZX submitted 2025-06-30 econ.EM stat.ME

Ben Deaner , Soonwoo Kwon This is my paper · ORCID

classification econ.EMstat.ME MSC 62G0562G0862G2062P20

keywords regressiondiscontinuitydesigncomonotonicityextrapolationawayfromthecutoffconditionalaveragetreatmenteffectslocallinearcounterfactualpolicyevaluationmultiplerunningvariablesmandatorysummerschool

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

Standard sharp regression-discontinuity analysis identifies causal effects only for individuals whose covariates sit exactly on the boundary between treatment and no treatment. This paper shows that under a comonotonicity condition — covariate values associated with higher average untreated outcomes are also associated with higher average treated outcomes — those effects can be extrapolated into the interior of both regions. The identification device is a matching step: find a frontier point whose conditional mean treated outcome equals the interior point's conditional mean observed outcome, and the two points share the same conditional mean untreated outcome, hence the same conditional average treatment effect. The authors provide a local-linear estimation procedure that does not require the researcher to know the treatment rule, and the estimand remains a weighted average of frontier treatment effects even if comonotonicity fails. The method is applied to evaluate counterfactual mandatory summer school policies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Assumption 2, comonotonicity of the conditional mean potential-outcome functions: for all covariate values $x_1, x_2$, $\mathbb{E}[Y(0)|X=x_1] \geq \mathbb{E}[Y(0)|X=x_2]$ if and only if $\mathbb{E}[Y(1)|X=x_1] \geq \mathbb{E}[Y(1)|X=x_2]$. This global ordering turns equality of one conditional potential outcome into equality of the other, which is what lets a frontier point stand in for an interior point. The machinery then runs on two identified pieces: the frontier functions $g_0$ and $g_1$ from Theorem 1, and the curve $q_{1-d}$ recording, along the frontier, the untreated mean paired with each treated mean. Estimation uses local linear regression with a nearest-neighbour device: untreated observations near the frontier are located by proximity to their nearest treated neighbour, so the researcher never needs to specify the treatment rule, and $q_{1-d}$ is estimated by regressing outcomes on predicted conditional means among those boundary-near observations.

What would settle it

Estimate $g_0$ and $g_1$ along the frontier of any sharp RDD (or anywhere in the covariate space of an ideal randomized trial) and look for a reversed pair: two points $x_1, x_2$ with $g_0(x_1) > g_0(x_2)$ but $g_1(x_1) < g_1(x_2)$. The paper's sharp testable implication is $\inf_{x,x'\in F}(g_d(x)-g_d(x'))(g_{1-d}(x)-g_{1-d}(x')) \geq 0$; one reversed pair along the frontier refutes comonotonicity and breaks the equality in Theorem 2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Theorem 2. In a sharp RDD, let $g_d(x) = \mathbb{E}[Y(d)|X=x]$; under the standard continuity assumption both $g_0$ and $g_1$ are identified on the frontier $F$. Under comonotonicity, if an interior point $x$ in the treated region satisfies $\mathbb{E}[Y|X=x] = g_1(x^*)$ for some frontier point $x^*$, then $\mathbb{E}[Y(1)|X=x] = g_1(x^*)$ and $\mathbb{E}[Y(0)|X=x] = g_0(x^*)$, and symmetrically for points in the untreated region. The frontier pairing defines a unique increasing curve $q_{1-d}$ that maps the conditional mean of the observed outcome into the opposite potential-outcome mean, and the treatment effect at $x$ is $(2d-1)(\mathbb{E}[Y|X=x] - q_{1-d}(\mathbb{E}[Y|X=x]))$. If comonotonicity fails, this same quantity is still a weighted average of conditional average treatment effects along the frontier, so the estimand keeps a causal interpretation either way.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is comonotonicity — that higher average untreated outcomes and higher average treated outcomes always go together across covariate values; if that ordering is reversed for even a single pair of covariate values, the quantity the method reports is no longer the treatment effect at the interior point but only a weighted average of frontier treatment effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Conditional average treatment effects become identified at any interior point whose conditional mean observed outcome falls within the range of frontier values, in both the treated and untreated regions.
Counterfactual policies that alter the treatment rule — such as raising a summer school cutoff — can be evaluated for the population actually affected; in the application, that population is fully covered for all but the largest cutoff changes.
Because the estimand is a weighted average of frontier treatment effects even when comonotonicity fails, conclusions degrade gracefully rather than collapsing if the assumption is misspecified.
The application finds heterogeneity: in math outcomes, students with lower baseline potential outcomes benefit most from mandatory summer school, with the estimated benefit shrinking as baseline scores rise.
Comonotonicity is falsifiable along the frontier, where both potential-outcome means are identified, through the sharp testable inequality $\inf_{x,x'\in F}(g_d(x)-g_d(x'))(g_{1-d}(x)-g_{1-d}(x')) \geq 0$.

