The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 97 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 29 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Synthetic Difference-in-Differences
Open accessAbstract
We present a new estimator for causal effects with panel data that builds on insights behind the widely used difference-in-differences and synthetic control methods. Relative to these methods we find, both theoretically and empirically, that this “synthetic difference-in-differences” estimator has desirable robustness properties, and that it performs well in settings where the conventional estimators are commonly used in practice. We study the asymptotic behavior of the estimator when the systematic part of the outcome model includes latent unit factors interacted with latent time factors, and we present conditions for consistency and asymptotic normality. (JEL C23, H25, H71, I18, L66)
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper proposes synthetic difference-in-differences (SDID), a panel-data causal estimator that combines unit and time weights with two-way fixed effects, and establishes consistency and asymptotic normality under a latent-factor model. In applications and placebo studies, SDID is competitive with or dominates DID and SC in bias and RMSE, with near-nominal inference in large panels.
Key findings
- In the California Proposition 99 application, SDID estimates the effect on per-capita cigarette sales at −15.6 (SE 8.4), compared with SC −19.6 (9.9), DID −27.3 (17.7), MC −20.2 (11.5), and DIFP −11.1 (9.5); SDID’s standard error is smaller than DID’s despite the added flexibility.
- In CPS placebo simulations, baseline RMSE/bias are SDID 0.028/0.010, SC 0.037/0.020, DID 0.049/0.021, MC 0.035/0.015, and DIFP 0.032/0.007; when the interactive component is dropped, DID performs best, and when fixed effects are dropped, SC performs best.
- In Penn World Table simulations with democracy-based assignment, RMSE/bias are SDID 0.031/−0.005, SC 0.038/−0.004, DID 0.197/0.175, MC 0.058/0.043, and DIFP 0.039/−0.007; education-based assignment shows a similar pattern.
- For nominal 95% intervals in the baseline CPS setting, bootstrap coverage is SDID 0.96, SC 0.93, DID 0.89; jackknife SDID coverage is 0.93, and placebo SDID coverage is 0.95. The paper proves asymptotic normality and shows the jackknife is conservative in general and exact under a stated condition.
Methods
- SDID estimates treatment effects via a weighted two-way fixed-effects regression, with unit weights chosen to align pre-exposure trends and time weights chosen to balance pre- and post-exposure periods for control units; regularization is used for unit weights.
- The California application uses 39 states from 1970–2000, with T_pre = 19, T_post = 12, N_co = 38, and N_tr = 1. Simulations use CPS data (N = 50, T = 40, 1000 replications) and Penn World Table data (N = 111, T = 48, 1000 replications) under a latent-factor outcome model.
- Formal results derive consistency and asymptotic normality under Assumptions 1–4; inference is studied via clustered bootstrap, jackknife, and placebo variance estimators.
Limitations
- The paper states that unequal weighting may worsen precision relative to DID if there is little systematic heterogeneity by units or time periods; identification requires no unexplained confounding, and the assumption that one oracle regression generalizes to exposed rows or columns has no clear testable implications.
- The paper states that placebo inference relies on homoskedasticity across units, that the jackknife is not defined when N_tr = 1, and that bootstrap/jackknife methods are designed for large panels with many treated units; assumptions also require limited serial correlation and stable unit factors through treatment periods.
- Evident from the text: the simulations are calibrated to CPS and Penn World Table settings and specific assignment models, so external validity is limited; the California application has N_tr = 1, so only placebo inference is available there.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
63 Own interpretation · 62 No basis given · 31 Own result · 20 Not checked yet · 6 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and likewise is competitive with (or dominates) SC in applications where SC methods have been used in the past.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Empirically, we find that our method is competitive with (or dominates) DID in applications where DID methods have been used in the past”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As with the CPS dataset, the two-way fixed effects explain most of the variation; however, the interactive component plays a larger role in determining outcomes for this dataset than for the CPS data.”
plaincorrelationaln = 111- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As with the CPS dataset, the two-way fixed effects explain most of the variation; however, the interactive component plays a larger role in determining outcomes for this dataset than for the CPS data.”
plaincorrelationaln = 111- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the errors from SDID are nearly centered.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In practice the α i and M i that we construct predict a sizable part of variation in D i , with R 2 varying from 15% to 30%.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When assignment is not uniformly random, the distribution of the DID errors is visibly off-center, showing the bias of the estimator.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, SDID is nearly unbiased, which is important for constructing confidence intervals with accurate coverage rates.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case with Σ = σ 2 I T × T , i.e., without any cross-observation correlations, we note that Var [ ε (˜ ω, ˜ λ ) ] = σ 2 ( N -1 tr + ‖ ˜ ω ‖ 2 2 ) ( T -1 post + ‖ ˜ λ ‖ 2 2 ) .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As discussed in Abadie, Diamond, and Hainmueller [2010], the SC weights ˆ ω sc are sparse.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Abadie, Diamond, and Hainmueller [2010]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 42
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Theoretically, we establish consistency and asymptotic normality of our estimator.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The conditional expectation of the error matrix E given the assignment matrix W and the systematic component L is zero.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The treatment assignment cannot depend on E.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The treatment assignment may depend on the systematic component L; W is not randomized.
