Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 83 references

Learning about Treatment Effects in Panels under Unknown Interference

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read When comparison units are also affected by the policy, the treatment effect is still partially identified.

desk verdict The identification core is new and clean—full-simplex validity reduced to a finite LP via minimax—but the uniform coverage theorem rests on high-level Assumption 4.2 that the paper never grounds in primitives, so the empirical inversion sets should be read as conditional on unverified regularity. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13466 v1 pith:RF4FJK3N submitted 2026-08-13 econ.EM

Shengbin Wei This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.EM
keywords treatmenteffectsunknowninterferencepartialidentificationpaneldatasyntheticcontrollinearprogrammingfeasibilitybootstrapinferencespillovers
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 is trying to establish that panel comparisons remain informative about a treatment effect even when the comparison units themselves respond to the policy in unknown ways. Its route is to impose, for every convex donor weight, a fit-scaled validity bound that keeps each weight's latent no-policy gap after treatment within a prespecified multiple of that same weight's average absolute gap before treatment, and to intersect those bounds with application-specific restrictions on the spillover vector. The paper claims this intersection is sharp, that compatibility of a candidate effect $\tau^c$ is exactly the feasibility of a finite linear system, and that inverting bootstrap-calibrated feasibility tests gives uniform candidatewise coverage. A reader should care because common policies, such as Arizona's employer verification law, plausibly move comparison states too, and this framework says what can still be learned without having to name which donors are contaminated.

What carries the argument

The central object is the full-simplex fit-scaled validity envelope: for every convex weight $w$, $|C_T^{\mathrm{obs}}(w)-w^\top x|\le \frac{L}{T_0-1}\sum_{t=2}^{T_0}|C_t(w)|$, where $x_k=\tau-s_k$ are relative effects. The paper converts this continuum of restrictions into a finite linear system by writing each weight's allowance as a support function, applying Sion's minimax theorem to interchange the simplex and the box of auxiliary coefficients, and using the fact that a linear function on the simplex attains its maximum at a donor vertex. This yields two certificate vectors $v^-$ and $v^+$; stacked with the rows of the prespecified admissible rule, they form a fixed-dimension system whose coefficient matrix does not depend on the candidate $\tau^c$. That candidate-invariant finite representation carries the argument from sharp identification to uniform test inversion.

What would settle it

A placebo test would settle the assumption: hold out each pre-treatment period in turn and compute the smallest envelope $L$ that covers that held-out movement uniformly over the full donor simplex. If the maximum of these placebo envelopes substantially exceeds the chosen $L$, or if an interior weight with near-zero pre-treatment fit still shows a large held-out gap, Assumption 3.1's uniformity and zero floor are contradicted by the pre-treatment data on which the calibration is based.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.1: under full-simplex fit-scaled comparison validity and a finite linear representation of additional restrictions, a candidate treatment effect $\tau^c$ is compatible if and only if the finite linear system $F(\Pi_0,\tau^c)=\{\eta: b(\Pi_0,\tau^c)-A(\Pi_0)\eta\le 0\}$ is nonempty. The continuum of donor weights collapses to finitely many inequalities indexed by donor vertices together with bounded auxiliary vectors $v^-$ and $v^+$, so interior weights add identifying information exactly when convex aggregation cancels pre-treatment discrepancies. Consequently the identified set for $\tau$ is the scalar projection of a polyhedron, a closed interval, half-line, or the whole real line, and its boundedness is decided by whether the recession cone of the admissible set blocks the common-shift direction. For inference, the paper proves that the normalized Farkas score, calibrated with candidate-specific recentered bootstrap draws, uniformly controls the probability of falsely excluding each compatible candidate in large samples.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one fixed multiplier $L$ uniformly bounds every convex donor weight's unobserved no-policy gap after treatment by that same weight's average absolute pre-treatment gap, with no floor at exact fit; if this uniformity fails for some interior weight, the sharp set and finite system characterize a different model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interior donor weights are not redundant: in the paper's near-exact geometry, full-simplex validity shrinks the population identified set by 86 percent relative to donor-vertex validity.
  • The identified set for the treatment effect is always a polyhedron in $\mathbb{R}$, so an application either gets an interval, a singleton, a half-line, or the whole real line.
  • Because checking a candidate reduces to linear programming feasibility, the same solver and bootstrap perturbations can be reused across candidates.
  • In the LAW A application, the 95 percent inversion sets contain both zero and the original $-1.50$ percentage point estimate at every reported specification, so the sign of the effect remains unresolved.
  • The uniform candidatewise coverage guarantee protects each compatible value against false exclusion without any multiplicity adjustment over candidates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The zero floor at exact fit does more work than the multiplier $L$: an interior weight with zero average pre-treatment gap is forced to have zero latent post-treatment gap. The paper's additive-floor relaxation is the natural robustness check, and it preserves the finite-system construction.
  • A placebo diagnostic follows directly from the framework: hold out each pre-treatment period and test the envelope uniformly over the simplex. If several held-out periods require envelopes far above the chosen $L$, Assumption 3.1's uniformity is implausible even when every donor vertex looks fine.
  • Because the coefficient matrix is candidate-invariant, the same bootstrap draws could support simultaneous inference over a grid of $(L,\rho)$ specifications, although the paper only claims candidatewise coverage within a fixed specification.
  • If the admissible set only restricts relative effects, the common-shift direction remains completely unanchored, so reported interval endpoints would then be artifacts of the reporting domain rather than identified bounds.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies partial identification and inference for a scalar treatment effect in a panel with one treated aggregate unit and K-1 comparison units when comparison units may also respond to the treatment through unknown interference. It imposes Assumption 3.1, a fit-scaled comparison-validity bound that must hold uniformly over all convex donor weights, and combines it with prespecified restrictions on the treatment effect and spillover vector (Assumptions 3.2-3.3). Proposition 3.1 gives the sharp identified set as a projection; Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 3.1 show that candidate compatibility is exactly equivalent to feasibility of a finite linear system, despite the continuum of weights. Section 4 builds candidatewise compatibility tests following Goff and Mbakop (2026) and states a uniform candidatewise coverage theorem under Assumptions 4.1-4.2. The LAWA application reports 95% inversion sets that contain zero and the original Bohn et al. decline across all reported L and rho specifications. Monte Carlo designs illustrate that interior weights can sharply narrow the population identified set when pre-treatment gaps cancel, while sampling uncertainty attenuates the gain.

