事件(粒子物理)
构造(python库)
启发式
口译(哲学)
差异中的差异
显著性差异
事件研究
跳跃
计算机科学
计量经济学
统计
数学
认知心理学
心理学
历史
数学优化
程序设计语言
物理
量子力学
背景(考古学)
考古
标识
DOI:10.48550/arxiv.2401.12309
摘要
This note discusses the interpretation of event-study plots produced by recent difference-in-differences methods. I show that even when specialized to the case of non-staggered treatment timing, the default plots produced by software for three of the most popular recent methods (de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille, 2020; Callaway and SantAnna, 2021; Borusyak, Jaravel and Spiess, 2024) do not match those of traditional two-way fixed effects (TWFE) event-studies: the new methods may show a kink or jump at the time of treatment even when the TWFE event-study shows a straight line. This difference stems from the fact that the new methods construct the pre-treatment coefficients asymmetrically from the post-treatment coefficients. As a result, visual heuristics for analyzing TWFE event-study plots should not be immediately applied to those from these methods. I conclude with practical recommendations for constructing and interpreting event-study plots when using these methods.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI