Factorial Difference-in-Differences
Open accessAbstract
We formulate factorial difference-in-differences (FDID), a research design that extends canonical difference-in-differences (DID) to settings in which an event affects all units. In many panel data applications, researchers exploit cross-sectional variation in a baseline factor alongside temporal variation in the event, but the corresponding estimand is often implicit and the justification for applying the DID estimator remains unclear. We frame FDID as a factorial design with two factors, the baseline factor $G$ and the exposure level $Z$, and define effect modification and causal moderation as the associative and causal effects of $G$ on the effect of $Z$, respectively. Under standard DID assumptions of no anticipation and parallel trends, the DID estimator identifies effect modification but not causal moderation. Identifying the latter requires an additional \emph{factorial parallel trends} assumption, that is, mean independence between $G$ and potential outcome trends. We extend the framework to conditionally valid assumptions and regression-based implementations, and further to repeated cross-sectional data and continuous $G$. We demonstrate the framework with an empirical application on the role of social capital in famine relief in China.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Under the factorial difference-in-differences framework of Xu, Zhao, and Ding (2024), standard parallel trends identifies only effect modification: a statement that the post-event change in outcomes covaries with AI exposure.
“Under the factorial difference-in-differences framework of Xu, Zhao, and Ding (2024), standard parallel trends (that high-and lowexposure units would have followed the same trajectory absent ChatGPT) identifies only effect modification: a statement that the post-event change in outcomes covaries with AI exposure.”
From Labor Market Consequences of Generative AI: Early Evidence from Norway (2026) · cites this paper as Xu, Zhao, and Ding, 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Angrist, J. D. and J.-S. Pischke (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton University Press.
- Bansak, K. (2020). Estimating causal moderation effects with randomized treatments and non-randomized moderators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society 184, 65-86.
- Bertrand, M., E. Duflo, and S. Mullainathan (2004). How much should we trust differences- in-differences estimates? The Quarterly journal of economics 119, 249-275.
- Cao, J., Y. Xu, and C. Zhang (2022, June). Clans and calamity: How social capital saved lives during China's Great Famine. Journal of Development Economics 157, 102865.
- Card, D. and A. B. Krueger (1994). Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The American Economic Review 84, 772-793.
- Chen, H., Z. Chen, Z. He, J. Liu, and R. Xie (2023). Pledgeability and asset prices: Evidence from the chinese corporate bond markets. The Journal of Finance 78, 2563-2620.
- Chen, J., E. H. Wang, and X. Zhang (2024). From powerholders to stakeholders: State- building with elite compensation in early medieval China. American Journal of Political Science.
- Chiu, A., X. Lan, Z. Liu, and Y. Xu (2023). What to do (and not to do) with causal panel analysis under parallel trends: Lessons from a large reanalysis study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15983 . · arXiv
- Cinelli, C. and C. Hazlett (2020). Making sense of sensitivity: Extending omitted variable bias. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 82 (1), 39-67.
- Dasgupta, T., N. Pillai, and D. B. Rubin (2015). Causal inference from 2 K factorial designs by using potential outcomes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Statistical Methodology) 77, 727-753.
- Fouka, V. (2019). How do immigrants respond to discrimination? The case of Germans in the US during World War I. The American Political Science Review 113, 405-422.
- Holland, P. W. and D. B. Rubin (1986). Research designs and causal inferences: On Lord's paradox. In Survey Research Designs: Towards a Better Understanding of Their Costs and Benefits: Prepared under the Auspices of the Working Group on the Comparative Evaluation of Longitudinal Surveys Social Science Research Council, pp. 7-37. Springer.
- Imbens, G. and D. B. Rubin (2015). Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Imbens, G. W. and Y. Xu (2025). Comparing experimental and nonexperimental methods: What lessons have we learned four decades after lalonde (1986)? Journal of Economic Perspectives (forthcoming).
- Lin, W. (2013). Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data: Reexamining Freedman's critique. The Annals of Applied Statistics 7, 295 -318.
- Lundberg, I., R. Johnson, and B. M. Stewart (2021). What is your estimand? defining the target quantity connects statistical evidence to theory. American Sociological Review 86 (3), 532-565.
- Pashley, N. E. and M.-A. C. Bind (2023). Causal inference for multiple treatments using fractional factorial designs. Canadian Journal of Statistics 51, 444-468.
- Roth, J., P. H. Sant'Anna, A. Bilinski, and J. Poe (2023). What's trending in difference-in- differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature. Journal of Econometrics.
- Rothenhäusler, D. and B. Yu (2019). Incremental causal effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.13258 . · arXiv
- Squicciarini, M. P. (2020, November). Devotion and development: Religiosity, education, and economic progress in Nineteenth-Century France. The American economic review 110, 3454-3491.
- Yu, R. and P. Ding (2023). Balancing weights for causal inference in observational factorial studies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04660 . · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Labor Market Consequences of Generative AI: Early Evidence from Norway
Facius, D., & Iacono, R. (2026) · CESifo Working Papers · doi:10.65864/8a4auliirt
- Authors
- Xu, Y., Zhao, A., & Ding, P.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Duke University (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ding, Peng
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 121
- Issue
- 554
- Pages
- 963-975
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2407.11937
- OpenAlex
- W7129203773
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 22.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of the American Statistical Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Figshare (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2514234, 1945136)
- Yale University
- University of California, San Diego
- 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
- difference-in-differences, factorial design, effect modification, parallel trends assumption, repeated cross-sectional data, social capital, famine relief, China
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.
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