Significance. The exact finite representation is a genuine conceptual advance: it reduces a continuum of donor-weight restrictions to finitely many rows plus box constraints, and the identified set is exactly the scalar projection of a polyhedron (Corollary 3.1). The proof of Lemma 3.1 via Sion's minimax theorem is clean and the equivalence is exact rather than approximate. The paper also shows good empirical discipline: the placebo calibration is explicitly descriptive, the inversion sets are reported as candidatewise, and the Monte Carlo isolates the geometric mechanism behind interior-weight restrictions. If Theorem 4.1 were accompanied by verifiable primitive conditions, the uniform candidatewise coverage guarantee would be a meaningful addition to inference for linear feasibility problems. The application's negative result is an honest illustration of how little can be learned under unknown interference.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Assumption 4.2(ii)] Assumption 4.2(ii) is a uniform feasibility error bound over all compatible systems, but no primitive sufficient conditions are given. The coefficient matrix A(Pi0) contains the donor pre-treatment gaps C_t(e_k); when those gaps are nearly collinear or some gap becomes very small, the Hoffman constant can diverge, so the uniform bound need not hold. This is not a remote pathology: the near-exact design in Section 6.1 is constructed so that the minimum average absolute pre-treatment discrepancy is 0.000201 and the full-simplex projection contracts by 86 percent, exactly the geometry in which A(Pi0) is ill-conditioned. The theorem therefore does not currently establish uniform coverage for the model family that the paper's own Monte Carlo treats as the interesting case. The authors should either provide verifiable primitive conditions (for example, a uniform lower bound on the relevant singular values, or an explicit finite Hoffman bound for the structured bridge system) or restrict the DGP class P_U accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.3, Assumption 4.2(iii) and Remark D.2] Assumption 4.2(iii) requires every nonzero population dual maximizer to have certificate variance at least c_Gamma, with a nearby extreme-point clause. The fixed zero-scale rows in the bridge representation (3.11) create recession directions of the dual feasible set; if the only multipliers that cancel the estimated rows pass through such fixed directions, the condition fails. The paper's Remark D.2 shows that a shifted rejection rule preserves size without part (iii), but the main theorem and the reported 95% inversion sets do not use that calibration. As written, a user cannot determine from the stated primitives whether (iii) holds; without it, the false-exclusion guarantee in Theorem 4.1 is not operational for the reported specifications.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Appendix C] The inversion set in (4.3) is defined over a continuum of candidates, but the implementation uses an adaptive grid and bisection, and Appendix C states that coverage applies only to candidates actually tested while interpolation is a numerical display. The reported endpoints and widths in Figure 3 are therefore not themselves covered by Theorem 4.1 unless every displayed candidate was actually tested. The paper should state precisely which grid points were tested, how interpolation between them is reconciled with the candidatewise guarantee, and whether the uniform coverage claim in (4.4) is for the tested set or for the displayed interval.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2] The use of T for a scalar post-treatment target while T0 denotes the last pre-treatment period is easy to misread; consider a notation such as t_post to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section 5.3 and Figure 3] The placebo benchmarks do not test Assumption 3.1; the text says this, but the figure placing L=1 below all three benchmarks could be misread as a falsification test. An explicit sentence that the zero floor and uniformity across the simplex are maintained, not calibrated, would help.
  3. [Table 2 and Appendix A] The table notes label 'Lower' and 'Upper' as rejection frequencies at compatible endpoints; consider defining 'false exclusion' explicitly in the notes, and state that the sign-aligned design is a worst-case geometry for interior-weight information in which the triangle inequality of Proposition D.1 binds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the identified set and finite representation are derived from explicit maintained assumptions, and the inference method is borrowed from an external, machine-checkable framework.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Assumption 3.1 is a substantive identifying restriction: it bounds each convex weight's latent no-policy post-treatment gap by a prespecified multiple of its pre-treatment fit. The identified set in Proposition 3.1 follows by constructing counterfactual no-policy means from a candidate treatment effect and spillover vector, not by assuming the result. Lemma 3.1 uses Sion's minimax theorem to replace the continuum of weight restrictions with finitely many vertex inequalities and bounded auxiliary certificates; this is a mathematical equivalence, not a restatement of the assumption. Theorem 3.1 then reduces candidate compatibility to feasibility of a finite linear system, and Corollary 3.1 follows from polyhedral projection. None of these steps defines X in terms of Y or fits a parameter and then calls a closely related quantity a prediction. The calibration of L via leave-one-period-out factor placebos is explicitly descriptive: the paper states that the indices 'neither estimate nor automatically bound' the latent threshold and 'do not enter test construction,' so no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction. The inference result borrows the normalized solvability statistic and bootstrap calibration from Goff and Mbakop (2026), an external reference rather than a self-citation, and Theorem 4.1 states explicit high-level regularity conditions (Assumption 4.2) rather than importing a uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work. The application's inversion sets are reported as conditional on the maintained donor pool, envelope, and admissible rule, and the paper refrains from claiming sign identification. Overall, the derivation chain is built from explicit assumptions and external inferential tools, with no step that reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on three substantive assumptions (3.1, 3.2, 3.3) plus high-level sampling and regularity conditions (4.1, 4.2). No new entities are postulated. L and rho are user-chosen sensitivity parameters, not fitted.

