Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Robust Inference Methods for Latent Group Panel Models under Possible Group Non-Separation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Wald tests for latent group panels stay valid when groups blur

desk verdict Genuine extension of polyhedral selective inference to latent-group panels with arbitrary linear restrictions, but exactness is proven for a single random start while the implementation selects the minimum over many starts. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.18550 v2 pith:75UEEM6N submitted 2025-11-23 econ.EM stat.MEstat.ML

Oguzhan Akgun , Ryo Okui This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.EMstat.MEstat.ML MSC 62F0362F1262H30
keywords latentgrouppanelselectiveinferencepost-clusteringK-meansWaldtesttruncatedchi-squarednon-separationdata
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 tackles the double-dipping problem in panel data: when the same data are used to estimate latent groups and then to test hypotheses about group-specific coefficients, standard Wald tests badly over-reject. The authors show that conditioning the test on the estimated group structure—and on a few nuisance components—yields an exact truncated chi-squared null distribution, so the test controls the selective Type I error even when the groups are not well separated in the population. The method applies to general linear restrictions, not just homogeneity tests, and works for both a two-step K-means estimator and a panel clusterwise regression estimator that estimates groups and coefficients jointly. Even when group separation does hold, the finite-sample size control improves on conventional asymptotic tests. Simulations with serial and cross-sectional dependence confirm the theory, and two empirical applications show that apparent heterogeneity often becomes insignificant once selection is accounted for.

What carries the argument

The polyhedral conditioning method: the data are decomposed into a component along the direction of the test statistic and an independent nuisance component, so that the Wald statistic depends only on a scalar perturbation phi. Conditioning on the full iteration path of the clustering algorithm—each assignment step for each unit—defines a truncation set for phi characterized by quadratic inequalities, and the null distribution is a chi-squared truncated to that set. This set can be computed analytically for both the two-step K-means algorithm and the panel clusterwise regression algorithm.

What would settle it

Generate panels under a homogeneous DGP with no true group separation, run the implemented multi-start TSK and PCR procedures with argmin selection over many random initializations, and test a true null at the 5% level; if the rejection rate stays at 5% across large samples, the size guarantee extends to the implemented estimator, while if it exceeds the nominal level, the gap between the theorem and the implementation is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under Gaussian homoskedastic errors with known variance, the Wald statistics for the two-step K-means and panel clusterwise regression estimators, conditional on the estimated group path and on nuisance components, follow truncated chi-squared distributions. This makes the tests exactly valid in finite samples: they control the selective Type I error rate—the probability of rejecting a true null given that the estimated groups equal the observed ones—even when group separation fails, meaning the number of groups is overspecified or the groups are not distinguishable in the population. The result holds for arbitrary linear restrictions on the group-specific coefficients, not only for homogene

Load-bearing premise

The theorems condition on the full iteration path of a single random start, but the implemented procedures instead use many random starts and select the one with the minimum objective; that argmin selection event is not part of the conditioning set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tests remain valid without group separation, covering overspecified numbers of groups and groups that are homogeneous on some coefficients.
  • Even when groups are separated, the conditional tests give better finite-sample size control than conventional asymptotic Wald tests that ignore group-selection uncertainty.
  • Inverting the conditional tests yields selective confidence sets with coverage valid conditional on the estimated group structure.
  • The framework handles arbitrary linear restrictions, so it can test homogeneity of subsets of coefficients or across selected groups, not just full separation.
  • In empirical settings, the method can overturn naive evidence of heterogeneity: point estimates may differ across groups while formal selective tests fail to reject equality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The exact size guarantee in the theorems conditions on the full iteration path from a single random start, but the implemented procedures use many random starts and select the run with the minimum objective; that argmin selection event is not part of the conditioning set, so the implemented estimator's size guarantee is not directly covered.
  • The same conditioning template could extend to other clustering algorithms whose assignment rules admit polyhedral descriptions, such as hierarchical or spectral clustering, provided the iteration path can be characterized.
  • The independence lemmas rely on known variance and exact Gaussianity; with estimated variances or general error distributions, the truncated chi-squared result is only asymptotic, and the paper's simulations suggest the approximation needs reasonably large T to hold.
  • The approach points toward a broader principle for post-selection inference: conditioning on the algorithm's trajectory rather than just its final output can make the truncation set tractable while still delivering unconditional selective error control.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops selective conditional inference methods for linear panel data models with latent group structure. For the Two-Step K-means (TSK) and Panel Clusterwise Regression (PCR) estimators, it derives Wald-type test statistics for general linear hypotheses Rα(γ_D)=r and claims that, conditional on the estimated group path and nuisance components, these statistics follow truncated χ² distributions under Gaussian errors with known variance (Theorems 1 and 2). The appendices derive the truncation sets as unions of quadratic inequalities. Monte Carlo simulations and two empirical applications illustrate the method and argue that it controls size even when group separation fails.

Significance. If the stated exactness held for the implemented procedure, this would be a valuable contribution: it extends polyhedral selective inference from simple clustering settings to panel data estimators, handles general linear restrictions, and addresses group non-separation. The algebraic decompositions in Section 4.2 (Eq. (8)-(9)) and the truncation-set formulas in Propositions A.1-A.2 are nontrivial and generalize earlier work. The simulation evidence is extensive and suggests the method works well in practice. However, the paper's central exactness claim is currently tied to an idealized version of the algorithm and to known variances, while the implementation and simulations depart from these assumptions without a bridging theorem.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Theorem 1 (Eq. 10), and Appendix A] The implemented algorithm uses 'a large number of random initial values and select[s] the final estimates that yield the minimum value of the objective function' (Appendix A). The conditioning set A_TSK in Theorem 1 contains only the iteration path of one run, γ^(m)_D = γ^(m)_d for m=0,...,M, together with direction and nuisance components. The argmin-over-starts event is not included in A_TSK (or A_PCR). Since the identity of the minimum-objective run is data-dependent, the selected path is not a function of the data alone in the way the proof in Appendix B.3 assumes; the event that a particular path is the argmin is informative about the Wald statistic. The statement in Appendix A that random initialization needs no S^(0) conditioning addresses only the non-data-dependence of the initial labels, not the selection across starts. Thus Theorems 1-2 do not cover the estimator actually used
  2. [§4.4 and Section 6; abstract] Theorems 1 and 2 assume σ² and Σ are known. Section 4.4 then introduces estimated variances: the Pesaran estimator for TSK and the Driscoll-Kraay estimator for PCR, and all simulations and applications use these estimated variances. Moreover, the simulation errors are non-Gaussian (t(6) in the second half), serially correlated, and cross-sectionally dependent. No theorem or proposition establishes that the truncated-χ² result remains valid when the variance is estimated, nor that any asymptotic version holds under these general error distributions. The abstract's claim that the tests are 'asymptotically valid under general error distributions' is therefore unsupported. At minimum, the paper needs an asymptotic statement for estimated variances or a formal justification for why the known-variance conditional distribution can be used with plug-in variance estimators.
  3. [§4.2-4.3 and Section 6] The exact finite-sample theorems require fixed non-random regressors with identical second moments: 'Σ is nonsingular' and 'Σ = I_K' or PT_{t=1} X_it X_it' = Σ for every i (Section 4.3, Theorem 2). In the Monte Carlo design, the regressors are stochastic AR(1) processes with spatial correlation, so these assumptions are not satisfied even approximately in finite samples. While the simulations may be intended as a robustness check, the paper does not state this explicitly or provide any theoretical link. This is a gap between the formal claims and the numerical evidence: the simulations do not directly verify the exact theorem, and the asymptotic claim that would cover them is not proved.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 and Appendix A] Theorem 1's truncation set S_TSK includes m=0 (the initial assignments), while Appendix A says that under random initialization 'there is no need to consider S^(0)_TSK and S^(0)_PCR since the group assignments are not data-dependent.' This is inconsistent: either the conditioning set includes the initial labels or it does not. Please clarify.
  2. [§4.3] In the definition of A_PCR, the text says 'w_T SK(bγd) that of W_T SK(bγD)' but should presumably be 'w_PCR' and 'W_PCR'. Also, Theorem 2 states 'H_PCR(eγD)|A_PCR' but the statistic uses bγD, not eγD.
  3. [Section 6 and Tables 2-4] The text says the simulations use T∈{50,100}, but Tables 2-4 report rows for T=20 and T=50. Please reconcile the reported sample sizes.
  4. [References] Taylor and Tibshirani (2015a) and (2015b) appear to be the same article. If one is intended to be a different paper or a separate note, please correct the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the selective-inference derivations are self-contained and do not reduce to fitted inputs or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

