Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

Causal Inference for Spatial Treatments

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-24 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An experimental perspective on spatial treatments recommends comparing units near realized locations to those near counterfactual candidate locations.

desk verdict Pollmann gives a design-based route for spatial treatments by matching realized sites to counterfactual candidate locations, plus a usable DML extension; the observational step is the main place to check assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2011.00373 v3 submitted 2020-10-31 econ.EM stat.ME

Michael Pollmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.EMstat.ME
keywords causalinferencespatialtreatmentsdesign-basedmachinelearningtreatmenteffectsobservationaldatalocal
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

The paper starts from the question of what ideal experiment would identify the causal effects of treatments at specific spatial points. This leads to a method that matches units near actual treatment sites with units near similar but unrealized candidate sites. The resulting estimates come with design-based standard errors that are easy to calculate. Machine learning helps select the candidate locations from observational data when treatment assignment depends on observables. An application to grocery stores shows positive effects on nearby foot traffic only at short distances during shelter-in-place orders.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the use of counterfactual candidate locations to form a comparison group for units near actual treatment sites.

What would settle it

If estimates of the treatment effect differ significantly when counterfactual locations are chosen differently or when potential outcomes influence selection, the validity of the observational case would be questioned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By framing spatial treatment estimation as the comparison of realized treatment locations against counterfactual candidate locations, the approach identifies local causal effects and provides a way to handle spatial correlations in inference, including an extension of double machine learning to this design-based setting.

Load-bearing premise

Observable characteristics rather than potential outcomes determine which candidate locations receive treatment, enabling machine learning to identify suitable counterfactuals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Design-based standard errors become straightforward to compute.
  • Machine learning methods can select counterfactual locations in observational settings.
  • The framework accommodates high-dimensional data through an extended double machine learning result.
  • Effects can be estimated at varying distances from the treatment location.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Existing spatial studies might need re-examination using candidate location comparisons.
  • The method could extend to non-economic spatial phenomena like environmental impacts.
  • It suggests prioritizing data collection on potential treatment sites even if not chosen.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a design-based framework for causal inference with spatial treatments. It motivates estimating effects by comparing units near realized treatment locations to units near counterfactual (unrealized) candidate locations, which the author argues differs from current practice. The paper derives design-based standard errors, proposes machine learning to select counterfactual locations under selection on observables for observational data, extends a double machine learning result to accommodate spatial correlations in the design-based setting, and applies the approach to estimate the effect of grocery stores on nearby business foot traffic during COVID-19 shelter-in-place policies, reporting a large positive effect at very short distances and no effect at larger distances.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work offers a coherent experimental-design perspective on spatial treatments that could shift empirical practice away from standard distance-based regressions. The design-based standard errors and the extension of double ML to spatial correlations are concrete methodological contributions that address a common inference challenge. The application provides a timely empirical illustration in a policy setting.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (observational case): The claim that machine learning methods can identify counterfactual candidate locations when treatment probabilities are determined by observable characteristics (rather than potential outcomes) is central to the observational extension, but the manuscript does not provide a formal identification argument or simulation evidence showing that the ML step recovers the relevant counterfactual distribution under the stated selection-on-observables assumption; this weakens the link between the design-based motivation and the proposed estimator.
  2. [Theory section] Theory section on the double ML extension: The extension of the double ML result to the design-based framework with spatial correlations is load-bearing for the reported standard errors, yet the paper does not state the precise rate conditions or the form of the spatial dependence (e.g., mixing coefficients or bandwidth) under which the asymptotic normality result continues to hold; without these, it is unclear whether the extension is valid for the spatial setting described.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract and introduction should include a brief comparison table or explicit contrast with the most common existing spatial-treatment estimators (e.g., those using distance to nearest treated unit) to make the claimed departure from current practice more concrete.
  2. [Application section] In the application, the distance bins and the exact ML implementation (features, cross-fitting folds, etc.) should be reported in a table or appendix to allow replication of the short-distance effect finding.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested clarifications and additions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (observational case): The claim that machine learning methods can identify counterfactual candidate locations when treatment probabilities are determined by observable characteristics (rather than potential outcomes) is central to the observational extension, but the manuscript does not provide a formal identification argument or simulation evidence showing that the ML step recovers the relevant counterfactual distribution under the stated selection-on-observables assumption; this weakens the link between the design-based motivation and the proposed estimator.