free parameters (2)
  • L (comparison validity envelope) = prespecified grid 1.00 to 3.00 in increments of 0.25
    Assumption 3.1 scales each donor weight's latent post-treatment gap to its pre-treatment fit. L is not estimated; it is a sensitivity parameter chosen by the researcher. The placebo indices benchmark but do not select L.
  • rho (gross spillover budget multiplier) = 1, 2, 4
    Equation (5.1) bounds total absolute comparison-unit responses by rho times Arizona's no-policy target population. Values are prespecified calibrations, not estimated; the main specification uses rho=2.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Potential outcomes with consistency and no anticipation (Section 2): observed means equal potential means under the realized assignment; no-policy means equal observed means before treatment.
    Standard causal panel framework; if violated (e.g., anticipation), the accounting identities and definitions of tau and s are not the objects of interest.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.1: full-simplex fit-scaled comparison validity holds for every convex donor weight w with a common envelope L and zero floor.
    The key identifying restriction; it converts pre-treatment fit into a bound on the latent post-treatment gap. It is maintained rather than tested, and the paper's sharp set is defined relative to it.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.2: the prespecified admissible rule Omega(Pi) is nonempty, closed, contains the true (tau,s), and exactly summarizes all additional restrictions.
    Needed for the projection result to be sharp; if Omega omits relevant restrictions or is misspecified, the identified set is not the true one.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.3: finite linear representation of Omega with common-shift loading g=A_tau + A_s 1 fixed across admissible Pi.
    Computational tractability condition; holds for the application's outcome-support and gross-budget rows. Not needed for the geometry of the identified set itself.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4.1: aggregate inputs admit a uniform Gaussian approximation with consistent bootstrap covariance.
    High-level sampling condition; Lemma C.1 gives primitive conditions for clustered weighted ratios, which the application's CPS bootstrap approximates.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4.2: regular candidate systems, including a uniform feasibility error bound (Hoffman-type) and certificate variance lower bound.
    Tailored regularity conditions for the Goff-Mbakop calibration to be uniform over the model-generated family; no primitive conditions are provided for part (ii), making Theorem 4.1 conditional on it.
  • standard math Sion's minimax theorem (used in Lemma 3.1) and Farkas' alternative (used in Section 4.1).
    Standard convex-analysis results; applied correctly in the proofs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning about Treatment Effects in Panels under Unknown Interference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RF4FJK3N