- The authors state this as an assumption: E_i is independent of E_i' for each pair of units i, i'.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The systematic component L follows a latent factor model with latent unit factors γ_i and latent time factors υ_t.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Estimate | -15.6 | -19.6 | -27.3 | -20.2 | -11.1 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The other methods, our proposed SDID, the DIFP and the MC estimator are all smaller than the DID estimator with the SDID and DIFP estimator substantially smaller than the SC estimator.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Next, and perhaps surprisingly, we see that the standard errors obtained for SDID (and also for SCIFP, and MC) are smaller than those for DID, despite our method being more flexible.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, as demonstrated in the application and simulations based on real data, these unit fixed effects often explain much of the variation in outcomes and can improve precision.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Estimate | -15.6 | -19.6 | -27.3 | -20.2 | -11.1 |”
- Also stated in: § Data: Y , W · p. 8 · plain
“| Standard error | (8.4) | (9.9) | (17.7) | (11.5) | (9.5) |”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Data: Y , W · p. 8 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“where we consider various strategies for inference based on SDID and show that they attain good coverage here.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, when treatment assignment is uniformly random, both estimators are centered but the errors of DID are more spread out.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that when the treatment assignment is uniformly random, all methods are essentially unbiased, but SDID is more precise.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Baseline | 0.992 | 0.100 | 0.098 | (.01,-.06) | 0.028 | 0.037 | 0.049 | 0.035 | 0.032 | 0.010 | 0.020 | 0.021 | 0.015 | 0.007 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SDID weights ˆ ω sdid are also sparse-but less so.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, we note that Figure 2 shows that the error distribution of SDID is nearly unbiased and Gaussian in both designs”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At a high level, these results mirror the ones above: SDID again performs well in terms of both bias and root-mean squared error and across all simulation settings dominates the other estimators.”
plainn = 111- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Observe that both DID and SC have some very high influence states, that is, states with large absolute values of ˆ ω i ( ˆ δ tr -ˆ δ i ) ( e.g. , in both cases, New Hampshire). In contrast, SDID does not give any state particularly high influence”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, we find that the jackknife is in general conservative and is exact when treated and control units are similar enough that time weights that fit the control units generalize to the treated units.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while both placebo and jackknife variance estimates also deliver results that are close to the nominal 95% level.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“our results require no explicit limit on the rank of L and allow for L to have to have positive singular values that are arbitrarily close to zero”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bai [2009]
- Not checked yetcites Moon and Weidner [2015, 2017]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lemma 8. For any real matrix A and appropriately shaped vectors ˜ x and b , min x α 2 ‖ Ax -b ‖ 2 + β 2 ‖ x -˜ x ‖ 2 = α 2 ‖ S 1 / 2 ( A ˜ x -b ) ‖ 2 for S = I -A ( A ′ A +( β/α ) 2 I ) -1 A ′ . If β = 0 , the same holds for S = I -A ( A ′ A ) † A .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“recall that the data in Section 3.1 was generated with noise that is both Gaussian and homoskedastic across units”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the cross terms between ̂ ∆ i ( L ) -ˆ µ tr ( L ) and ̂ ∆ i ( ε ) -ˆ µ tr ( ε ) in (11.6) are mean-zero and concentrate out, and so”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By Assumption (5.3), this bound is o P (( N tr T post ) -1 ) and therefore negligible relative to V τ .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this condensed form, rows ε i · are independent gaussian vectors with mean zero and covariance matrix Σ for i ≤ N 0 and N -1 tr Σ for i = N .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Rows of ε are independent and subgaussian, and for i ≤ N0 they are identically distributed with linear post-on-pretreatment autoregression function E[ε_iT | ε_i:] = ε_i:ψ and covariance Σ = E ε'_i· ε_i·, with Σ_N the covariance matrix of ε_N·.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And this characterization of ε i : ψ as a least squares projection implies that ε i : ψ -ε iT and ε i : are uncorrelated and, being jointly normal, therefore independent.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We'll now show that the first term in (11.4) is o p (( N tr T post ) -1 ), so (11.4) is equivalent to a variant in which we have dropped its first term.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In practice, this equality holds only approximately, in which case including the unit fixed effects in the weighted regression will remove some of the remaining bias.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Like DID, our method is invariant to additive unit-level shifts, and allows for valid large-panel inference.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relative to these methods we find, both theoretically and empirically, that this 'synthetic difference in differences' estimator has desirable robustness properties”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The argument for including time weights in the SDID estimator is the same as the argument for including the unit weights presented earlier: The time weight can both remove bias and improve precision by eliminating the role of time periods that are very different from the post-treatment periods.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but when autocorrelation is present, shinkage toward ψ reduces the variance of the SDID estimator-and enables us to gain precision over the basic DID estimator (1.2) even when the two-way fixed effects model is correctly specified.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One can verify that the basic DID estimator is of the form (4.3), with constant weights ω tr = 1 /N tr , etc.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When we move to our asymptotic analysis below, we work under assumptions that make this oracle noise term dominant relative to the other error terms in (4.8).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the oracle confounding bias will be small either when the pre-exposure oracle row regression fits well and generalizes to the exposed rows, i.e., ˜ ω 0 +˜ ω ⊤ co L co , pre ≈ ˜ ω ⊤ tr L tr , pre and ˜ ω 0 + ˜ ω ⊤ co L co , post ≈ ˜ ω ⊤ tr L tr , post , or when the unexposed oracle column regression fits well and generalizes to the exposed columns, ˜ λ 0 + L co , pre ˜ λ pre ≈ L co , post ˜”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, these assumption are aligned with standard practice in the literature”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The error of the synthetic difference in differences estimator can now be decomposed as follows,”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To this end, we consider two carefully crafted simulation studies, calibrated to datasets representative of those typically used for panel data studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, pre-intervention trends are obviously not parallel, so the DID estimate should be considered suspect.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Allowing for interactions in L is a natural way to generalize the fixed-effects specification and discuss inference in settings where DID is misspecified [Bai, 2009, Moon and Weidner, 2015, 2017].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bai, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Moon and Weidner, 2015, 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“From this perspective, Bertrand et al. [2004] correctly argue that the error distribution of DID is centered, and that the error scale can accurately be recovered using appropriate robust estimators.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bertrand et al. [2004]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The estimator shares this invariance property with DID (but not SC).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“opening the door to a simple asymptotic characterization of the error distribution of ˆ τ sdid .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“for example, we can assess the claim that we balance all components of Γ by examining the extent to which the method succeeds in balancing preintervention periods.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and is in line with the empirical practice of preferring SC over DID in settings of this type.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“suggesting that after weighting, we have achieved the desired 'parallel trends' as illustrated in the top panel of Figure 1 without inducing excessive variance in the estimator by using concentrated weights.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, accounting for correlation over time within observations of the same unit is widely considered to be an important ingredient to credible inference using panel data [Angrist and Pischke, 2008, Bertrand, Duflo, and Mullainathan, 2004].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Angrist and Pischke, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Bertrand, Duflo, and Mullainathan, 2004
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Their main finding was that only methods that were robust to serial correlation of repeated observations for a given unit ( e.g., methods that clustered observations by unit) attained valid coverage.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bertrand et al. [2004]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As is well known [Ashenfelter and Card, 1985], DID relies on the assumption that cigarette sales in different states would have evolved in a parallel way absent the intervention.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ashenfelter and Card, 1985
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not only do we base the outcome model of our simulation study on real datasets, we further ensure that the treatment assignment process is realistic by seeking to emulate the distribution of real policy initiatives.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this setting, we show that one can still conduct valid inference, as long as N and T are large enough and the size of the treatment block is small.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The number of treated units is small relative to the number of control units.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“homoskedasticity is used in the proof essentially only to simplify notation and allow the use of concentration inequalities which have been proven in the homoskedastic case but can be generalized.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As our assumptions imply the conclusions of Lemma 4 and Corollary 7, and those two results imply the conclusions of Theorem 3, this concludes our proof.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As argued in Bertrand, Duflo, and Mullainathan [2004], unit-level bootstrapping presents a natural approach to inference with panel data when repeated observations of the same unit may be correlated with each other.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bertrand, Duflo, and Mullainathan [2004]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To address this issue we next consider an approach to inference that is more closely tailored to the SDID method and only involves running the full SDID algorithm once, thus dramatically decreasing the computational burden.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Algorithm 4 can also be seen as an adaptation of the method of Conley and Taber [2011] for inference in DID models with few treated units and assuming homoskedasticity”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Conley and Taber [2011]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We do not report jackknife coverage rates for SC because, as discussed in the text, the variance estimator is not well justified in this case.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“with a linear model m ( · ), ˆ τ sdid and ˆ τ asc are very similar. In fact, had we fit ˆ ω sdid without intercept, they would be equivalent for ˆ m ( · ) fit by least squares on the controls, imposing the constraint that its coefficients are nonnegative and to sum to one”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ben-Michael, Feller, and Rothstein [2018]
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which were assumptions that are both heavily used by the placebo estimator.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in our model, stationarity would imply that a simple pre-post comparison for exposed units would be an unbiased estimator of τ and, as a result, the only purpose of the unexposed units would be to help improve efficiency.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Li and Bell [2017]
- Not checked yetcites Chernozhukov, Wuthrich, and Zhu [2018]
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the paper's model, L is deterministic and the errors E may be non-stationary.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it's likely that a similar result would also hold without homoskedasticity”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such a placebo test is closely connected to permutation tests in randomization inference”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, an analogue to Algorithm 3 for SC would be severely biased upwards, and would not be exact even in the well-specified fixed effects model.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under appropriate conditions, the estimator is asymptotically normal and zero-centered”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the jackknife is not even defined when N tr = 1.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We do not report jackknife and bootstrap coverage rates for N tr = 1 because the estimators are not well-defined.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our approach uses past data not only to check whether the trends are parallel, but also to construct the weights to make them parallel.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, many applications of synthetic controls have N tr = 1, e.g., the California smoking application from Section 2.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the first term is nonnegative, our variance estimate is asymptotically either unbiased or upwardly biased, so our confidence intervals are conservative as claimed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The conditional expectation of the error matrix E given the assignment matrix W and the systematic component L is zero.
