Victor Chernozhukov, Mert Demirer, Esther Duflo, Iván Fernández-Val
arXiv 3 Feb 2025 · Econometrics
arXiv:2502.01548 · PDF · DOI · OpenAlex · Extracted main text
We warmly thank Kosuke Imai, Michael Lingzhi Li, and Stefan Wager for their gracious and insightful comments. We are particularly encouraged that both pieces recognize the importance of the research agenda the lecture laid out, which we see as critical for applied researchers. It is also great to see that both underscore the potential of the basic approach we propose - targeting summary features of the CATE after proxy estimation with sample splitting. We are also happy that both papers push us (and the reader) to continue thinking about the inference problem associated with sample splitting. We recognize that our current paper is only scratching the surface of this interesting agenda. Our proposal is certainly not the only option, and it is exciting that both papers provide and assess alternatives. Hopefully, this will generate even more work in this area.
appendix boundary found by none_found · 100% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.
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.
| Reference | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | Main text | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kosuke Imai and Michael Lingzhi Li (2024) Comment on “generic machine learning inference on heterogenous treatment effects in randomized experiments, with an application… | 0.874 | 7 | 2 | 100% |
| 2 | Stefan Wager (2024) Sequential validation of treatment heterogeneity, 2024 | 0.874 | 6 | 2 | 100% |
| 3 | Alexander R Luedtke and Mark J Van Der Laan (2016) Statistical inference for the mean outcome under a possibly non-unique optimal treatment strategy | 0.511 | 2 | 1 | 100% |
| 4 | Michael Lingzhi Li and Kosuke Imai (2023) evalITR: Evaluating Individualized Treatment Rules, 2023 | 0.405 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
Showing the top 4 of 4 scored citations.