@misc{pith2026260813466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning about Treatment Effects in Panels under Unknown Interference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RF4FJK3N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13466}
}
read the original abstract

When comparison units may also respond to treatment, panel comparisons reflect both the treatment effect and spillovers. If the interference pattern is unknown, observed outcomes alone do not separate the two. I characterize what can nevertheless be learned from panel outcomes under general restrictions, without requiring an exposure mapping or prior classification of affected donors. The framework scales validity bounds for every convex donor weight by its fit before treatment and combines these bounds with prespecified restrictions tailored to the application. The validity bounds constrain the treatment effect relative to spillovers, while the additional restrictions determine its possible values. Together these restrictions yield a sharp identified set. When the additional restrictions have a finite linear representation, checking whether a proposed treatment effect is compatible with the model reduces exactly to asking whether a finite linear system has a solution. Bootstrap calibration tests this condition. Inverting these tests uniformly controls, in large samples, the probability of falsely excluding each compatible value. In an application to the Legal Arizona Workers Act, the resulting 95 percent inversion sets contain effects of both signs across all reported specifications, leaving the sign of the treatment effect unresolved.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13466 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison validity as inequalities scaled by pre-treatment fit. Each comparison weight replaces exact equality with a region whose width depends on that weight’s pre-treatment fit. The panels successively impose one, two, and many comparison restrictions. In every panel, blue denotes the intersection that satisfies all displayed restrictions, gray marks the boundaries of the individual restrictions, and the dashed … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Observed LAWA Outcome Paths in Arizona and the Donor Pool Notes: The outcome is the share of Hispanic noncitizens in the civilian noninstitutional population. The red line is Arizona, the thin gray lines are the 46 donor units, and the dashed blue line is their unweighted median across states. All shares use WTFINL. The gray band marks the omitted 2007 transition year; the blue band marks the 2008–2009 post-treatmen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Inversion of LAWA Compatibility Tests Across L and ρ Notes: Each pair of lines with the same style gives the numerically approximated lower and upper bound￾ary of the 95 percent inversion set for the indicated gross spillover budget. Coverage is candidatewise within each fixed (L, ρ) specification. The paths connect nine separately evaluated specifications with fixed L from 1 to 3 in increments of 0.25; they provide… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country

    Alberto Abadie and Javier Gardeazabal. The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country. American Economic Review, 93 0 (1): 0 113--132, 2003

    2003

  2. [2]

    Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California's tobacco control program

    Alberto Abadie, Alexis Diamond, and Jens Hainmueller. Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California's tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105 0 (490): 0 493--505, 2010

    2010

  3. [3]

    Comparative politics and the synthetic control method

    Alberto Abadie, Alexis Diamond, and Jens Hainmueller. Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. American Journal of Political Science, 59 0 (2): 0 495--510, 2015. doi:10.1111/ajps.12116

    doi:10.1111/ajps.12116 2015

  4. [4]

    Using synthetic controls: Feasibility, data requirements, and methodological aspects

    Alberto Abadie. Using synthetic controls: Feasibility, data requirements, and methodological aspects. Journal of Economic Literature, 59 0 (2): 0 391--425, 2021. doi:10.1257/jel.20191450

    doi:10.1257/jel.20191450 2021

  5. [5]

    David R. Agrawal. The tax gradient: Spatial aspects of fiscal competition. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7 0 (2): 0 1--29, 2015. doi:10.1257/pol.20120360

    work page doi:10.1257/pol.20120360 2015

  6. [6]

    Alexander and Michael R

    Diane E. Alexander and Michael R. Richards. Economic consequences of hospital closures. Journal of Public Economics, 221: 0 104821, 2023. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104821