Reading between the lines

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

The same frontier-matching logic should transfer to fuzzy RDD, regression kink designs, and geographic or eligibility-boundary settings, since the argument only needs a frontier where both conditional means are identified.
The method's reach shrinks precisely when treatment is well targeted: the paper observes that a planner aiming to treat high-effect individuals would align the frontier with effect contours, which is the configuration where contours become parallel to the frontier and matching coverage collapses.
A formal test of comonotonicity along the frontier, with power compared against the intersection-bound approach, is the natural next step; the paper's RCT-based informal check suggests such a test would be feasible in real data.
Extending the idea in the other direction, violations of comonotonicity could be converted into partial-identification bounds on the interior treatment effect, using the observed maximum reversal of the ordering along the frontier as a sensitivity parameter.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a genuinely new idea for RD extrapolation, the main identification theorem is clean, and the paper deserves a serious referee. The soft spot is not the math; it is the load-bearing global comonotonicity assumption, which cannot be checked in the interior where the extrapolation happens. That does not kill the paper, because the estimand remains a weighted average of frontier CATEs even when the assumption fails, but it does cap what the method can claim.

What is new: using comonotonicity of conditional mean potential outcomes to match interior points to frontier level sets. Theorem 2 is simple and correct. The two-stage estimator with nearest-neighbor frontier proximity is a reasonable implementation, and the authors are honest that the estimand is a weighted average if comonotonicity fails. Positioning against Angrist-Rokkanen and rank-invariance IV is careful and accurate.

Where it is soft. First, the stress-test concern lands: the global comonotonicity assumption is genuinely untestable away from the frontier. The constructed example with g0 and g1 equal on the frontier and an interior violation that breaks Theorem 2's equality while all frontier checks pass works as stated. It is an inherent feature of the assumption, not an error in the proof. The robustness result does not fully repair this: the weighted average can differ from the CATE at the matched point by an arbitrary amount. Second, the asymptotic theory leans on a one-line proof of Theorem 4 and a 'detailed sketch' of Theorem 6. That may pass for a first version, but a referee should ask for the full arguments. Third, no code or data, and the empirical support for comonotonicity is visual contour alignment plus an RCT in a different population. That is suggestive, not a test.

Who this is for: applied microeconomists doing RDD with multivariate assignment rules, and econometric theorists interested in extrapolation. The identification result is the main value; the estimation and asymptotics are secondary. I would send it to a serious referee, with instructions to focus on whether the Section 4 sketch can be made complete. I would not yet cite it for the asymptotic claims. If the proofs get filled in and the software appears, the identification result becomes citable.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies extrapolation of conditional average treatment effects away from the frontier in sharp multivariate regression discontinuity designs. It proposes a global comonotonicity condition on the conditional mean potential outcome functions, shows (Theorem 2) that an interior point can be matched to a frontier point with the same conditional mean treated (or untreated) outcome, and that the frontier point's other potential outcome mean equals the interior point's. It develops local-linear estimators for the resulting 'q' functions, including a nearest-neighbor device to avoid specifying the frontier, sketches asymptotic normality, and reports an application to mandatory summer school. The paper also shows that when comonotonicity fails the estimand remains a weighted average of frontier CATEs, and it offers conditional and local versions of the assumption.