    Authors: We agree that a formal identification argument and simulation evidence would strengthen the observational extension. Under the selection-on-observables assumption, treatment assignment depends solely on observables, so the ML procedure for selecting counterfactual locations with similar observable characteristics recovers the relevant counterfactual distribution. In the revision, we will add a proposition in Section 4 formally deriving this identification result and include Monte Carlo simulations demonstrating that the ML step recovers the counterfactual distribution when the assumption holds. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Theory section] Theory section on the double ML extension: The extension of the double ML result to the design-based framework with spatial correlations is load-bearing for the reported standard errors, yet the paper does not state the precise rate conditions or the form of the spatial dependence (e.g., mixing coefficients or bandwidth) under which the asymptotic normality result continues to hold; without these, it is unclear whether the extension is valid for the spatial setting described.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the precise rate conditions and form of spatial dependence were not fully specified. The extension adapts double ML to allow spatial dependence in the scores while preserving asymptotic normality, but the manuscript does not detail the required mixing coefficients, bandwidth, or convergence rates. In the revised version, we will add explicit assumptions on the spatial dependence process (e.g., alpha-mixing with sufficient decay) and the adapted rate conditions on the nuisance estimators to ensure the result holds in the spatial design-based setting. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper motivates a design-based framework for spatial treatments by comparing realized and counterfactual locations, derives standard errors directly from that design, and extends double ML to accommodate spatial correlations under selection on observables. These steps are presented as independent methodological contributions without any reduction of predictions to fitted parameters by construction, without load-bearing self-citations that substitute for external verification, and without ansatzes or uniqueness claims imported from prior author work. The central claims remain self-contained against the stated experimental-design motivation and observable-selection assumption.

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

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that observables determine treatment probabilities for the ML step, plus standard design-based inference assumptions; no free parameters or invented entities are described.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Observable characteristics, rather than potential outcomes, determine treatment probabilities
    Explicitly invoked in the abstract for the observational data case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Causal Inference for Spatial Treatments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2011.00373

@misc{pith2026201100373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Causal Inference for Spatial Treatments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2011.00373}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2011.00373}
}
read the original abstract

Many events and policies (treatments) occur at specific spatial locations, with researchers interested in their effects on nearby units. I approach the spatial treatment setting from an experimental perspective: What ideal experiment would we design to estimate the causal effects of spatial treatments? This perspective motivates a comparison between units near realized treatment locations and units near counterfactual (unrealized) candidate locations, which differs from current empirical practice. I derive design-based standard errors that are straightforward to compute. For observational data, I propose machine learning methods to find counterfactual candidate locations when observable characteristics, rather than potential outcomes, determine treatment probabilities. To accommodate methods for high-dimensional data in the theory, I extend a double machine learning result to the design-based framework with spatial correlations. I apply the proposed methods to study the causal effects of grocery stores on foot traffic to nearby businesses during COVID-19 shelter-in-place policies, finding a large positive effect at very short distances, with no effect at larger distances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2011.00373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the setup. While typically only relative locations matter, locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The figures show regions with individuals (small circles) and candidate treatment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The estimands 𝜏 (𝑑) and 𝜏 𝐴𝑇 𝑇 −𝑒𝑞(𝑑) can be substantially different. Panel a shows the decay of average treatment effects over distance for two regions with solid lines. The dashed line shows the estimand 𝜏 (𝑑), which weights by the relative number of individuals at distance 𝑑, as given in panel b. The dot-dashed line shows the estimand 𝜏 𝐴𝑇 𝑇 −𝑒𝑞(𝑑), which weights the regions equally if both receive treatment with… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure illustrates the difference between leaving the parametric treatment effect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Existing estimators focus only on regions that received treatment. In this figure, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of a region with three candidate treatment locations (panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Convolutions in a neural network allow the prediction of a candidate location in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The sample includes businesses in the San Francisco Bay Area between San [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The comparison of businesses on an inner vs. outer ring around a particular grocery. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Panel (a) shows an example of a grocery store (triangle in the center) with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The inner vs. outer ring comparison differences the average outcome at a given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: To estimate the effect of the bottom treatment location (orange triangle) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The neighborhoods of each grocery store are placed in a fine grid ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The propensity score model can still distinguish between some of the false positives / [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Only businesses 0.15 – 0.175 miles away from a real grocery store location have an additional grocery store between 0.15 and 0.175 miles from them. 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Distance from potential grocery store location in miles Share of Busine…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The composition of businesses near real and counterfactual grocery store locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Weighted mean of inverse hyperbolic sine of visits for businesses near real grocery [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p060_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A Design-Based Approach to Testing and Inference in (Quasi-)Experiments with Spillovers