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes and Fernando A. Lozano. Interstate mobility patterns of likely unauthorized immigrants: Evidence from Arizona. Journal of Economics, Race, and Policy, 2 0 (1--2): 0 109--120, 2019. doi:10.1007/s41996-018-0023-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s41996-018-0023-7 2019

  8. [8]

    Donald W. K. Andrews and Gustavo Soares. Inference for parameters defined by moment inequalities using generalized moment selection. Econometrica, 78 0 (1): 0 119--157, 2010

    2010

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Inference for linear conditional moment inequalities

    Isaiah Andrews, Jonathan Roth, and Ariel Pakes. Inference for linear conditional moment inequalities. Review of Economic Studies, 90 0 (6): 0 2763--2791, 2023. doi:10.1093/restud/rdad004

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Hirshberg, Guido W

    Dmitry Arkhangelsky, Susan Athey, David A. Hirshberg, Guido W. Imbens, and Stefan Wager. Synthetic difference-in-differences. American Economic Review, 111 0 (12): 0 4088--4118, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Aronow and Cyrus Samii

    Peter M. Aronow and Cyrus Samii. Estimating average causal effects under general interference, with application to a social network experiment. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 11 0 (4): 0 1912--1947, 2017. doi:10.1214/16-AOAS1005

    1912 doi

  4. [12]

    Panel data models with interactive fixed effects

    Jushan Bai. Panel data models with interactive fixed effects. Econometrica, 77 0 (4): 0 1229--1279, 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    Shaikh, Max Tabord-Meehan, and Alexander Torgovitsky

    Yuehao Bai, Kirill Ponomarev, Andres Santos, Azeem M. Shaikh, Max Tabord-Meehan, and Alexander Torgovitsky. Inference for linear systems with unknown coefficients, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24904

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chandrasekhar, Esther Duflo, and Matthew O

    Abhijit Banerjee, Arun G. Chandrasekhar, Esther Duflo, and Matthew O. Jackson. The diffusion of microfinance. Science, 341 0 (6144): 0 1236498, 2013. doi:10.1126/science.1236498

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    The augmented synthetic control method

    Eli Ben-Michael, Avi Feller, and Jesse Rothstein. The augmented synthetic control method. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 116 0 (536): 0 1789--1803, 2021. doi:10.1080/01621459.2021.1929245

    2021

  8. [16]

    Did the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act reduce the state's unauthorized immigrant population? Review of Economics and Statistics, 96 0 (2): 0 258--269, 2014

    Sarah Bohn, Magnus Lofstrom, and Steven Raphael. Did the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act reduce the state's unauthorized immigrant population? Review of Economics and Statistics, 96 0 (2): 0 258--269, 2014. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00429

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    Bugni, Ivan A

    Federico A. Bugni, Ivan A. Canay, and Xiaoxia Shi. Inference for subvectors and other functions of partially identified parameters in moment inequality models. Quantitative Economics, 8 0 (1): 0 1--38, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Difference-in-differences estimation with spatial spillovers

    Kyle Butts. Difference-in-differences estimation with spatial spillovers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03737, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Social networks and the decision to insure

    Jing Cai, Alain de Janvry, and Elisabeth Sadoulet. Social networks and the decision to insure. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7 0 (2): 0 81--108, 2015. doi:10.1257/app.20130442

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Brantly Callaway, Derek Dyal, Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna, and Emmanuel S. Tsyawo. Beyond parallel trends: An identification-strategy-robust approach to causal inference with panel data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21977, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Estimation and inference for synthetic control methods with spillover effects

    Jianfei Cao and Connor Dowd. Estimation and inference for synthetic control methods with spillover effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.07343, 2019

    1902

  14. [22]

    Identifying treatment and spillover effects with control-based and forecast-based counterfactuals

    Viviana Celli, Augusto Cerqua, and Guido Pellegrini. Identifying treatment and spillover effects with control-based and forecast-based counterfactuals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.20156, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20156

    2026 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Estimation and confidence regions for parameter sets in econometric models

    Victor Chernozhukov, Han Hong, and Elie Tamer. Estimation and confidence regions for parameter sets in econometric models. Econometrica, 75 0 (5): 0 1243--1284, 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    Victor Chernozhukov, Sokbae Lee, and Adam M. Rosen. Intersection bounds: Estimation and inference. Econometrica, 81 0 (2): 0 667--737, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    JoonHwan Cho and Thomas M. Russell. Simple inference on functionals of set-identified parameters defined by linear moments. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 42 0 (2): 0 563--578, 2024. doi:10.1080/07350015.2023.2203768

    2024

  18. [26]

    Testing inequalities linear in nuisance parameters, 2025

    Gregory Fletcher Cox, Xiaoxia Shi, and Yuya Shimizu. Testing inequalities linear in nuisance parameters, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.27633. arXiv:2510.27633

    2025

  19. [27]

    The inclusive synthetic control method

    Roberta Di Stefano and Giovanni Mellace. The inclusive synthetic control method. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17624, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The migration response to the Legal Arizona Workers Act

    Mark Ellis, Richard Wright, Matthew Townley, and Kristy Copeland. The migration response to the Legal Arizona Workers Act. Political Geography, 42: 0 46--56, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2014.06.001

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Inference on directionally differentiable functions

    Zheng Fang and Andres Santos. Inference on directionally differentiable functions. The Review of Economic Studies, 86 0 (1): 0 377--412, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Shaikh, and Alexander Torgovitsky

    Zheng Fang, Andres Santos, Azeem M. Shaikh, and Alexander Torgovitsky. Inference for large-scale linear systems with known coefficients. Econometrica, 91 0 (1): 0 299--327, 2023. doi:10.3982/ECTA18979

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Assessing the sensitivity of synthetic control treatment effect estimates to misspecification error

    Billy Ferguson and Brad Ross. Assessing the sensitivity of synthetic control treatment effect estimates to misspecification error. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15367, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.15367

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Synthetic controls with imperfect pretreatment fit

    Bruno Ferman and Cristine Pinto. Synthetic controls with imperfect pretreatment fit. Quantitative Economics, 12 0 (4): 0 1197--1221, 2021. doi:10.3982/QE1596

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Bayesian shrinkage priors for penalized synthetic control estimators in the presence of spillovers

    Esteban Fern \'a ndez-Morales, Arman Oganisian, and Youjin Lee. Bayesian shrinkage priors for penalized synthetic control estimators in the presence of spillovers. Biometrics, 82 0 (2): 0 ujag054, 2026. doi:10.1093/biomtc/ujag054

    2026 doi

  26. [34]

    Fischer, Heather Royer, and Corey D

    Stefanie J. Fischer, Heather Royer, and Corey D. White. Health care centralization: The health impacts of obstetric unit closures in the United States. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 16 0 (3): 0 113--141, 2024. doi:10.1257/app.20220341

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Robert Warren, Daniel Backman, Etienne Breton, Grace Cooper, Julia A

    Sarah Flood, Miriam King, Renae Rodgers, Steven Ruggles, J. Robert Warren, Daniel Backman, Etienne Breton, Grace Cooper, Julia A. Rivera Drew, Stephanie Richards, David Van Riper, and Kari C.W. Williams. IPUMS CPS: Version 13.0 [dataset]. IPUMS, Minneapolis, MN, 2025. doi:10.1...

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    Airoldi, and Fabrizia Mealli

    Laura Forastiere, Edoardo M. Airoldi, and Fabrizia Mealli. Identification and estimation of treatment and interference effects in observational studies on networks. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 116 0 (534): 0 901--918, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Simple subvector inference on sharp identified set in affine models

    Bulat Gafarov. Simple subvector inference on sharp identified set in affine models. Journal of Econometrics, 249 0 (PB): 0 105952, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2025.105952

    2025

  30. [38]

    Regional policy evaluation: Interactive fixed effects and synthetic controls

    Laurent Gobillon and Thierry Magnac. Regional policy evaluation: Interactive fixed effects and synthetic controls. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 98 0 (3): 0 535--551, 2016. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00537

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Testing the solvability of systems of linear inequalities, 2026

    Leonard Goff and Eric Mbakop. Testing the solvability of systems of linear inequalities, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06776. arXiv v3, May 8, 2026; previously circulated as ``Inference on the Value of a Linear Program''

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Identifying agglomeration spillovers: Evidence from winners and losers of large plant openings

    Michael Greenstone, Richard Hornbeck, and Enrico Moretti. Identifying agglomeration spillovers: Evidence from winners and losers of large plant openings. Journal of Political Economy, 118 0 (3): 0 536--598, 2010. doi:10.1086/653714

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Direct and spillover effects of a new tramway line on the commercial vitality of peripheral streets: a synthetic-control approach

    Giulio Grossi, Marco Mariani, Alessandra Mattei, Patrizia Lattarulo, and \"O zge \"O ner. Direct and spillover effects of a new tramway line on the commercial vitality of peripheral streets: a synthetic-control approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Stati...