Significance. If the theorems are fully established, the paper makes a useful contribution: it gives a clean extrapolation device for multivariate RDD, with a practical estimator that does not require the researcher to know the assignment rule. The robustness property that the estimand remains a frontier-level-set weighted average is a genuine advantage over methods whose target is undefined once the identifying assumption fails. The connection to rank invariance and the RCT-based validation in Appendix B.5 are constructive. However, the core identifying condition is global and untestable in the interior, the empirical support is visual rather than formal, and the asymptotic theory is sketched rather than complete; these gaps currently limit the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from the application.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.1, Assumption 2 and Theorem 2; Eq. (2.5)] The central identifying condition is global and cannot be verified away from the frontier. The paper's own testable implication (footnote 3) only constrains pairs on F. Construct g0 and g1 equal on F, and at an interior treated point x set g1(x)=g1(x*) but g0(x)=g0(x*)+Delta. Then all frontier-based implications of comonotonicity pass, the premise of Theorem 2 holds, and the conclusion fails by exactly Delta. In this case equation (2.5) with the definition (2.6) returns a weighted average of frontier CATEs over the level set {x* in F: g1(x*)=g1(x)}, not CATE(x). The robustness property therefore does not repair the extrapolative interpretation. The empirical evidence in Section 5 (visual contour alignment in Figures 5.2c/d, q0-q1 comparisons in Figures 5.3c/f) and Appendix B.5 is informal, and the RCT check is from a different population. I ask the authors to add a formal sensitivity analysis (for example, bounds on the bias from departures from comonotonicity) or a formal test of the frontier implication with stated power limitations, and to qualify the claims in the abstract accordingly.
[Section 4, Theorem 4 and Theorem 6] The asymptotic results are not fully proven as written. Theorem 4's proof is a one-line reference to a decomposition and Masry (1996), without a complete argument for the nearest-neighbor/local-extrapolation terms over the random set X_{d,epsilon}. Theorem 6 is explicitly a 'detailed sketch': the leading difference R1_hat minus R1_star is bounded by conditioning and 'basic concentration inequalities' without the required conditions, constants, or a demonstration that the bounds are uniform in y. Corollary 1's rate regions are stated without derivation. Because the multiplier bootstrap in Section 5 relies on the oracle equivalence in Corollary 1, the inference claims are not fully supported as they stand. Please supply complete proofs or clearly separate established results from conjectures.
[Section 5, Figures 5.3c and 5.3f] The check that q0_hat and q1_hat 'should align' under comonotonicity is not well-defined. Under Assumption 2, q0 and q1 are functional inverses of each other on the relevant range, so plotting them in the same coordinates without inversion would not generally produce coincident curves. If the figures plot one estimator against the inverse of the other, this needs to be stated; if they plot both in the same coordinates, the comparison is not a valid test of comonotonicity. Please clarify the construction and, if possible, present a quantitative test based on the sharp implication stated after Theorem 2 instead of relying on visual closeness.

minor comments (5)