“We assume that the conditional expectation of the error matrix E given the assignment matrix W and the systematic component L is zero.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The treatment assignment cannot depend on E.
“That is, the treatment assignment cannot depend on E .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The treatment assignment may depend on the systematic component L; W is not randomized.
“However, the treatment assignment may in general depend on the systematic component L ( i.e. , we do not take W to be randomized).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
E_i is independent of E_i' for each pair of units i, i'.
“We assume that E i is independent of E i ′ for each pair of units i, i ′ , but we allow for correlation across time periods within a unit.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
D_i is independent of E_i, i.e., the assignment is strictly exogenous.
“In particular, the distribution of D i may depend on α i and M i ; however, D i is independent of E i , i.e., the assignment is strictly exogenous.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The systematic component L follows a latent factor model with latent unit factors γ_i and latent time factors υ_t.
“Here, we work with the following latent factor model (also referred to as an 'interactive fixed-effects model', Xu [2017], see also Athey et al. [2017]),”
“where γ i is a vector of latent unit factors of dimension R , and υ t is a vector of latent time factors of dimension R .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The data generating process follows a generalization of the latent factor model (3.2).
“For the remainder of the paper, we assume that the data generating process follows a generalization of the latent factor model (3.2),”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Treatment assignment is block assignment: W_it = 1({i > N_co, t > T_pre}).
“As above, we assume block assignment W it = 1( { i > N co , t > T pre } ),”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The errors E_i. are homoskedastic across units (but not across time), i.e., Var[E_i.] = Σ for all units i.
“Throughout our analysis, we will assume that the errors E i. are homoskedastic across units (but not across time), i.e. , that Var [ E i. ] = Σ ∈ R T × T for all units i = 1 , . . . , n .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Assumption 1: The rows E_i of the noise matrix are independent and identically distributed Gaussian vectors and the eigenvalues of its covariance matrix Σ are bounded and bounded away from zero.
“Assumption 1. (Properties of Errors) The rows E i of the noise matrix are independent and identically distributed Gaussian vectors and the eigenvalues of its covariance matrix Σ are bounded and bounded away from zero.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Assumption 3: L cannot have too many large singular values, and the √min(T_pre, N_co)th singular value of L_co,pre is sufficiently small.
“Assumption 3. (Properties of L ) Letting σ 1 ( Γ ) , σ 2 ( Γ ) , . . . denote the singular values of the matrix Γ in decreasing order and R the largest integer less than √ min( T pre , N co ) ,”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Assumption 4: The oracle unit weights, oracle time weights, and their joint behavior satisfy specified properties that allow them to cancel out L via weighted double-differencing.
“Assumption 4. (Properties of Weights and L ) The oracle unit weights ˜ ω satisfy”
The authors state this as an assumption.
One of the oracle regressions generalizes to exposed rows or columns; this is an identification assumption without clear testable implications.
“the assumption that one of these regressions generalizes to exposed rows or columns is an identification assumption without clear testable implications.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is no unexplained confounding: any exceptional behavior of the exposed observations, whether due to exposure or not, can be ascribed to the treatment.
“It is essentially an assumption of no unexplained confounding: any exceptional behavior of the exposed observations, whether due to exposure or not, can be ascribed to it.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Γ is stable over time, particularly through the treatment periods.
“furthermore, Γ should be stable over time, particularly through the treatment periods.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There were no other shocks disproportionately affecting the treatment units at the time of the treatment.
“Historical context may be needed to justify the assumption that that there were no other shocks disproportionately affecting the treatment units at the time of the treatment.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Homoskedasticity across units is effectively a necessary assumption for inference to be possible in the placebo approach.
“and so homoskedasticity across units is effectively a necessary assumption in order for inference to be possible here.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The data in Section 3.1 was generated with noise that is both Gaussian and homoskedastic across units, assumptions heavily used by the placebo estimator.
“recall that the data in Section 3.1 was generated with noise that is both Gaussian and homoskedastic across units-which were assumptions that are both heavily used by the placebo estimator.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In Theorem 1, the errors are homoskedastic.
“In Theorem 1, we also assumed homoskedasticity.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The number of treated units is small relative to the number of control units.
“the assumption that the number of treated units is small relative to the number of control units”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the paper's model, L is deterministic and the errors E may be non-stationary.
“L is taken as deterministic and the errors E may be non-stationary.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
We observe Y_it = L_it + 1(i=N,t=T)τ + ε_it for deterministic τ ∈ R and L ∈ R^{N×T} and random ε ∈ R^{N×T}, and define N0 = N - 1 and T = T0 - 1.