    2025

  34. [42]

    Alan J. Hoffman. On approximate solutions of systems of linear inequalities. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 49 0 (4): 0 263--265, 1952

    1952

  35. [43]

    Hsu and Dylan S

    Jesse Y. Hsu and Dylan S. Small. Calibrating sensitivity analyses to observed covariates in observational studies. Biometrics, 69 0 (4): 0 803--811, 2013. doi:10.1111/biom.12101

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    Qi Huangfu and Julian A. J. Hall. Parallelizing the dual revised simplex method. Mathematical Programming Computation, 10 0 (1): 0 119--142, 2018. doi:10.1007/s12532-017-0130-5

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    A framework for separating individual-level treatment effects from spillover effects

    Martin Huber and Andreas Steinmayr. A framework for separating individual-level treatment effects from spillover effects. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 39 0 (2): 0 422--436, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Hudgens and M

    Michael G. Hudgens and M. Elizabeth Halloran. Toward causal inference with interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103 0 (482): 0 832--842, 2008. doi:10.1198/016214508000000292

    2008 doi

  39. [47]

    Hyndman and Yanan Fan

    Rob J. Hyndman and Yanan Fan. Sample quantiles in statistical packages. The American Statistician, 50 0 (4): 0 361--365, 1996. doi:10.1080/00031305.1996.10473566

    1996 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Imbens and Davide Viviano

    Guido W. Imbens and Davide Viviano. Identification and inference for synthetic controls with confounding, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00955

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Confidence intervals for projections of partially identified parameters

    Hiroaki Kaido, Francesca Molinari, and J \"o rg Stoye. Confidence intervals for projections of partially identified parameters. Econometrica, 87 0 (4): 0 1397--1432, 2019. doi:10.3982/ECTA14075

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    Michael R. Kosorok. Introduction to Empirical Processes and Semiparametric Inference. Springer, 2008

    2008

  43. [51]

    Unilateral climate policies can substantially reduce national carbon pollution

    Alice L \'e pissier and Matto Mildenberger. Unilateral climate policies can substantially reduce national carbon pollution. Climatic Change, 166 0 (3-4): 0 31, 2021. doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03111-2. URL https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03111-2

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    Michael P. Leung. Treatment and spillover effects under network interference. Review of Economics and Statistics, 102 0 (2): 0 368--380, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    Michael P. Leung. Causal inference under approximate neighborhood interference. Econometrica, 90 0 (1): 0 267--293, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Synthetic parallel trends

    Yiqi Liu. Synthetic parallel trends. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.05870, 2025

    2025

  47. [55]

    Charles F. Manski. Identification of treatment response with social interactions. The Econometrics Journal, 16 0 (1): 0 S1--S23, 2013. doi:10.1111/j.1368-423X.2012.00368.x

    2013 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Manski and John V

    Charles F. Manski and John V. Pepper. Monotone instrumental variables: With an application to the returns to schooling. Econometrica, 68 0 (4): 0 997--1010, 2000. ISSN 00129682, 14680262. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2999533

    2000

  49. [57]

    Manski and John V

    Charles F. Manski and John V. Pepper. How do right-to-carry laws affect crime rates? Coping with ambiguity using bounded-variation assumptions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 100 0 (2): 0 232--244, 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    Difference-in-differences in the presence of unknown interference

    Fabrizia Mealli and Javier Viviens. Difference-in-differences in the presence of unknown interference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21176, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21176

    2026 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Synthetic controls with spillover effects: A comparative study

    Andrii Melnychuk. Synthetic controls with spillover effects: A comparative study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01645, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Worms: Identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities

    Edward Miguel and Michael Kremer. Worms: Identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities. Econometrica, 72 0 (1): 0 159--217, 2004. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00481.x

    2004

  53. [61]

    Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny

    Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny. Do state work eligibility verification laws reduce unauthorized immigration? IZA Journal of Migration, 5 0 (1): 0 5, 2016. doi:10.1186/s40176-016-0053-3

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    Gilligan-Lee

    Michael O'Riordan and Ciar \'a n M. Gilligan-Lee. Spillover detection for donor selection in synthetic control models. Journal of Causal Inference, 13 0 (1): 0 20240036, 2025. doi:10.1515/jci-2024-0036