    econ.EM 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A correctly specified exposure map implies design-side orthogonality conditions, so the exposure radius can be estimated by GMM and tested by overidentification — rejecting the 2 km radius in the GiveDirectly experiment.

  2. Deep Causal Inference for Point-referenced Spatial Data with Continuous Treatments

    cs.LG 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Neural-network spatial regression with an approximate Gaussian process estimates direct, indirect, and total causal effects for continuous treatments under spatial interference and unobserved confounding, and outperfo...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 130 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Athey, G

    Abadie, A., S. Athey, G. W. Imbens, and J. M. Wooldridge (2017). When should you adjust standard errors for clustering? NBER Working Paper Series\/ (24003)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Athey, G

    Abadie, A., S. Athey, G. W. Imbens, and J. M. Wooldridge (2020). Sampling-based vs. design-based uncertainty in regression analysis. Econometrica\/ 88\/ (1), 265--296

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Diamond, and J

    Abadie, A., A. Diamond, and J. Hainmueller (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of california’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American statistical Association\/ 105\/ (490), 493--505

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Abadie, A. and G. W. Imbens (2011). Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics\/ 29\/ (1), 1--11

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Koles \'a r, and E

    Adao, R., M. Koles \'a r, and E. Morales (2019). Shift-share designs: Theory and inference. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 134\/ (4), 1949--2010

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Aliprantis, D. and D. Hartley (2015). Blowing it up and knocking it down: The local and city-wide effects of demolishing high concentration public housing on crime. Journal of Urban Economics\/ 88 , 67--81

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Andrews, D. W. K. (2005). Cross-section regression with common shocks. Econometrica\/ 73\/ (5), 1551--1585

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Angrist, J. D., G. W. Imbens, and D. B. Rubin (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American statistical Association\/ 91\/ (434), 444--455

    work page 1996

Show all 130 references
  1. [9]

    Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models . Studies in Operational Regional Science. Springer

    1988

  2. [10]

    Anselin, L., R. J. G. M. Florax, and S. J. Rey (2004). Advances in Spatial Econometrics: Methodology, Tools and Applications . New Directions in Spatial Econometrics. Springer

    2004

  3. [11]

    Anselin, L. and S. J. Rey (2010). Perspectives on Spatial Data Analysis . Advances in Spatial Science. Springer

    2010

  4. [12]

    Arbia, G. (2014). A Primer for Spatial Econometrics . Palgrave Texts in Econometrics. Palgrave MacMillan

    2014

  5. [13]

    Arjovsky, M. and L. Bottou (2017). Towards principled methods for training generative adversarial networks. arXiv\/ (1701.04862)

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chintala, and L

    Arjovsky, M., S. Chintala, and L. Bottou (2017). Wasserstein gan. arXiv\/ (1701.07875)

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Aronow, P. M. and C. Samii (2017). Estimating average causal effects under general interference, with application to a social network experiment. The Annals of Applied Statistics\/ 11\/ (4), 1912--1947

    2017

  8. [16]

    Aronow, P. M., C. Samii, and Y. Wang (2020). Design-based inference for spatial experiments with interference. arXiv\/ (2010.13599)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Athey, S. (2018). The Impact of Machine Learning on Economics , Chapter 21, pp.\ 507--547. University of Chicago Press

    2018

  10. [18]

    Athey, S., D. Blei, R. Donnelly, F. Ruiz, and T. Schmidt (2018). Estimating heterogeneous consumer preferences for restaurants and travel time using mobile location data. AEA Papers and Proceedings\/ 108 , 64--67