“Assumption 5 (Model) . We observe Y it = L it +1( i = N,t = T ) τ + ε it for deterministic τ ∈ R and L ∈ R N × T and random ε ∈ R N × T . And we define N 0 = N -1 and T = T 0 -1 .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The rows ε_i· of the noise matrix are independent gaussian vectors with mean zero and covariance matrix Σ for i ≤ N0 and N1^{-1}Σ for i = N, where the eigenvalues of Σ:: are bounded and bounded away from zero; N1 > 0 can be arbitrary and T1 = 1/Var[ε_i:ψ - ε_iT] and ψ = arg min_v E(ε_i:v - ε_iT)^2.
“Assumption 6 (Properties of Errors) . The rows ε i · of the noise matrix are independent gaussian vectors with mean zero and covariance matrix Σ for i ≤ N 0 and N -1 1 Σ for i = N where the eigenvalues of Σ :: are bounded and bounded away from zero. Here N 1 > 0 can be arbitrary and we define T 1 = 1 / Var[ ε i : ψ -ε iT ] and ψ = arg min v ∈ R T 0 E ( ε i : v -ε iT ) 2 .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
We consider a sequence of problems where T0/N0 is bounded and bounded away from zero, T1 and N1 are bounded away from zero, and N0/(N1 T1 max(N1,T1) log^2(N0)) → ∞.
“Assumption 7 (Sample Sizes) . We consider a sequence of problems where T 0 /N 0 is bounded and bounded away from zero, T 1 and N 1 are bounded away from zero, and N 0 / ( N 1 T 1 max( N 1 , T 1 ) log 2 ( N 0 )) → ∞ .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
For the largest integer K ≤ √min(T0,N0), the properties of L stated in Assumption 8 hold.
“Assumption 8 (Properties of L ) . For the largest integer K ≤ √ min( T 0 , N 0 ) ,”
The authors state this as an assumption.
We use weights as in (9.3) for ζ ≫ (N1 T1)^{1/4} log^{1/2}(N0) and the oracle weights satisfy the stated conditions.
“Assumption 9 (Properties of Oracle Weights) . We use weights as in (9.3) for ζ ≫ ( N 1 T 1 ) 1 / 4 log 1 / 2 ( N 0 ) and the oracle weights satisfy”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Rows of ε are independent and subgaussian, and for i ≤ N0 they are identically distributed with linear post-on-pretreatment autoregression function E[ε_iT | ε_i:] = ε_i:ψ and covariance Σ = E ε'_i· ε_i·, with Σ_N the covariance matrix of ε_N·.
“We assume that rows of ε are independent and subgaussian and that for i ≤ N 0 they are identically distributed with linear post-on-pretreatment autoregression function E[ ε iT | ε i : ] = ε i : ψ and covariance Σ = E ε ′ i · ε i · and let Σ N be the covariance matrix of ε N · .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Throughout the proof of Theorem 2, treatment effects are constant: τ_ij = τ.
“Throughout this proof, we will assume constant treatment effects τ ij = τ .”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no cross-unit correlation.
“given that there is no cross-unit correlation”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recent work has begun to try to combine insights from the two literatures (e.g., Arkhangelsky, Athey, Hirshberg, Imbens and Wager, 2021; Ben-Michael, Feller and Rothstein, 2021, 2022; Doudchenko and Imbens, 2016).”
From What's trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature (2023) · cites this paper as Arkhangelsky, Athey, Hirshberg, Imbens and Wager, 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 9.3 Theorem 1 in Condensed Form · p. 50
“And we define N 0 = N -1 and T = T 0 -1 .”
§ 9.1 Abstract Setting · p. 48
“We will use analogous notation for the parts of L and ε and let N 0 = N -1 and T 0 = T -1.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 5 Large-Sample Inference · p. 30
“The first three columns show coverage of confidence intervals obtained via the Placebo method. The second set of columns show coverage from the jackknife method. The last set of columns show coverage from the clustered bootstrap.”
