EconBase
← All papers

Assessing Inference Methods

Bruno Ferman

arXiv 18 Dec 2019 · Econometrics

arXiv:1912.08772 · PDF · DOI · OpenAlex · Extracted main text

Abstract

We analyze different types of simulations that applied researchers can use to assess whether their inference methods reliably control false-positive rates. We show that different assessments involve trade-offs, varying in the types of problems they may detect, finite-sample performance, susceptibility to sequential-testing distortions, susceptibility to cherry-picking, and implementation complexity. We also show that a commonly used simulation to assess inference methods in shift-share designs can lead to misleading conclusions and propose alternatives. Overall, we provide novel insights and recommendations for applied researchers on how to choose, implement, and interpret inference assessments in their empirical applications.

Citation extraction

46
references
119
in-text mentions
46
distinct cited
5
self-citations
13,671
main-text words

appendix boundary found by appendix_command · 79% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.

Most heavily cited references

The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.

ReferenceIntensityMentionsSectionsMain text
1Adão, R., Kolesar, M., and Morales, E (2019) Shift-Share Designs: Theory and Inference*0.91626577%
2Advani, A., Kitagawa, T., and Stczynski, T (2019) Mostly harmless simulations? using monte carlo studies for estimator selection0.87452100%
3Autor, D. H., Dorn, D., and Hanson, G. H (2013) The china syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the united states0.8229356%
4Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., and Mullainathan, S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?0.81142100%
5Dix-Carneiro, R., Soares, R. R., and Ulyssea, G (2018) Economic shocks and crime: Evidence from the brazilian trade liberalization0.79410450%
6Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P (2020) Robots and jobs: Evidence from us labor markets0.79410350%
7Abadie, A., Athey, S., Imbens, G. W., and Wooldridge, J. M (2020) Sampling-based versus design-based uncertainty in regression analysis0.73732100%
8Alvarez, L., Ferman, B., and Wüthrich, K (2025) Inference with few treated units self0.64441100%
9Conley, T. G. and Taber, C. R (2011) Inference with Difference-in-Differences with a Small Number of Policy Changes0.64422100%
10Athey, S., Imbens, G., Metzger, J., and Munro, E (2020) Using wasserstein generative adversarial networks for the design of monte carlo simulations0.64422100%

Showing the top 10 of 46 scored citations.

Cited by, within the corpus

arXiv econ.EM papers that cite this one, ranked by how heavily they lean on it.

Citing paperIntensityMentionsSections
1ON THE USE OF DESIGN-BASED SIMULATIONS0.64422
2Inference in Difference-in-Differences with Few Treated Units and Spatial Correlation0.51122
3Randomization Inference Tests for Shift-Share Designs0.40511
4Extensions for Inference in Difference-in-Differences with Few Treated Clusters0.40511
5Inference with few treated units0.40511
6Inference in Difference-in-Differences: How Much Should We Trust in Independent Clusters?0.00011