    2018

  11. [19]

    Eckles, and G

    Athey, S., D. Eckles, and G. W. Imbens (2018). Exact p-values for network interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 113\/ (521), 230--240

    2018

  12. [20]

    Ferguson, M

    Athey, S., B. Ferguson, M. Gentzkow, and T. Schmidt (2019). Experienced segregation. Stanford University Working Paper\/

    2019

  13. [21]

    Athey, S. and G. W. Imbens (2019). Machine learning methods that economists should know about. Annual Review of Economics\/ 11 , 685--725

    2019

  14. [22]

    Athey, S., G. W. Imbens, J. Metzger, and E. M. Munro (2019). Using wasserstein generative adversarial networks for the design of monte carlo simulations. NBER Working Paper Series\/ (26566)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Athey, S., G. W. Imbens, and S. Wager (2018). Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)\/ 80\/ (4), 597--623

    2018

  16. [24]

    Autor, D. H., D. Dorn, and G. H. Hanson (2013). The china syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the united states. American Economic Review\/ 103\/ (6), 2121--68

    2013

  17. [25]

    Shaikh, and J

    Bai, Y., A. Shaikh, and J. P. Romano (2019). Inference in experiments with matched pairs. University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper\/ (2019-63)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Diamond, G

    Barrios, T., R. Diamond, G. W. Imbens, and M. Koles \'a r (2012). Clustering, spatial correlations, and randomization inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 107\/ (498), 578--591

    2012

  19. [27]

    Bartik, T. J. (1991). Who benefits from state and local economic development policies? WE Upjohn Institute for Employment Research\/

    1991

  20. [28]

    Feller, and P

    Basse, G., A. Feller, and P. Toulis (2019). Randomization tests of causal effects under interference. Biometrika\/ 106\/ (2), 487--494

    2019

  21. [29]

    Bayer, P., S. L. Ross, and G. Topa (2008). Place of work and place of residence: Informal hiring networks and labor market outcomes. Journal of political Economy\/ 116\/ (6), 1150--1196

    2008

  22. [30]

    Bellemare, M. F. and C. J. Wichman (2020). Elasticities and the inverse hyperbolic sine transformation. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics\/ 82\/ (1), 50--61

    2020

  23. [31]

    Chernozhukov, I

    Belloni, A., V. Chernozhukov, I. Fern \'a ndez-Val, and C. Hansen (2017). Program evaluation and causal inference with high-dimensional data. Econometrica\/ 85\/ (1), 233--298

    2017

  24. [32]

    Chernozhukov, and C

    Belloni, A., V. Chernozhukov, and C. Hansen (2014). Inference on treatment effects after selection among high-dimensional controls. The Review of Economic Studies\/ 81\/ (2), 608--650

    2014

  25. [33]

    Bester, C. A., T. G. Conley, and C. B. Hansen (2011). Inference with dependent data using cluster covariance estimators. Journal of Econometrics\/ 165\/ (2), 137--151

    2011

  26. [34]

    Bilal, A. (2019). The geography of unemployment. Job Market Paper\/

    2019

  27. [35]

    Borusyak, K. and P. Hull (2020). Non-random exposure to exogenous shocks: Theory and applications. NBER Working Paper\/ (27845)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Hull, and X

    Borusyak, K., P. Hull, and X. Jaravel (2019). Quasi-experimental shift-share research designs. working paper\/

    2019

  29. [37]

    DiNardo, and J

    Busso, M., J. DiNardo, and J. McCrary (2014). New evidence on the finite sample properties of propensity score reweighting and matching estimators. Review of Economics and Statistics\/ 96\/ (5), 885--897

    2014

  30. [38]

    Cameron, A. C. and D. L. Miller (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources\/ 50\/ (2), 317--372

    2015

  31. [39]

    Case, A. C. (1991). Spatial patterns in household demand. Econometrica\/ 59\/ (4), 953--965

    1991

  32. [40]

    Hansen, J

    Chalfin, A., B. Hansen, J. Lerner, and L. Parker (2019). Reducing crime through environmental design: Evidence from a randomized experiment of street lighting in new york city. NBER Working Paper Series\/ (25798)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Chetverikov, M