    2025 doi

  55. [63]

    Imperfect synthetic controls

    David Powell. Imperfect synthetic controls. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 41 0 (3): 0 253--264, 2026. doi:10.1002/jae.70035

    2026 doi

  56. [64]

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2024. doi:10.32614/R.manuals

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    A more credible approach to parallel trends

    Ashesh Rambachan and Jonathan Roth. A more credible approach to parallel trends. Review of Economic Studies, 90 0 (5): 0 2555--2591, 2023

    2023

  58. [66]

    Romano and Azeem M

    Joseph P. Romano and Azeem M. Shaikh. Inference for the identified set in partially identified econometric models. Econometrica, 78 0 (1): 0 169--211, 2010

    2010

  59. [67]

    Romano, Azeem M

    Joseph P. Romano, Azeem M. Shaikh, and Michael Wolf. A practical two-step method for testing moment inequalities. Econometrica, 82 0 (5): 0 1979--2002, 2014

    1979

  60. [68]

    Adam M. Rosen. Confidence sets for partially identified parameters that satisfy a finite number of moment inequalities. Journal of Econometrics, 146 0 (1): 0 107--117, 2008

    2008

  61. [69]

    Identification and Bayesian inference for synthetic control methods with spillover effects

    Shosei Sakaguchi and Hayato Tagawa. Identification and Bayesian inference for synthetic control methods with spillover effects. The Econometrics Journal, art. utag006, 2026. doi:10.1093/ectj/utag006

    2026 doi

  62. [70]

    Aronow, and Michael G

    Fredrik S \"a vje, Peter M. Aronow, and Michael G. Hudgens. Average treatment effects in the presence of unknown interference. The Annals of Statistics, 49 0 (2): 0 673--701, 2021. doi:10.1214/20-AOS1973

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    Causal inference with misspecified exposure mappings: Separating definitions and assumptions

    Fredrik S \"a vje. Causal inference with misspecified exposure mappings: Separating definitions and assumptions. Biometrika, 111 0 (1): 0 1--15, 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    Causal inference on networks under misspecified exposure mappings: A partial identification framework, 2026

    Maresa Schr \"o der, Miruna Oprescu, Stefan Feuerriegel, and Nathan Kallus. Causal inference on networks under misspecified exposure mappings: A partial identification framework, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.03459

    2026

  65. [73]

    On general minimax theorems

    Maurice Sion. On general minimax theorems. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 8 0 (1): 0 171--176, 1958. doi:10.2140/pjm.1958.8.171

    1958 doi

  66. [74]

    Michael E. Sobel. What do randomized studies of housing mobility demonstrate? Causal inference in the face of interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101 0 (476): 0 1398--1407, 2006. doi:10.1198/016214506000000636

    2006 doi

  67. [75]

    The existence of probability measures with given marginals

    Volker Strassen. The existence of probability measures with given marginals. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 36 0 (2): 0 423--439, 1965. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177700153

    1965

  68. [76]

    Census Bureau, Population Division

    U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Intercensal estimates of the resident population by single year of age and sex for states and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010. ST-EST00INT-AGESEX, October 2012. URL https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/datase...

  69. [77]

    Census Bureau and U.S

    U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current Population Survey: Design and Methodology. Technical Paper 63, March 2000. URL https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/methodology/tp63.pdf

    2000

  70. [78]

    van der Vaart

    Aad W. van der Vaart. Asymptotic Statistics. Cambridge University Press, 1998

    1998

  71. [79]

    van der Vaart and Jon A

    Aad W. van der Vaart and Jon A. Wellner. Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: With Applications to Statistics. Springer, 1996

    1996

  72. [80]

    Identification and estimation of spillover effects in randomized experiments

    Gonzalo V \'a zquez-Bare. Identification and estimation of spillover effects in randomized experiments. Journal of Econometrics, 237 0 (1): 0 105237, 2023. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2021.10.014

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python

    Pauli Virtanen et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17 0 (3): 0 261--272, 2020. doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  74. [82]

    Difference-in-differences with interference

    Ruonan Xu. Difference-in-differences with interference. Journal of Econometrics, 257: 0 106304, 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2026.106304

    2026

  75. [83]

    Generalized synthetic control method: Causal inference with interactive fixed effects models

    Yiqing Xu. Generalized synthetic control method: Causal inference with interactive fixed effects models. Political Analysis, 25 0 (1): 0 57--76, 2017. doi:10.1017/pan.2016.2

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.