[Section 1, text following Figure 1.2] The sentence 'Under the comonotonicity condition, this is equal to the value of E[Y(1)|X=x*]' appears to be a typo: the magenta horizontal dashed line corresponds to E[Y(0)|X=x*], and comonotonicity implies it equals E[Y(0)|X=x_circle], not E[Y(1)|X=x*].
[Section 3.1, discussion preceding Eq. (3.2)] The description says q0_hat(y) is estimated 'using only treated individuals i', but the summation in (3.2) is over i in I0, the untreated observations. The text should say 'untreated individuals' for q0 and 'treated individuals' for q1.
[Eq. (2.3)] The phrase 'end points y_{1-d} and and \bar{y}_{1-d}' contains a duplicated 'and'.
[Appendix B.2 and B.3] The theorem statements refer to 'Assumptions A1 and A2' and to 'Theorem A2'/'Theorem 2C', but these labels are not defined in the manuscript. Please standardize the numbering of assumptions and theorems across the main text and appendix.
[Section 3.1, software placeholder] The phrase 'provided software package <>' contains an unresolved placeholder; either include the package reference or remove the sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the identification argument is a conditional theorem whose conclusion follows from the stated comonotonicity assumption and frontier identification, with no fitted parameter or self-citation doing load-bearing work.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 1 identifies g0 and g1 on the frontier from standard RDD continuity and deterministic treatment. Theorem 2's conclusion is a direct logical consequence of Assumption 2: if g_d(x) = g_d(x*), then comonotonicity forces equality of the other conditional potential outcome mean; the proof exhibits exactly this reduction, and no parameter is fitted to the interior target E[Y(1-d)|X=x]. The estimand q_{1-d} in equation (2.6) is defined as a frontier conditional expectation, and the robustness claim that the right-hand side of (2.5) is a weighted average of frontier CATEs follows algebraically from that definition; it does not disguise a fitted interior effect as a prediction. In estimation, q0 is fit only to untreated observations near the frontier, while interior treated means g1(x) are observed, so evaluating the fitted frontier regression at g1(x) is genuine extrapolation rather than in-sample prediction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the comonotonicity concept is attributed to Schmeidler (1989), the RDD identification result is standard, and Appendix B.1's skill-formation model is an optional sufficient condition, not an imported uniqueness theorem. The untestability of global comonotonicity away from the frontier is a substantive identifying-assumption concern, but under the paper's own equations it is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The identification result depends on the comonotonicity assumption plus standard RDD continuity; the asymptotic theory adds conventional nonparametric regularity. The tuning parameters do not enter the identification argument. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

First-stage bandwidth h = cross-validation or rule of thumb
Bandwidth for local linear regression of outcomes on covariates within each treatment region. Affects bias-variance tradeoff but not identification.
Second-stage bandwidth b = cross-validation
Bandwidth for local linear regression of untreated outcomes on generated g1 values near the frontier. Does not affect identification.
Frontier proximity threshold d = rule of thumb d = omega * h
Selects untreated observations whose nearest treated neighbor is within distance d. Controls bias in estimating q.
Kernel K = uniform, Gaussian, or triangular
Standard kernel choice for local polynomial regression.

assumptions (9)

domain assumption Assumption 1.1 (Deterministic Treatment): D = 1{X in X1}, with X1 and X0 disjoint and covering the support of X.
Treatment is a deterministic function of observed covariates, the defining feature of a sharp RDD.
domain assumption Assumption 1.2 (Continuity): x -> E[Y(0)|X=x] and x -> E[Y(1)|X=x] are continuous.
Standard RDD continuity. Ensures g_d are uniquely defined and identified on the frontier.
ad hoc to paper Assumption 2 (Comonotonicity): E[Y(0)|X=x1] >= E[Y(0)|X=x2] iff E[Y(1)|X=x1] >= E[Y(1)|X=x2] for all x1, x2.
The new identifying assumption. It is global and not directly testable away from the frontier.
domain assumption Assumption 4 (Support and Treatment Region): X compact; P(X in X_d) in [delta_pi, 1 - delta_pi] for some delta_pi > 0.
Technical condition for uniform convergence of local polynomial estimators.
standard math Assumption 5 (Smoothness): kernel of order 2, bounded support; E[Y^(2+delta)|X] finite; density twice differentiable with inf > 0; g_d twice differentiable with Lipschitz second derivatives.
Standard nonparametric regularity conditions for the local linear estimator.
standard math Assumption 6: q_{1-d} is twice differentiable with bounded second derivative.
Needed for the bias expansion of the second-stage local linear regression.
domain assumption Assumption 7 (Regularity of F): frontier is piecewise C2 and continuous; nondegenerate volume of both regions near each frontier point.
Ensures enough data near the boundary and validity of change-of-variables calculations.
standard math Assumption 8 (Nonvanishing gradient): inf_{x in level set} ||nabla g_d(x)|| > 0.
Used to justify a change of variables to the density of g_d on the frontier.
standard math Assumption 9 (Tail behavior): regression errors have sub-exponential tails.
Used in concentration inequalities to control the difference between the feasible and oracle estimators.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extrapolation in Regression Discontinuity Design Using Comonotonicity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWRTWSZX

@misc{pith2026250700289,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extrapolation in Regression Discontinuity Design Using Comonotonicity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWRTWSZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00289}
}

read the original abstract

We present a novel approach for extrapolating causal effects away from the margin between treatment and non-treatment in sharp regression discontinuity designs with multiple covariates. Our methods apply both to settings in which treatment is a function of multiple observables and settings in which treatment is determined based on a single running variable. Our key identifying assumption is that conditional average treated and untreated potential outcomes are comonotonic: covariate values associated with higher average untreated potential outcomes are also associated with higher average treated potential outcomes. We provide an estimation method based on local linear regression. Our estimands are weighted average causal effects, even if comonotonicity fails. We apply our methods to evaluate counterfactual mandatory summer school policies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00289 by the authors.

**Figure 1.1.** Identification in two-dimensional RDD 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 1.2.** Conditional Average Potential Outcomes (a) (b) The vertical dashed line (shown in turquois) in the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** provides a visual demonstration of the method in which the non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 3.1.** Figure 3.1: Estimation Detail (a) (b) Using the same simulated data, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3_1.png]

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: plots the same simulated data as in Figure 3.1. In Figure 3.2.a, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png]

**Figure 3.2.** Figure 3.2: Counterfactual Estimation (a) (b) 3.3 Conditional Comonotonicity In settings with more than two covariates in Xi we suggest researchers estimate effects using the weaker conditional comonotonicity condition in Section 2.2. In these settings Xi can be decomposed into …

**Figure 5.1.** Figure 5.1: Test Score Distribution Below we provide the results from regressing the outcome on covariates using only observations in either the treated or untreated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5_1.png]

**Figure 5.2.** Figure 5.2: Contour Estimates presents results from the same exercise using reading scores. In both cases, the contours in the two regions appear approximately aligned, consistent with the hypothesis of comonotonicity. Figures 5.2c and 5.2d plot results from the same exercise b…

**Figure 5.3.** Figure 5.3: Conditional Mean Potential Outcomes Figures 5.3a and 5.3b present estimates of ˆq0 and ˆq1 respectively for math scores using the methods in Section 3. ˆq0 and ˆq1 are respectively below and above the 45 degree line for all but the largest values of the conditional a…

**Figure 5.4.** Figure 5.4: Values of Si Figures 5.4a and 5.4b respectively display the covariate values at which we are able to extrapolate conditional average treatment effects. Crosses represent values at which identification is achieved under comonotonicity and circles indicate points to wh…

**Figure 5.5.** Figure 5.5: Effects of Counterfactual Policies We estimate average causal effects on math scores from counterfactual increases in the math cut-off and the effects on reading outcomes of increases in the reading threshold. The methods in Section 3 allow us to estimate the average…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

On Extrapolation of Treatment Effects in Multiple-Cutoff Regression Discontinuity Designs
econ.EM 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In multi-cutoff regression discontinuity designs, constant-bias extrapolation is unreliable when the running variable is manipulable, and under monotonicity plus dominance the extrapolated treatment effect is sharply ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Alan, Sule, Boneva, Teodora, & Ertac, Seda. 2019. Ever Failed, Try Again, Succeed Better: Results from a Randomized Educational Intervention on Grit*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics

work page 2019
[2]