    Chernozhukov, V., D. Chetverikov, M. Demirer, E. Duflo, C. Hansen, W. Newey, and J. Robins (2018, 01). Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. The Econometrics Journal\/ 21\/ (1), C1--C68

    2018

  34. [42]

    Chetty, R. and N. Hendren (2018). The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility i: Childhood exposure effects. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 133\/ (3), 1107--1162

    2018

  35. [43]

    Hendren, P

    Chetty, R., N. Hendren, P. Kline, and E. Saez (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? the geography of intergenerational mobility in the united states. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 129\/ (4), 1553--1623

    2014

  36. [44]

    Cohen, J. and P. Dupas (2010). Free distribution or cost-sharing? evidence from a randomized malaria prevention experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 125\/ (1), 1--45

    2010

  37. [45]

    Conley, T. G. (1999). Gmm estimation with cross sectional dependence. Journal of Econometrics\/ 92\/ (1), 1--45

    1999

  38. [46]

    Cressie, N. and C. K. Wikle (2011). Statistics for Spatio-Temporal Data . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley

    2011

  39. [47]

    Cressie, N. A. C. (1993). Statistics for Spatial Data\/ (Rev. ed. ed.). Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Wiley

    1993

  40. [48]

    Davis, M

    Currie, J., L. Davis, M. Greenstone, and R. Walker (2015). Environmental health risks and housing values: evidence from 1,600 toxic plant openings and closings. American Economic Review\/ 105\/ (2), 678--709

    2015

  41. [49]

    Delgado, M. S. and R. J. G. M. Florax (2015). Difference-in-differences techniques for spatial data: Local autocorrelation and spatial interaction. Economics Letters\/ 137 , 123--126

    2015

  42. [50]

    Dell, M. and B. A. Olken (2020). The development effects of the extractive colonial economy: The dutch cultivation system in java. The Review of Economic Studies\/ 87\/ (1), 164--203

    2020

  43. [51]

    Diamond, R. and T. McQuade (2019). Who wants affordable housing in their backyard? an equilibrium analysis of low-income property development. Journal of Political Economy\/ 127\/ (3), 1063--1117

    2019

  44. [52]

    Donald, S. G. and K. Lang (2007). Inference with difference-in-differences and other panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics\/ 89\/ (2), 221--233

    2007

  45. [53]

    Donaldson, D. and A. Storeygard (2016). The view from above: Applications of satellite data in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives\/ 30\/ (4), 171--98

    2016

  46. [54]

    Druckenmiller, H. and S. Hsiang (2019). Accounting for unobservable heterogeneity in cross section using spatial first differences. NBER Working Paper Series\/ (25177)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Duflo, E. (2001). Schooling and labor market consequences of school construction in indonesia: Evidence from an unusual policy experiment. American Economic Review\/ 91\/ (4), 795--813

    2001

  48. [56]

    Hersh, and D

    Engstrom, R., J. Hersh, and D. Newhouse (2017). Poverty from space: using high-resolution satellite imagery for estimating economic well-being

    2017

  49. [57]

    Farrell, M. H. (2015). Robust inference on average treatment effects with possibly more covariates than observations. Journal of Econometrics\/ 189\/ (1), 1--23

    2015

  50. [58]

    Mansur, and B

    Feyrer, J., E. Mansur, and B. Sacerdote (2020, June). Geographic dispersion of economic shocks: Evidence from the fracking revolution: Reply. American Economic Review\/ 110\/ (6), 1914--1920

    2020

  51. [59]

    Feyrer, J., E. T. Mansur, and B. Sacerdote (2017, April). Geographic dispersion of economic shocks: Evidence from the fracking revolution. American Economic Review\/ 107\/ (4), 1313--1334

    2017

  52. [60]

    Gentzkow, and H

    Finkelstein, A., M. Gentzkow, and H. Williams (2016). Sources of geographic variation in health care: Evidence from patient migration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 131\/ (4), 1681--1726

    2016

  53. [61]

    Gentzkow, and H

    Finkelstein, A., M. Gentzkow, and H. Williams (2019). Place-based drivers of mortality: Evidence from migration. NBER Working Paper Series\/ (25975)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Hansen, and J