Theorems 1 and 2 derive conditional truncated-chi-square distributions for the Wald statistics from explicit distributional assumptions (Gaussian homoskedastic errors, known variance, fixed regressors) plus independence lemmas (B.1/B.2 and C.1/C.2). The conditioning sets A_TSK and A_PCR, including the full iteration path and nuisance components, are the intended selective-inference conditioning mechanism rather than an input that already contains the conclusion. No parameter is fitted to the target result and then renamed as a prediction; the truncation sets are computed analytically from the algorithm's assignment rules. External citations (Chen and Witten 2023; Gao et al. 2024; Lee et al. 2016) supply standard polyhedral-method tools, and the authors' own prior work (Akgun et al. 2025; Okui and Wang 2021; Lumsdaine et al. 2023) is cited only as related literature, not as load-bearing justification. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The paper's own Appendix A admits that the implementation uses many random initializations and chooses the minimum-objective run; that argmin selection event is not included in A_TSK/A_PCR, so the exact theorem may not cover the implemented estimator. This is a validity/coverage gap, not circularity: it concerns whether the theorem applies to the procedure actually used, not whether the theorem is equivalent to its assumptions. The paper also notes that power properties are not theoretically examined, which is an acknowledged limitation rather than a circular step. Overall, the central derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical core rests on Gaussianity/homoskedasticity/known variance, identical regressor second moments, known G, and independence of random starts. The main unstated implementational assumption is that the argmin over multiple random starts does not affect the conditioning; the paper gives no argument for this.

free parameters (2)
  • Driscoll-Kraay bandwidth L_T = not reported
    Chosen by practitioner in all simulation/application variance estimation; affects the estimated covariance and thus test size, but the paper gives no value or selection rule.
  • Number of random initializations for K-means/PCR = not reported
    The implementation selects the minimum objective over many random starts; the number of starts is not stated, and the selection event is not conditioned on in the theorems.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gaussian, homoskedastic errors and known variance σ² for exact finite-sample validity.
    Invoked before Theorems 1-2 (bB_D ~ N(B, σ²I_N⊗Σ^{-1}); s ~ N(X'XB, σ²X'X)); robustness to violations is only studied by simulation.
  • domain assumption Σ_{t=1}^T X_it X_it' = Σ for every unit i (identical regressor second moments).
    Used in Lemmas B.1 and C.1 to prove orthogonality; if violated, the conditioning simplification fails.
  • domain assumption Number of groups G is known and fixed.
    Algorithms and null hypotheses take G as input; no selection procedure for G is analyzed.
  • ad hoc to paper Random initializations are independent of the data and the argmin-over-starts event can be ignored in the conditioning set.
    Appendix A describes using many random starts and keeping the min objective, but theorem conditioning sets include only one iteration path. This is not proven and is the weakest implementational premise.
  • domain assumption Estimated variance estimators (Driscoll-Kraay, Pesaran) converge and can replace known σ² without changing the null distribution.
    All simulations/applications use estimated variances, but no theorem formalizes the asymptotic validity promised in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Regressors are non-random/strictly exogenous and the linear model is correctly specified.
    Needed for s ~ N(X'XB, σ²X'X) and the fixed-effects extensions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Inference Methods for Latent Group Panel Models under Possible Group Non-Separation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/75UEEM6N

@misc{pith2026251118550,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Inference Methods for Latent Group Panel Models under Possible Group Non-Separation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/75UEEM6N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.18550}
}
read the original abstract

We develop robust inference methods for general linear hypotheses in linear panel data models with latent group structure in the coefficients. We employ a selective conditional inference approach based on the conditional distribution of coefficient estimates given the group structure estimated from the data. The resulting inference procedures remain valid even when group separation fails (i.e., when the distributional properties of the group-specific coefficients are not established) and, because they account for uncertainty in estimating the group structure, they also improve on conventional asymptotic procedures in finite samples when separation does hold. Our tests are exactly valid under Gaussian errors with known variances and asymptotically valid under general error distributions. Unlike much of the post-clustering inference literature, which focuses on testing group homogeneity, our framework accommodates arbitrary linear restrictions on the group-specific coefficients. Inverting the conditional tests yields selective confidence sets with valid coverage conditional on the estimated group structure. We illustrate the methods through Monte Carlo simulations and an application to growth convergence clubs. Simulations demonstrate accurate size control and good power in finite samples, including in the presence of serial correlation and cross-sectional dependence. The applications show sharp differences between the traditional inference methods and robust methods proposed in this paper, illustrating the importance of taking the estimated group structure into account.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Akgun, O., Pirotte, A., Urga, G., and Yang, Z. (2025). Testing clustered equal predictive ability with unknown clusters