Andrews, Donald WK. 1992. Generic uniform convergence. Econometric theory , 8 (2), 241--257

work page 1992
[3]

Angrist, Joshua D., & Rokkanen, Miikka. 2015. Wanna Get Away? Regression Discontinuity Estimation of Exam School Effects Away From the Cutoff. JASA , 110 , 1331--1344

work page 2015
[4]

Armstrong, Timothy B, & Koles \'a r, Michal. 2018. Optimal inference in a class of regression models. Econometrica , 86 (2), 655--683

work page 2018
[5]

Battistin, Erich, & Rettore, Enrico. 2008. Ineligibles and eligible non-participants as a double comparison group in regression-discontinuity designs. Journal of Economtrics , 142 , 715--730

work page 2008
[6]

Calonico, Sebastian, Cattaneo, Matias D, & Titiunik, Rocio. 2014. Robust nonparametric confidence intervals for regression-discontinuity designs. Econometrica , 82 (6), 2295--2326

work page 2014
[7]

Calonico, Sebastian, Cattaneo, Matias D, Farrell, Max H, & Titiunik, Rocio. 2019. Regression discontinuity designs using covariates. Review of Economics and Statistics , 101 (3), 442--451

work page 2019
[8]

Cattaneo, Matias D, & Titiunik, Rocio. 2022. Regression discontinuity designs. Annual Review of Economics , 14 (1), 821--851

work page 2022

Show all 33 references

[9]

Cattaneo, Matias D., Keele, Luke, Titiunik, Rocío, & Vazquez-Bare, Gonzalo. 2021. Extrapolating Treatment Effects in Multi-Cutoff Regression Discontinuity Designs. JASA , 116 , 1941--1952

2021
[10]

Chernozhukov, Victor, & Hansen, Christian. 2005. An IV Model of Quantile Treatment Effects. Econometrica , 73 (1), 245--261

2005
[11]

Chernozhukov, Victor, Imbens, Guido W., & Newey, Whitney K. 2007. Instrumental variable estimation of nonseparable models. Journal of Econometrics , 139 (1), 4--14

2007
[12]

Chernozhukov, Victor, Lee, Sokbae, & Rosen, Adam M. 2013. Intersection bounds: Estimation and inference. Econometrica , 81 (2), 667--737

2013
[13]

Chernozhukov, Victor, Chetverikov, Denis, & Kato, Kengo. 2014. Gaussian approximation of suprema of empirical processes

2014
[14]

D'Haultfœuille, Xavier, & Février, Philippe. 2015. Identification of Nonseparable Triangular Models With Discrete Instruments. Econometrica , 83 (3), 1199--1210

2015
[15]

DiNardo, John, & Lee, David S. 2011. Program Evaluation and Research Designs . Chap. Chapter 5, Handbook of Labor Economics, pages 463--536

2011
[16]

Dong, Yingying, & Lewbel, Arthur. 2015. Identifying the Effect of Changing the Policy Threshold in Regression Discontinuity Models. Review of Economics and Statistics , 97 , 1081--1092

2015
[17]

Fan, Jianqing, & Gijbels, Irene. 1996. Local Polynomial Modelling and Its Applications: Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 66 . Vol. 66. CRC Press

1996
[18]

Grembi, Veronica, Nannicini, Tommaso, & Troiano, Ugo. 2016. Do Fiscal Rules Matter? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics , 8 (3), 1--30

2016
[19]

Hansen, Bruce E. 2008. Uniform Convergence Rates for Kernel Estimation with Dependent Data. Econometric Theory , 24 (3), 726--748

2008
[20]

Horowitz, Joel L., & Lee, Sokbae. 2007. Nonparametric Instrumental Variables Estimation of a Quantile Regression Model. Econometrica , 75 (4), 1191--1208