    Freyaldenhoven, S., C. Hansen, and J. M. Shapiro (2019). Pre-event trends in the panel event-study design. American Economic Review\/ 109\/ (9), 3307--38

    2019

  55. [63]

    Fr \"o lich, M. (2004a). Finite-sample properties of propensity-score matching and weighting estimators. Review of Economics and Statistics\/ 86\/ (1), 77--90

  56. [64]

    Fr \"o lich, M. (2004b). A note on the role of the propensity score for estimating average treatment effects. Econometric Reviews\/ 23\/ (2), 167--174

  57. [65]

    Kelly, and M

    Gentzkow, M., B. Kelly, and M. Taddy (2019). Text as data. Journal of Economic Literature\/ 57\/ (3), 535--74

    2019

  58. [66]

    Glaeser, E. L., S. D. Kominers, M. Luca, and N. Naik (2018). Big data and big cities: The promises and limitations of improved measures of urban life. Economic Inquiry\/ 56\/ (1), 114--137

    2018

  59. [67]

    Sorkin, and H

    Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., I. Sorkin, and H. Swift (2020). Bartik instruments: What, when, why, and how. American Economic Review\/ 110\/ (8), 2586--2624

    2020

  60. [68]

    Pouget-Abadie, M

    Goodfellow, I., J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio (2014). Generative adversarial nets. In Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, and K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing System...

    2014

  61. [69]

    Greene, W. (2009). Discrete Choice Modeling , pp.\ 473--556. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK

    2009

  62. [70]

    Hornbeck, and E

    Greenstone, M., R. Hornbeck, and E. Moretti (2010). Identifying agglomeration spillovers: Evidence from winners and losers of large plant openings. Journal of Political Economy\/ 118\/ (3), 536--598

    2010

  63. [71]

    Greenstone, M. and E. Moretti (2003). Bidding for industrial plants: Does winning a 'million dollar plant' increase welfare? NBER Working Paper Series\/ (9844)

    2003

  64. [72]

    Van Nieuwerburgh, and C

    Gupta, A., S. Van Nieuwerburgh, and C. E. Kontokosta (2020). Take the q train: Value capture of public infrastructure projects. NBER Working Paper Series\/ (26789)

    2020

  65. [73]

    Hahn, J. (1998). On the role of the propensity score in efficient semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects. Econometrica\/ 66\/ (2), 315--331

    1998

  66. [74]

    Hansen, C. B. (2007). Generalized least squares inference in panel and multilevel models with serial correlation and fixed effects. Journal of Econometrics\/ 140\/ (2), 670--694

    2007

  67. [75]

    Hastie, T. J., R. J. Tibshirani, and J. H. Friedman (2001). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference and Prediction . Springer Series in Statistics. Springer

    2001

  68. [76]

    Hinton, G. E., A. Krizhevsky, and S. D. Wang (2011). Transforming auto-encoders. International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks\/ , 44--51

    2011

  69. [77]

    Hirano, K., G. W. Imbens, and G. Ridder (2003). Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica\/ 71\/ (4), 1161--1189

    2003

  70. [78]

    Hoff, P. D., A. E. Raftery, and M. S. Handcock (2002). Latent space approaches to social network analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 97\/ (460), 1090--1098

    2002

  71. [79]

    Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. The Economic Journal\/ 39\/ (153), 41--57

    1929

  72. [80]

    Hudgens, M. G. and M. E. Halloran (2008). Toward causal inference with interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 103\/ (482), 832--842

    2008

  73. [81]

    Lyall, Y

    Imai, K., J. Lyall, Y. Shiraito, and X. Yang (2018). Estimating spatial treatment effects: An application to base closures and aid delivery in afghanistan. AidData Working Paper\/ (62)

    2018

  74. [82]

    Imbens, G. W. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. The Review of Economics and statistics\/ 86\/ (1), 4--29

    2004

  75. [83]

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

    2015

  76. [84]

    Simonyan, A

    Jaderberg, M., K. Simonyan, A. Zisserman, et al. (2015). Spatial transformer networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems\/ , 2017--2025

    2015

  77. [85]