    2025

  2. [2]

    and Bai, J

    Ando, T. and Bai, J. (2015). A simple new test for slope homogeneity in panel data models with interactive effects.Economics Letters, 136:112–117

    2015

  3. [3]

    and Bai, J

    Ando, T. and Bai, J. (2016). Panel data models with grouped factor structure under unknown group membership.Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31(1):163–191

    2016

  4. [4]

    Andrews, D. W. K., Cheng, X., and Guggenberger, P. (2020). Generic results for establishing the asymptotic size of confidence sets and tests.Journal of Econometrics, 218:496–531

    2020

  5. [5]

    Andrews, I., Kitagawa, T., and McCloskey, A. (2021). Inference after estimation of breaks.Journal of Econometrics, 224(1):39–59

    2021

  6. [6]

    Andrews, I., Kitagawa, T., and McCloskey, A. (2024). Inference on winners.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 139(1):305–358

    2024

  7. [7]

    and Vassilvitskii, S

    Arthur, D. and Vassilvitskii, S. (2007). k-means++: The advantages of careful seeding. InProceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, pages 1027–1035. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Philadelphia, PA, USA

    2007

  8. [8]

    and Bayer, C

    Bachmann, R. and Bayer, C. (2014). Investment dispersion and the business cycle.American Economic Review, 104(4):1392–1416. 47

    2014

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    and Ugon, J

    Bagirov, A. and Ugon, J. (2018). Nonsmooth DC programming approach to clusterwise linear regres- sion: optimality conditions and algorithms.Optimization Methods and Software, 33(1):194–219

    2018

  2. [10]

    M., Ugon, J., and Mirzayeva, H

    Bagirov, A. M., Ugon, J., and Mirzayeva, H. G. (2015). An algorithm for clusterwise linear regression based on smoothing techniques.Optimization Letters, 9(2):375–390

    2015

  3. [11]

    Benjamini, Y. (2020). Selective inference: The silent killer of replicability.Harvard Data Science Review, 2(4)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Bonhomme, S., Lamadon, T., and Manresa, E. (2022). Discretizing unobserved heterogeneity.Econo- metrica, 90(2):625–643

    2022

  5. [13]

    and Manresa, E

    Bonhomme, S. and Manresa, E. (2015). Grouped patterns of heterogeneity in panel data.Economet- rica, 83(3):1147–1184

    2015

  6. [14]

    Canova, F. (2004). Testing for convergence clubs in income per capita: a predictive density approach. International Economic Review, 45(1):49–77

    2004

  7. [15]

    A., Caporossi, G., and Hansen, P

    Carbonneau, R. A., Caporossi, G., and Hansen, P. (2011). Globally optimal clusterwise regression by mixed logical-quadratic programming.European Journal of Operational Research, 212(1):213–222

    2011

  8. [16]

    A., Caporossi, G., and Hansen, P

    Carbonneau, R. A., Caporossi, G., and Hansen, P. (2012). Extensions to the repetitive branch and bound algorithm for globally optimal clusterwise regression.Computers & Operations Research, 39(11):2748–2762

    2012

  9. [17]

    A., Caporossi, G., and Hansen, P

    Carbonneau, R. A., Caporossi, G., and Hansen, P. (2014). Globally optimal clusterwise regression by column generation enhanced with heuristics, sequencing and ending subset optimization.Journal of Classification, 31(2):219–241

    2014

  10. [18]

    Chen, Y. T. and Gao, L. L. (2024). Testing for a difference in means of a single feature after clustering. Biostatistics, 26(1):kxae046

    2024

  11. [19]

    Chen, Y. T. and Witten, D. M. (2023). Selective inference for k-means clustering.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(152):1–41

    2023

  12. [20]

    Cheng, X., Schorfheide, F., and Shao, P. (2025). Clustering for multi-dimensional heterogeneity with an application to production function estimation. mimeo. 48

    2025

  13. [21]

    and Manresa, E

    Chetverikov, D. and Manresa, E. (2022). Spectral and post-spectral estimators for grouped panel data models. arXiv:2212.13324 [econ, stat]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cytrynbaum, M. (2020). Blocked clusterwise regression. arXiv:2001.11130 [econ, stat]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Driscoll, J. C. and Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially de- pendent panel data.Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4):549–560. D’Urso, P., Massari, R., and Santoro, A. (2010). A class of fuzzy clusterwise regression models. Informatio...