2007
[21]

Imbens, Guido, & Newey, Whitney. 2009. Identification and Estimation of Triangular Simultaneous Equations Models Without Additivity. Econometrica , 77 (5), 1481--1512

2009
[22]

Imbens, Guido, & Wager, Stefan. 2019. Optimized Regression Discontinuity Designs. The Review of Economics and Statistics , 101 , 264--278

2019
[23]

Keele, Luke J, & Titiunik, Rocio. 2015. Geographic boundaries as regression discontinuities. Political Analysis , 23 (1), 127--155

2015
[24]

Mammen, Enno, Rothe, Christoph, & Schienle, Melanie. 2012. Nonparametric regression with nonparametrically generated covariates

2012
[25]

Masry, Elias. 1996. Multivariate local polynomial regression for time series: uniform strong consistency and rates. Journal of Time Series Analysis , 17 (6), 571--599

1996
[26]

Matsudaira, Jordan D. 2008. Mandatory summer school and student achievement. Journal of Econometrics , 142 , 829--850

2008
[27]

Mealli, Fabrizia, & Rampichini, Carla. 2012. Evaluating the Effects of University Grants by Using Regression Discontinuity Designs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A , 175 , 775--798

2012
[28]

Noack, Claudia, Olma, Tomasz, & Rothe, Christoph. 2024. Flexible covariate adjustments in regression discontinuity designs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07942

2024 arXiv
[29]

Papay, John P, Willett, John B, & Murnane, Richard J. 2011. Extending the regression-discontinuity approach to multiple assignment variables. Journal of Econometrics , 161 (2), 203--207

2011
[30]

Schmeidler, David. 1989. Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity. Econometrica , 57 (3), 571

1989
[31]

Stone, Charles J. 1982. Optimal Global Rates of Convergence for Nonparametric Regression . The Annals of Statistics , 10 (4), 1040--1053

1982
[32]

Torgovitsky, Alexander. 2015. Identification of Nonseparable Models Using Instruments With Small Support. Econometrica , 83 (3), 1185--1197

2015
[33]

Wing, Coady, & Cook, Thomas D. 2013. Strengthening the Regression Discontinuity Design Using Additional Design Elements: A Within‐Study Comparison. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 32 (4), 853--877

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Alan, Sule, Boneva, Teodora, & Ertac, Seda. 2019. Ever Failed, Try Again, Succeed Better: Results from a Randomized Educational Intervention on Grit*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Andrews, Donald WK. 1992. Generic uniform convergence. Econometric theory , 8 (2), 241--257

work page 1992

[3] [3]

Angrist, Joshua D., & Rokkanen, Miikka. 2015. Wanna Get Away? Regression Discontinuity Estimation of Exam School Effects Away From the Cutoff. JASA , 110 , 1331--1344

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Armstrong, Timothy B, & Koles \'a r, Michal. 2018. Optimal inference in a class of regression models. Econometrica , 86 (2), 655--683

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Battistin, Erich, & Rettore, Enrico. 2008. Ineligibles and eligible non-participants as a double comparison group in regression-discontinuity designs. Journal of Economtrics , 142 , 715--730

work page 2008

[6] [6]

Calonico, Sebastian, Cattaneo, Matias D, & Titiunik, Rocio. 2014. Robust nonparametric confidence intervals for regression-discontinuity designs. Econometrica , 82 (6), 2295--2326

work page 2014

[7] [7]

Calonico, Sebastian, Cattaneo, Matias D, Farrell, Max H, & Titiunik, Rocio. 2019. Regression discontinuity designs using covariates. Review of Economics and Statistics , 101 (3), 442--451

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Cattaneo, Matias D, & Titiunik, Rocio. 2022. Regression discontinuity designs. Annual Review of Economics , 14 (1), 821--851

work page 2022