CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Event-Time Confounding Under Bursty Human Dynamics

Iannelli, Michael, Ai, Alan·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2608.21294arXiv 2608.21294
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Studies of digital behavior often align users at moments they choose, such as opening an AI assistant, clicking a recommendation, or visiting a product page, and interpret higher activity afterward as an event effect. We show how this creates an endogenous time zero: the event occurs during an ongoing task episode, so the aligned curve can trace episode continuation rather than a response to the event. In same-user, cross-surface web logs, AI, shopping, news, coding, and reference events are all preceded by broad activity increases that peak before time zero. Our strongest test uses known-null timestamps that cause nothing. Among the 5.8% of AI responses meeting strict pre-event activity and washout criteria, these timestamps show 3.42 times the post-event search activity of a within-user placebo, compared with 4.32 times for real events. The fraction of excess reproduced by the known null falls from 0.56 at detectably active moments to -0.04 at quiet moments, where the design detects none. We formalize this episode-selection bias, prove that a single-surface event window cannot separate it from a genuine effect without additional assumptions, and show in zero-effect simulations why user fixed effects and coarse activity matching can fail: the confound is within-user and time-varying. We provide a diagnostic protocol, public-data benchmarks, and burstcheck, a lightweight audit tool. User-timed events may have real effects, but post-event volume does not identify them by default; studies should compare similar episodes with and without the event.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2608.21294

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Assistant use is itself timed by the user, so known-null timestamps drawn at comparably active moments reproduce much of the apparent post-event search lift.

    “assistant use is itself timed by the user, so known-null timestamps drawn at comparably active moments reproduce much of the apparent post-event search lift [11]”

    From The New Shape of Search: How Conversational AI Recomposes Information Seeking (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

  • The topology does not identify demand created or destroyed, which an observational panel cannot recover against burst-selection.

    “The topology does not identify demand created or destroyed, which an observational panel cannot recover against burst-selection [2, 11].”

    From The New Shape of Search: How Conversational AI Recomposes Information Seeking (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

  • The methods companion proves that a single-surface event window does not separate the two without further assumptions.

    “the methods companion proves that a single-surface event window does not separate the two without further assumptions [11].”

    From The New Shape of Search: How Conversational AI Recomposes Information Seeking (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. [1][1] Alberto Abadie and Guido W. Imbens. 2008. On the Failure of the Bootstrap for Matching Estimators. Econometrica 76, 6 (2008), 1537-1557. doi:10.3982/ ECTA6474 -
  2. [2][2] Jaap H. Abbring and Gerard J. van den Berg. 2003. The Nonparametric Identification of Treatment Effects in Duration Models. Econometrica 71, 5 (2003), 1491-1517. doi:10.1111/1468-0262.00456 - · DOI · Paper page
  3. [4][4] Orley Ashenfelter. 1978. Estimating the Effect of Training Programs on Earnings. The Review of Economics and Statistics 60, 1 (1978), 47-57. doi:10.2307/1924332 - · DOI · Paper page
  4. [5][5] Albert-László Barabási. 2005. The Origin of Bursts and Heavy Tails in Human Dynamics. Nature 435, 7039 (2005), 207-211. doi:10.1038/nature03459 - · DOI · Paper page
  5. [6][6] Thomas Blake, Chris Nosko, and Steven Tadelis. 2015. Consumer Heterogeneity and Paid Search Effectiveness: A Large-Scale Field Experiment. Econometrica 83, 1 (2015), 155-174. doi:10.3982/ECTA12423 - · DOI
  6. [7][7] Brantly Callaway and Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna. 2021. Difference-in-Differences with Multiple Time Periods. Journal of Econometrics 225, 2 (2021), 200-230. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001 - · DOI · Paper page
  7. [8][8] Lara D. Catledge and James E. Pitkow. 1995. Characterizing browsing strategies in the World-Wide Web. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 27, 6 (1995), 1065-1073. doi:10.1016/0169-7552(95)00043-7 - · DOI · Paper page
  8. [9][9] Sylvain Chabé-Ferret. 2015. Analysis of the bias of Matching and Differencein-Difference under alternative earnings and selection processes. Journal of Econometrics 185, 1 (2015), 110-123. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2014.09.013 - · DOI
  9. [10][10] D. J. Daley and D. Vere-Jones. 2003. An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes . Springer, New York, NY, USA. -
  10. [11][11] Jamie R. Daw and Laura A. Hatfield. 2018. Matching and Regression to the Mean in Difference-in-Differences Analysis. Health Services Research 53, 6 (2018), 4138-4156. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12993 - · DOI · Paper page
  11. [12][12] Simon Freyaldenhoven, Christian Hansen, and Jesse M. Shapiro. 2019. Pre-event Trends in the Panel Event-Study Design. American Economic Review 109, 9 (2019), 3307-3338. doi:10.1257/aer.20180609 - · DOI · Paper page
  12. [13][13] Andrew Goodman-Bacon. 2021. Difference-in-Differences with Variation in Treatment Timing. Journal of Econometrics 225, 2 (2021), 254-277. doi:10.1016/j. jeconom.2021.03.014 - · DOI
  13. [14][14] Brett R. Gordon, Florian Zettelmeyer, Neha Bhargava, and Dan Chapsky. 2019. A Comparison of Approaches to Advertising Measurement: Evidence from Big Field Experiments at Facebook. Marketing Science 38, 2 (2019), 193-225. doi:10. 1287/mksc.2018.1135 -
  14. [15][15] Catherine Hausman and David S. Rapson. 2018. Regression Discontinuity in Time: Considerations for Empirical Applications. Annual Review of Resource 16. [Economics 10, 1 (2018), 533-552. doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-121517-033306](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-121517-033306) - · DOI
  15. [16][16] Alan G. Hawkes. 1971. Spectra of Some Self-Exciting and Mutually Exciting Point Processes. 58, 1 (1971), 83-90. doi:10.1093/biomet/58.1.83 18. Biometrika - · DOI
  16. [17][17] James J. Heckman and Jeffrey A. Smith. 1999. The Pre-programme Earnings Dip and the Determinants of Participation in a Social Programme: Implications for Simple Programme Evaluation Strategies. The Economic Journal 109, 457 (1999), 313-348. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00451 - · DOI
  17. [18][18] Miguel A. Hernán and James M. Robins. 2016. Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available. American Journal of Epidemiology 183, 8 (2016), 758-764. doi:10.1093/aje/kwv254 - · DOI · Paper page
  18. [19][19] Ralph I. Horwitz and Alvan R. Feinstein. 1980. The Problem of 'Protopathic Bias' in Case-Control Studies. The American Journal of Medicine 68, 2 (1980), 255-258. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(80)90363-0 - · DOI · Paper page
  19. [20][20] Márton Karsai, Hang-Hyun Jo, and Kimmo Kaski. 2018. Bursty Human Dynamics . Springer, Cham, Switzerland. -
  20. [21][21] Randall A. Lewis and Justin M. Rao. 2015. The Unfavorable Economics of Measuring the Returns to Advertising. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130, 4 (2015), 1941-1973. doi:10.1093/qje/qjv023 - · DOI