    1998

  16. [24]

    Fabrizio, K. R. and Tsolmon, U. (2014). An empirical examination of the procyclicality of r&d investment and innovation.Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(4):662–675

    2014

  17. [25]

    L., Bien, J., and Witten, D

    Gao, L. L., Bien, J., and Witten, D. (2024). Selective inference for hierarchical clustering.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119(545):332–342. Gonz´ alez-Delgado, J., Cort´ es, J., and Neuvial, P. (2023). Post-clustering inference under dependency. arXiv prepr...

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    (2011).Econometric Analysis

    Greene, W. (2011).Econometric Analysis. Pearson Education

    2011

  19. [27]

    Huang, W., Jin, S., and Su, L. (2020). Identifying latent grouped patterns in cointegrated panels. Econometric Theory, 36(3):410–456

    2020

  20. [28]

    C., and Punzo, A

    Ingrassia, S., Minotti, S. C., and Punzo, A. (2014). Model-based clustering via linear cluster-weighted models.Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 71:159–182

    2014

  21. [29]

    Karmitsa, N., Taheri, S., Bagirov, A., and M¨ akinen, P. (2022). Missing value imputation via cluster- wise linear regression.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 34(4):1889–1901. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

    2022

  22. [30]

    Ke, Y., Li, J., and Zhang, W. (2016). Structure identification in panel data analysis.The Annals of Statistics, 44(3):1193–1233

    2016

  23. [31]

    T., Fan, J., and Wu, Y

    Ke, Z. T., Fan, J., and Wu, Y. (2015). Homogeneity pursuit.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110(509):175–194. 49

    2015

  24. [32]

    K., Bellgowan, P

    Kriegeskorte, N., Simmons, W. K., Bellgowan, P. S., and Baker, C. I. (2009). Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping.Nature Neuroscience, 12(5):535–540

    2009

  25. [33]

    K., Kolassa, J

    Kuchibhotla, A. K., Kolassa, J. E., and Kuffner, T. A. (2022). Post-selection inference.Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 9:505–527

    2022

  26. [34]

    D., Sun, D

    Lee, J. D., Sun, D. L., Sun, Y., and Taylor, J. E. (2016). Exact post-selection inference, with application to the Lasso.The Annals of Statistics, 44(3):907–927

    2016

  27. [35]

    and P¨ otscher, B

    Leeb, H. and P¨ otscher, B. M. (2005). Model Selection and Inference: Facts and Fiction.Econometric Theory, 21(1):21–59. Publisher: Cambridge University Press

    2005

  28. [36]

    and Ng, S

    Lin, C.-C. and Ng, S. (2012). Estimation of panel data models with parameter heterogeneity when group membership is unknown.Journal of Econometric Methods, 1(1):42–55

    2012

  29. [37]

    Loyo, J. A. and Boot, T. (2025). Grouped heterogeneity in linear panel data models with heterogeneous error variances.Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 43(1):68–80

    2025

  30. [38]

    and Su, L

    Lu, X. and Su, L. (2017). Determining the number of groups in latent panel structures with an application to income and democracy.Quantitative Economics, 8(3):729–760

    2017

  31. [39]

    and Su, L

    Lu, X. and Su, L. (2023). Uniform inference in linear panel data models with two-dimensional hetero- geneity.Journal of Econometrics, 235(2):694–719

    2023

  32. [40]

    L., Okui, R., and Wang, W

    Lumsdaine, R. L., Okui, R., and Wang, W. (2023). Estimation of panel group structure models with structural breaks in group memberships and coefficients.Journal of Econometrics, 233(1):45–65

    2023

  33. [41]

    MacQueen, J. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, volume 1, pages 281–297. Oakland, CA, USA

    1967

  34. [42]

    Mugnier, M. (2022). Unobserved clusters of time-varying heterogeneity in nonlinear panel data models

