Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Double Machine Learning meets Panel Data -- Promises, Pitfalls, and Potential Solutions

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.01266 v1 pith:U4TAMYFR submitted 2024-09-02 econ.EM cs.LGstat.MEstat.ML

Double Machine Learning meets Panel Data -- Promises, Pitfalls, and Potential Solutions

classification econ.EM cs.LGstat.MEstat.ML
keywords dataheterogeneityunobservedlearningmachinemethodsobservedpanel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Estimating causal effect using machine learning (ML) algorithms can help to relax functional form assumptions if used within appropriate frameworks. However, most of these frameworks assume settings with cross-sectional data, whereas researchers often have access to panel data, which in traditional methods helps to deal with unobserved heterogeneity between units. In this paper, we explore how we can adapt double/debiased machine learning (DML) (Chernozhukov et al., 2018) for panel data in the presence of unobserved heterogeneity. This adaptation is challenging because DML's cross-fitting procedure assumes independent data and the unobserved heterogeneity is not necessarily additively separable in settings with nonlinear observed confounding. We assess the performance of several intuitively appealing estimators in a variety of simulations. While we find violations of the cross-fitting assumptions to be largely inconsequential for the accuracy of the effect estimates, many of the considered methods fail to adequately account for the presence of unobserved heterogeneity. However, we find that using predictive models based on the correlated random effects approach (Mundlak, 1978) within DML leads to accurate coefficient estimates across settings, given a sample size that is large relative to the number of observed confounders. We also show that the influence of the unobserved heterogeneity on the observed confounders plays a significant role for the performance of most alternative methods.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Analytical and Bootstrap Confidence Intervals of Double Machine Learning: Simulation studies and an application to rural-urban difference in obesity prevalence

    stat.ML 2026-07 conditional novelty 3.0

    DML confidence-interval coverage is highly sensitive to the nuisance learner, with rates from 0% to 100% across simulations, and bootstrap intervals do not consistently fix under-coverage.