    James, A. G. and B. Smith (2020, June). Geographic dispersion of economic shocks: Evidence from the fracking revolution: Comment. American Economic Review\/ 110\/ (6), 1905--1913

    2020

  78. [86]

    Burke, M

    Jean, N., M. Burke, M. Xie, W. M. Davis, D. B. Lobell, and S. Ermon (2016). Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict poverty. Science\/ 353\/ (6301), 790--794

    2016

  79. [87]

    Jia, P. (2008). What happens when wal-mart comes to town: An empirical analysis of the discount retailing industry. Econometrica\/ 76\/ (6), 1263--1316

    2008

  80. [88]

    Manresa, and G

    Kaji, T., E. Manresa, and G. Pouliot (2020). An adversarial approach to structural estimation. arXiv\/ (2007.06169)

    2020

  81. [89]

    Keiser, D. A. and J. S. Shapiro (2019). Consequences of the clean water act and the demand for water quality. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 134\/ (1), 349--396

    2019

  82. [90]

    Kelejian, H. H. and I. R. Prucha (2007). Hac estimation in a spatial framework. Journal of Econometrics\/ 140\/ (1), 131--154

    2007

  83. [91]

    Mogstad, G

    Kellogg, M., M. Mogstad, G. Pouliot, and A. Torgovitsky (2020). Combining matching and synthetic controls to trade off biases from extrapolation and interpolation. NBER Working Paper Series\/ (26624)

    2020

  84. [92]

    Kelly, M. (2019). The standard errors of persistence

    2019

  85. [93]

    Sutskever, and G

    Krizhevsky, A., I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton (2012). Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In F. Pereira, C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, and K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25 , pp.\ 1097--1105. Curran Associ...

    2012

  86. [94]

    Kuersteiner, G. M. and I. R. Prucha (2020). Dynamic spatial panel models: Networks, common shocks, and sequential exogeneity. Econometrica\/

    2020

  87. [95]

    Lahiri, S. N., Y. Lee, and N. Cressie (2002). On asymptotic distribution and asymptotic efficiency of least squares estimators of spatial variogram parameters. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference\/ 103\/ (1--2), 65--85

    2002

  88. [96]

    Lahiri, S. N. and P. M. Robinson (2016). Central limit theorems for long range dependent spatial linear processes. Bernoulli\/ 22\/ (1), 345--375

    2016

  89. [97]

    Lee, L.-f. (2004). Asymptotic distributions of quasi-maximum likelihood estimators for spatial autoregressive models. Econometrica\/ 72\/ (6), 1899--1925

    2004

  90. [98]

    Lee, Y. and E. L. Ogburn (2020). Network dependence can lead to spurious associations and invalid inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/

    2020

  91. [99]

    LeSage, J. P. and R. K. Pace (2004). Spatial and Spatiotemporal Econometrics , Volume 18 of Advances in Econometrics . Emerald Group Publishing Limited

    2004

  92. [100]

    Liang, T. (2018). On how well generative adversarial networks learn densities: Nonparametric and parametric results. arXiv\/ (1811.03179)

    2018

  93. [101]

    Linden, L. and J. E. Rockoff (2008). Estimates of the impact of crime risk on property values from Megan's laws. American Economic Review\/ 98\/ (3), 1103--1127

    2008

  94. [102]

    Manski, C. F. and J. V. Pepper (2018). How do right-to-carry laws affect crime rates? coping with ambiguity using bounded-variation assumptions. Review of Economics and Statistics\/ 100\/ (2), 232--244

    2018

  95. [103]

    McIntosh, C. (2008). Estimating treatment effects from spatial policy experiments: an application to ugandan microfinance. The Review of Economics and Statistics\/ 90\/ (1), 15--28

    2008

  96. [104]

    Miguel, E. and M. Kremer (2004). Worms: identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities. Econometrica\/ 72\/ (1), 159--217

    2004

  97. [105]

    Moulton, B. R. (1986). Random group effects and the precision of regression estimates. Journal of Econometrics\/ 32\/ (3), 385--397

    1986

  98. [106]

    Moulton, B. R. (1990). An illustration of a pitfall in estimating the effects of aggregate variables on micro units. The Review of Economics and Statistics\/ , 334--338

    1990

  99. [107]