    2022

  35. [43]

    and Wang, W

    Okui, R. and Wang, W. (2021). Heterogeneous structural breaks in panel data models.Journal of Econometrics, 220(2):447–473

    2021

  36. [44]

    W., Jiang, Y., Klabjan, D., and Williams, L

    Park, Y. W., Jiang, Y., Klabjan, D., and Williams, L. (2017). Algorithms for generalized clusterwise linear regression.INFORMS Journal on Computing, 29(2):301–317. Publisher: INFORMS. 50

    2017

  37. [45]

    Patton, A. J. and Weller, B. M. (2023). Testing for unobserved heterogeneity viak-meansclustering. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 41(3):737–751

    2023

  38. [46]

    Pesaran, H. M. and Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels.Journal of Econometrics, 142(1):50–93

    2008

  39. [47]

    Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure.Econometrica, 74(4):967–1012

    2006

  40. [48]

    Pesaran, M. H. and Smith, R. (1995). Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels.Journal of Econometrics, 68(1):79–113

    1995

  41. [49]

    Pesaran, M. H. and Tosetti, E. (2011). Large panels with common factors and spatial correlation. Journal of Econometrics, 161(2):182–202

    2011

  42. [50]

    Phillips, P. C. and Sul, D. (2007). Transition modeling and econometric convergence tests.Econo- metrica, 75(6):1771–1855

    2007

  43. [51]

    and Su, L

    Qian, J. and Su, L. (2016). Shrinkage estimation of common breaks in panel data models via adaptive group fused Lasso.Journal of Econometrics, 191(1):86–109

    2016

  44. [52]

    and Salish, N

    Raiola, A. and Salish, N. (2025). Testing for grouped patterns in panel data models. mimeo

    2025

  45. [53]

    and Weber, N

    Sarafidis, V. and Weber, N. (2015). A partially heterogeneous framework for analyzing panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 77(2):274–296. Sp¨ ath, H. (1979). Algorithm 39: Clusterwise linear regression.Computing, 22:367–373

    2015

  46. [54]

    and Ju, G

    Su, L. and Ju, G. (2018). Identifying latent grouped patterns in panel data models with interactive fixed effects.Journal of Econometrics, 206(2):554–573

    2018

  47. [55]

    Su, L., Shi, Z., and Phillips, P. C. B. (2016). Identifying latent structures in panel data.Econometrica, 84(6):2215–2264

    2016

  48. [56]

    Su, L., Wang, W., and Xu, X. (2023). Identifying latent group structures in spatial dynamic panels. Journal of Econometrics, 235(2):1955–1980

    2023

  49. [57]

    Su, L., Wang, X., and Jin, S. (2019). Sieve Estimation of Time-Varying Panel Data Models With Latent Structures.Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 37(2):334–349. 51

    2019

  50. [58]

    and Tibshirani, R

    Taylor, J. and Tibshirani, R. J. (2015b). Statistical learning and selective inference.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(25):7629–7634. van Ophem, H., van Giersbergen, N., van Garderen, K. J., and Bun, M. (2019). The cyclicality of r&d investment revisited.J...

    2019

  51. [59]

    Wan, C., Sun, J., and Xu, X. (2025). Conditional selective inference for the selected groups in panel data. mimeo

    2025

  52. [60]

    Wang, W., Phillips, P. C. B., and Su, L. (2018). Homogeneity pursuit in panel data models: Theory and application.Journal of Applied Econometrics, 33(6):797–815

    2018

  53. [61]

    and Su, L

    Wang, W. and Su, L. (2021). Identifying latent group structures in nonlinear panels.Journal of Econometrics, 220(2):272–295

    2021

  54. [62]

    Wang, Y., Phillips, P. C. B., and Su, L. (2024). Panel data models with time-varying latent group structures.Journal of Econometrics, 240(1):105685

    2024

  55. [63]

    Yu, L., Gu, J., and Volgushev, S. (2024). Spectral clustering with variance information for group structure estimation in panel data.Journal of Econometrics, 241(1):105709

    2024

  56. [64]

    and He, Y

    Yun, Y. and He, Y. (2024). Selective inference for multiple pairs of clusters after k-means clustering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16379

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    J., and Zhu, Z

    Zhang, Y., Wang, H. J., and Zhu, Z. (2019). Quantile-regression-based clustering for panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 213(1):54–67. 52

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.