§ 5 Large-Sample Inference · p. 30
“| | Bootstrap | Bootstrap | Bootstrap | Jackknife | Jackknife | Jackknife | Placebo | Placebo | Placebo |”
Citations
Cites
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife
Efron, B. (1979) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552 · Cited by 17,602
How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355304772839588 · Cited by 10,641
Hainmueller, J. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr025 · Cited by 6,026
Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746 · Cited by 5,513
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 · Cited by 5,051
Two-Way Fixed Effects Estimators with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects
de Chaisemartin, C., & D’Haultfœuille, X. (2020) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20181169 · Cited by 5,031
The Next Generation of the Penn World Table
Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R., & Timmer, M. P. (2015) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20130954 · Cited by 4,936
The economic costs of conflict: a case study of the Basque Country
Abadie, A., & Gardeazabal, J. (2003) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282803321455188 · Cited by 4,517
Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction
Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (2015) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139025751 · Cited by 4,210
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Amjad Muhammad, 2018, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 19, 1
- Arkhangelsky, Dmitry, Susan Athey, David A. Hirshberg, Guido W. Imbens, and Stefan Wager. 2021. "Replication Data for: Synthetic Difference-in-Differences." American Economic Association [publisher], Inter-university Consortium for Social and Political Research [distributor]. https://doi. org/10.3886/E146381V1. · DOI
- Athey Susan, 2021, Journal of the American Statistical Association 116. https://doi.org/10., 1080, 2021
- Athey Susan, 2021, Journal of Econometrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jeconom., 2020, 10 · DOI
- Callaway Brantly, 2020, Journal of Econometrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom., 2020, 12 · DOI
- Kallus Nathan, 2020, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21, 1
- Miller Rupert G, 1974, Biometrika, 61, 1
- Orzechowski, & Walker. 2005. The Tax Burden on Tobacco. Historical Compilation, Vol. 40, Arlington, VA: Orzechowski & Walker.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–1,000 of 1,001
Uhr, D. D. A. P., Cordeiro, M. J. L., & Uhr, J. G. Z. (2024) · EconomiA · doi:10.1108/econ-11-2023-0182
How Do Political Connections of Firms Matter During an Economic Crisis?Preprint
Chiplunkar, G., Sekhri, S., Chen, Y., et al. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4731718
Tradeoff between Entrepreneurship and Fertility: Evidence from China’s Nationwide Two-Child PolicyPreprint
Hsu, P., Lee, S. K., & Oh, S. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4731094
Patent Protection and Innovative EntrepreneurshipPreprint
Ananyev, M., Lamberova, N., & Lamberova, N. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4739142
Synthetic IV Estimation in PanelsPreprint
Vives-i-Bastida, J., & Gulek, A. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4716511
The Long-Run Stock Market Performance of Mergers and AcquisitionsPreprint
Chava, S., & Reguly, Á. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4742401
Active labor market policies in Bolivia: Impact of the Employment Support Program II
Campos, N., & Urquidi, M. (2024) · doi:10.18235/0012861 · Cited by 1
Decoding Sectoral Dynamics: Unveiling the Heterogeneous Effects of EarthquakesPreprint
Masi, T., & Ladu, M. G. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4767933
Spatial Synthetic Difference-in-DifferencesPreprint
Serenini, R., & Masek, F. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4736857
Dionne, G., Fenou, A., & Mnasri, M. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4742602
Information Technology and Road SafetyPreprint
Sabatino, L., & Caramma, G. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4735393
Closing the Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Gap: Expanding Nurse Practitioners' Prescriptive AuthorityPreprint
Gui, L. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4774188
The Effects of Labor Cost Increases on Retail: Evidence from 52 Local Minimum Wage HikesPreprint
Knight, S., & Bart, Y. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4746546
Translating health economics research into public health action: Towards an economy of wellbeing
(2024) · Frontiers research topics · doi:10.3389/978-2-8325-4747-2
International Board Reforms and Earnings Opacity: An Empirical Assessment of Economic ChannelsPreprint
Silva, F. B. G., & Zhao, L. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4750508
Caruso, M. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4792864
The Impact of Corporate Governance Reforms on Distribution Inequality: Micro Evidence from JapanPreprint
Tajima, J. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4764191
How Refugee Shock Affects Europe’s Imports from China: Evidence from European Refugee CrisisPreprint
Rui, S., & Feng, G. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4777865
Does Starting a Division III College Football Program Benefit the Institution?Preprint
McCannon, B. C. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4771465
Competition and PrivacyPreprint
Wang, Y. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4766344
Do Reemployment Bonuses Increase Employment? Evidence from the Idaho Return to Work Bonus ProgramPreprint
Hobbs, D., & Strain, M. R. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4800261
Liu, L. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4787055
Motivating Runners in Real Time: A Field ExperimentPreprint
Kim, D., Son, Y., Khern-am-nuai, W., & Cohen, M. C. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4778848
Do Research Universities Recession Proof Their Regions? Evidence from State Flagship College TownsPreprint
Jump, R. C., & Scavette, A. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4812119
Fiscal Spillovers Through Informal Financial ChannelsPreprint
Kennedy, A. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4815658
Mandatory Carbon Disclosures and the Transition of Corporate Production TechnologiesPreprint
Chen, J., Hsieh, P.-F., & Hsu, P. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4821100
Economic disintegration: Brexit, Non-tariff Measures, and UK TradePreprint
Du, J., & Shepotylo, O. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4342508/v1
Impact of Breaking the Language Barrier on School Education − Evidence from West Bengal in IndiaPreprint
Agarwal, S., Dutta, S., & Naha, M. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4824882
Grecov, P., Ackermann, K., & Bergmeir, C. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4830726
The Impact of the Affordable Care Act in Puerto Rico
Gamino, A. M. (2024) · The B E Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy · doi:10.1515/bejeap-2023-0368
The impact of the Economic Adjustment Programme for Ireland: a synthetic control approach
Uhr, D. D. A. P., Weizenmann, F., & Uhr, J. G. Z. (2024) · Economics and Business Letters · doi:10.17811/ebl.13.2.2024.82-90
Three Essays on Misinformation, Mistrust and their Influence on Public Health Policy
Kochersperger, E. (2024) · doi:10.33915/etd.12369
Exchange Rate Shocks and Equity Prices: The Role of Currency DenominationPreprint
Baeriswyl, R., Oktay, A., & Ramelet, M.-A. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4848978
The Impact of Antitrust Enforcement on China’s Digital Platforms: Evidence from SAMR v. AlibabaPreprint
Khoo, K., Lai, S., & Chuyue, T. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4850728
Duan, J., Pelger, M., & Xiong, R. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4823360
Coufalová, L., Dellinger, F., Huber, P. W., et al. (2024) · MUNI ECON Working Papers · doi:10.5817/wp_muni_econ_2024-03
Business Cycle AdaptationsPreprint
Hua, S. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4860607
Industrial spillovers from agricultural processing: Evidence from the beet sugar industry
Baek, Y. (2026) · Journal of Urban Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jue.2026.103883
Effects of Shrinking Population on Local Government and Housing Markets: Evidence from JapanPreprint
Inukai, S. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4860077
Koyama, T. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4867487
The Value of Silence: The Effect of UMG vs. TikTok Licensing Dispute on Music DemandPreprint
Cheng, M., Ofek, E., & Yoganarasimhan, H. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4866054
From Hotspots to Safe Spots: The Impacts of WiFi-Connected Community Centers on Youth CrimePreprint
Zuo, G., & Landon, T. J. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4874212
Annadurai, G., & Sahoo, S. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4873413
Estimating The Effects Of COVID-19 On Globalized Markets For Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
Barber, M., Ramachandran, R., & Moon, S. (2024) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2023.00722
Policy Interactions and Power Sector Co2 Emissions: A Quasi-Experimental AnalysisPreprint
Tello, W. P. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4882905
Mishra, D. D., & Sethi, R. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4882296
Assessing the benefits of European integration: a comparative and algorithmic approach
Casagrande, S., & Dallago, B. (2024) · Eastern Journal of European Studies · doi:10.47743/ejes-2024-0101
Carbon Pricing with Regressive Co-Benefits: Evidence from British Columbia's Carbon TaxPreprint
Sileci, L. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4898714
What are the benefits of metro rail in Mumbai, India?
Suri, P., & Cropper, M. (2026) · Regional Science and Urban Economics · doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2026.104262
Lozano-Rojas, F. A., & Navarro, L. (2026) · International Review of Economics & Finance · doi:10.1016/j.iref.2026.105212
Aerospace Place-Based Policy: The Impact of Boeing on South Carolina's Aerospace Industry
Scavette, A. (2024) · Economic Development Quarterly · doi:10.1177/08912424241268284
Scarcioffolo, A., Mugabe, D., & Shakya, S. (2024) · Applied Economics Letters · doi:10.1080/13504851.2024.2388872
Credit Crisis and Strategic Human Capital Decisions: Evidence from Micro-Finance Regulation in IndiaPreprint
Sekhri, S., Chen, Y., & Hossain, M. A. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4914403
Sovereign default and FDI transactions: Evidence from Argentina
Cho, M., & Joo, H. (2024) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2024.111940
Estimating the value of investments in militaristic deterrence
Mayberry, A. A., & Hicks, D. (2026) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2026.107560
Social Dynamics of Cooperation
Schröder, J. M. (2024) · doi:10.5463/thesis.828
Supply Pricing Responses to Sweetened Beverage Taxes at a Large National Fast-Food ChainPreprint
Echenique, J. A., Wu, E., Desai, S. M., Mijanovich, T., Bragg, M. A., Weitzman, B. C., & Elbel, B. D. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4961670
Promoting social housing : Insights from redevelopment policies in Paris
Belloy, L., & Candau, F. (2025) · Journal of Housing Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jhe.2025.102061
The Economic Value of University Establishment: Evidence from UC MercedPreprint
Mathias, M. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4970495
Fitting a Curve to the Pre-TrendsPreprint
Arboleda, D. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4969804
The effect of abortion bans on the OB/GYN workforcePreprint
Amin, R., & Spencer, N. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4970534
Do Consumers Care About Gender Pay Gap Disclosure? Evidence from Foot TrafficPreprint
Gibbons, B., Gibbons, F. S., & Pursiainen, V. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4939591
Effects of Losing Medicaid on Body Weight and Health BehaviorsPreprint
Rahman, M. T. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4973914
Extent and Anatomy of the Solar Photovoltaic Rebound: Evidence from Swiss HouseholdsPreprint
Bigler, P. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4978298
M&A and Workplace Safety: Evidence from MinesPreprint
Qiu, Y., Sojourner, A., & Volpin, P. F. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4952912
van Lin, A., Keller, K. O., & Guyt, J. Y. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4966328
A Time Series Synthetic Control Causal Evaluation of the UK’s Mini-Budget Policy on Stock Market
Zhang, Y., & Lu, Z. (2024) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math12203301
Nudging law enforcement: evidence from low priority initiatives
DeAngelo, G. J., Narender, R., & Romaniuc, R. (2024) · European Journal of Law and Economics · doi:10.1007/s10657-024-09816-w
Credit Card Minimum Payment RestrictionsPreprint
Allen, J. J., Boutros, M., & Guttman‐Kenney, B. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4959043
Bala, A. D., Mattsson, M., & Vyas, S. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4959010
Kenney, J. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4993060
Nurse practitioner oversight ratios and labor market outcomes
Smith, A. J. D., & Markowitz, S. (2024) · Contemporary Economic Policy · doi:10.1111/coep.12676
From restriction to relaxation: The impact of fertility policy on household savings across countries
Chang, L., Xiao-jun, L., Tan, N., & Liang, S. (2024) · Economic Analysis and Policy · doi:10.1016/j.eap.2024.10.055
Synthetic Historical Control for Policy EvaluationPreprint
Yang, T.-T., Yang, J.-C., & Chen, Y.-T. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4995085
Research Excellence Framework (REF), International Research Collaborations and Female ParticipationPreprint
Khan, A., Önder, A. S., & Ozcan, S. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4975879
Better Out than in? Regional Disparity and Heterogeneous Income Effects of the EuroPreprint
Cho, S.-W., & Wong, S. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5026805
Bail out the money printer? The impact of fiscal indemnity on central bank profitabilityPreprint
Yang, D. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4998639
Can the Search-Matching Model Explain the Minimum Wage's Null Employment EffectsPreprint
Tran, A. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5033832
Evaluating the Impact of a Unit-based Pricing Policy in Akita City using SCM and SDID Estimates
Kumamaru, H. (2024) · Journal of the Japan Society of Material Cycles and Waste Management · doi:10.3985/jjsmcwm.35.107
Media Ownership and Ideological Slant: Evidence from Australian Newspaper MergersPreprint
Ananyev, M., & Volkova, E. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5033851
The Differential Effects of Strict Voter Identification Laws on Election Type and Adoption TimingPreprint
Lipkovitz, R. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5008639
The Limits of Cross-Border Environmental Policies: Trade Diversion as LeakagePreprint
Abman, R., Jenkins, H., & Lundberg, C. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5054830
Özdemir, B. N., & Lim, S. F. W. T. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5045445
Revisiting the Financial Transaction Tax Debate: Insights from SpainPreprint
González-Fernández, M., Fuertes, A.-M., & Fernandez, M.-D. R. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5062009
Wang, Q., Zeng, W., Hu, Y., et al. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5049880
Kim, M. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5065065
Ellenbogen, M. I., Kaplan, S. M., Niknam, B. A., et al. (2024) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14424
The Effectiveness of Carbon Emission Trading System: Evidence from China's Regional MarketsPreprint
Li, Y., & Zhao, J. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5012034
Yu, C., Deng, H., Sheng, Y., Jin, Y., & Pray, C. E. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5084263
Hopkins, B., & Lyons, S. (2026) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2026.103142
Nguyen-Thanh, T., Murshed, S. M., & Nguyen-Trong, H. (2025) · International Economic Journal · doi:10.1080/10168737.2024.2448621
Financial Flexibility in the Gig Economy: The Impact of Ridesharing on Mortgage Loan TermsPreprint
Gill, B. S. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5097134
Did the OECD Help Reduce Multinationals' Income Shifting?Preprint
Adams, J. R. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5109145
Swap and Save: How a Button Shapes Lasting Online Grocery Shopping Behavior
Gonzálvez, R., Li, X., Weisburd, S., & Zhu, X. (2026) · Marketing Science · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5048332
Signaling and FDI: Evidence from the international mega-events in China
Zhang, H., & Fan, H. (2026) · Emerging Markets Review · doi:10.1016/j.ememar.2026.101491
What Does Federal Oversight Do to Policing and Public Safety? Evidence from SeattlePreprint
Campbell, R. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5107431
A Bad Break-Up? Assessing the Effects of the Brexit Referendum on MigrationPreprint
Clifton‐Sprigg, J., Homburg, I., James, J., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5124907
Metadata
- Authors
- Arkhangelsky, D., Athey, S., Hirshberg, D. A., Imbens, G. W., & Wager, S.
- Affiliations
- Centro de Estudios Monetarios y Financieros (ES)
- Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (US)
- Emory University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2021-12-01
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 4088-4118
- ISSN
- 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2952814763
- Cited by
- 1,518
- References
- 97
- Citations by year
- 2026: 456 · 2025: 453 · 2024: 306 · 2023: 172 · 2022: 87 · 2021: 17
- FWCI
- 108.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
- Office of Naval Research (N00014-17-1-2131), N00014-17-1, 17-1-2131, N00014, N00014-17)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- synthetic difference-in-differences, causal effects, panel data, synthetic control method, difference-in-differences, estimator robustness, asymptotic normality, consistency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