    Moulton, B. R. and W. C. Randolph (1989). Alternative tests of the error components model. Econometrica\/ 57\/ (3), 685--693

    1989

  100. [108]

    Mullainathan, S. and J. Spiess (2017). Machine learning: an applied econometric approach. Journal of Economic Perspectives\/ 31\/ (2), 87--106

    2017

  101. [109]

    Muñoz, I. D. and M. van der Laan (2012). Population intervention causal effects based on stochastic interventions. Biometrics\/ 68\/ (2), 541--549

    2012

  102. [110]

    Neyman, J. (1923). On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. essay on principles. section 9. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych Tom X\/ , 1--51. [in Polish]

    1923

  103. [111]

    Neyman, J. (1990). On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. essay on principles. section 9. Statistical Science\/ 5\/ (4), 465--472. [translated by D. M. Dabrowska and T. P. Speed]

    1990

  104. [112]

    Papadogeorgou, G., K. Imai, J. Lyall, and F. Li (2020). Causal inference with spatio-temporal data: Estimating the effects of airstrikes on insurgent violence in iraq. arXiv\/ (2003.13555)

    2020

  105. [113]

    Pouliot, G. A. (2018). Spatial econometrics for misaligned data

    2018

  106. [114]

    Rambachan, A. and J. Roth (2019). An honest approach to parallel trends. job market paper\/

    2019

  107. [115]

    Robins, J. M. and A. Rotnitzky (1995). Semiparametric efficiency in multivariate regression models with missing data. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 90\/ (429), 122--129

    1995

  108. [116]

    Robinson, P. M. (1988). Root-n-consistent semiparametric regression. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society\/ 56\/ (4), 931--954

    1988

  109. [117]

    Rosenbaum, P. R. (2007). Interference between units in randomized experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 102\/ (477), 191--200

    2007

  110. [118]

    Rosenbaum, P. R. and D. B. Rubin (1983, 04). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika\/ 70\/ (1), 41--55

    1983

  111. [119]

    Schnell, H

    Rossin-Slater, M., M. Schnell, H. Schwandt, S. Trejo, and L. Uniat (2019). Local exposure to school shootings and youth antidepressant use. NBER Working Paper Series\/ (26563)

    2019

  112. [120]

    Determining point-of-interest visits from location data: A technical guide to visit attribution

    Safegraph (2019). Determining point-of-interest visits from location data: A technical guide to visit attribution

    2019

  113. [121]

    Sandler, D. H. (2017). Externalities of public housing: The effect of public housing demolitions on local crime. Regional Science and Urban Economics\/ 62 , 24--35

    2017

  114. [122]

    S \"a vje, F. (2019). Causal inference with misspecified exposure mappings

    2019

  115. [123]

    S \"a vje, F., P. M. Aronow, and M. G. Hudgens (2017). Average treatment effects in the presence of unknown interference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.06399\/

    2017

  116. [124]

    Uppal, B

    Singh, S., A. Uppal, B. Li, C.-L. Li, M. Zaheer, and B. P \'o czos (2018). Nonparametric density estimation under adversarial losses. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems\/ , 10225--10236

    2018

  117. [125]

    Stock, J. H. (1989). Nonparametric policy analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 84\/ (406), 567--575

    1989

  118. [126]

    Stock, J. H. (1991). Nonparametric policy analysis: an application to estimating hazardous waste cleanup benefits. Nonparametric and Semiparametric Methods in Econometrics and Statistics\/ , 77--98

    1991

  119. [127]

    Tchetgen Tchetgen , E. J. and T. J. VanderWeele (2012). On causal inference in the presence of interference. Statistical methods in medical research\/ 21\/ (1), 55--75

    2012

  120. [128]

    Vazquez-Bare, G. (2017). Identification and estimation of spillover effects in randomized experiments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.02745\/

    2017

  121. [129]

    Larochelle, Y

    Vincent, P., H. Larochelle, Y. Bengio, and P.-A. Manzagol (2008). Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders. Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning\/ , 1096--1103

    2008

  122. [130]

    Zigler, C. M. and G. Papadogeorgou (2018). Bipartite causal inference with interference. arXiv\/ (1807.08660)

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed May 24, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.