  21. [22][22] Randall A. Lewis, Justin M. Rao, and David H. Reiley. 2011. Here, There, and Everywhere: Correlated Online Behaviors Can Lead to Overestimates of the Effects of Advertising. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 157-166. doi:10.1145/1963405.1963431 - · DOI
  22. [23][23] Marc Lipsitch, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, and Ted Cohen. 2010. Negative Controls: A Tool for Detecting Confounding and Bias in Observational Studies. Epidemiology 21, 3 (2010), 383-388. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181d61eeb - · DOI · Paper page
  23. [24][24] Malcolm Maclure. 1991. The Case-Crossover Design: A Method for Studying Transient Effects on the Risk of Acute Events. American Journal of Epidemiology 133, 2 (1991), 144-153. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115853 - · DOI · Paper page
  24. [25][25] R. Dean Malmgren, Daniel B. Stouffer, Adilson E. Motter, and Luís A. N. Amaral. 2008. A Poissonian Explanation for Heavy Tails in E-mail Communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 47 (2008), 18153-18158. doi:10.1073/pnas.0800332105 - · DOI
  25. [26][26] Wang Miao, Zhi Geng, and Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen. 2018. Identifying Causal Effects With Proxy Variables of an Unmeasured Confounder. Biometrika 105, 4 (2018), 987-993. doi:10.1093/biomet/asy038 - · DOI
  26. [27][27] Ashley I. Naimi, Stephen R. Cole, and Edward H. Kennedy. 2017. An Introduction to g-methods. International Journal of Epidemiology 46, 2 (2017), 756-762. doi:10. 1093/ije/dyw323 -
  27. [28][28] Ashesh Rambachan and Jonathan Roth. 2023. A More Credible Approach to Parallel Trends. The Review of Economic Studies 90, 5 (2023), 2555-2591. doi:10. 1093/restud/rdad018 -
  28. [29][29] James M. Robins, Miguel Ángel Hernán, and Babette Brumback. 2000. Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology. Epidemiology 11, 5 (2000), 550-560. doi:10.1097/00001648-200009000-00011 - · DOI · Paper page
  29. [30][30] Jonathan Roth. 2022. Pretest with Caution: Event-Study Estimates after Testing for Parallel Trends. American Economic Review: Insights 4, 3 (2022), 305-322. doi:10.1257/aeri.20210236 - · DOI · Paper page
  30. [31][31] Jonathan Roth, Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna, Alyssa Bilinski, and John Poe. 2023. What's trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature. Journal of Econometrics 235, 2 (2023), 2218-2244. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom. 2023.03.008 - · DOI
  31. [32][32] Kjetil Røysland. 2011. A Martingale Approach to Continuous-Time Marginal Structural Models. Bernoulli 17, 3 (2011), 895-915. doi:10.3150/10-BEJ303 - · DOI
  32. [33][33] Pål Christie Ryalen, Mats Julius Stensrud, and Kjetil Røysland. 2026. On causal inference with marked point process data. arXiv:2604.12977 [stat.ME] - · arXiv
  33. [34][34] Helene C. Rytgaard, Thomas A. Gerds, and Mark J. van der Laan. 2022. Continuous-time targeted minimum loss-based estimation of interventionspecific mean outcomes. The Annals of Statistics 50, 5 (2022), 2469-2491. doi:10.1214/21-AOS2114 - · DOI
  34. [35][35] Peter Schulam and Suchi Saria. 2017. Reliable Decision Support Using Counterfactual Models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (NIPS 2017) . Curran Associates, Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA. -
  35. [36][36] Zach Shahn, Miguel A. Hernán, and James M. Robins. 2023. A Formal Causal Interpretation of the Case-Crossover Design. Biometrics 79, 2 (2023), 1330-1343. doi:10.1111/biom.13749 - · DOI
  36. [37][37] Jessica Su, Ansh Shukla, Sharad Goel, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Deanonymizing Web Browsing Data with Social Networks. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '17) . International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 1261-1269. doi:10.1145/3038912. 3052714 - · DOI
  37. [38][38] Liyang Sun and Sarah Abraham. 2021. Estimating Dynamic Treatment Effects in Event Studies with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects. Journal of Econometrics 225, 2 (2021), 175-199. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.09.006 - · DOI · Paper page
  38. [39][39] Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen, Andrew Ying, Yifan Cui, Xu Shi, and Wang Miao. 2024. An Introduction to Proximal Causal Inference. Statist. Sci. 39, 3 (2024), 375-390. doi:10.1214/23-STS911 - · DOI
  39. [40][40] Tyler J. VanderWeele and Peng Ding. 2017. Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value. Annals of Internal Medicine 167, 4 (2017), 268-274. doi:10.7326/M16-2607 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Iannelli, M., & Ai, A.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2608.21294
arXiv
2608.21294
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

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