Andreas Dzemski, Ryo Okui, Wenjie Wang
arXiv 28 Mar 2025 · Econometrics
arXiv:2503.22369 · PDF · DOI · OpenAlex · Extracted main text
Significant treatment effects are often emphasized when interpreting and summarizing empirical findings in studies that estimate multiple, possibly many, treatment effects. Under this kind of selective reporting, conventional treatment effect estimates may be biased and their corresponding confidence intervals may undercover the true effect sizes. We propose new estimators and confidence intervals that provide valid inferences on the effect sizes of the significant effects after multiple hypothesis testing. Our methods are based on the principle of selective conditional inference and complement a wide range of tests, including step-up tests and bootstrap-based step-down tests. Our approach is scalable, allowing us to study an application with over 370 estimated effects. We justify our procedure for asymptotically normal treatment effect estimators. We provide two empirical examples that demonstrate bias correction and confidence interval adjustments for significant effects. The magnitude and direction of the bias correction depend on the correlation structure of the estimated effects and whether the interpretation of the significant effects depends on the (in)significance of other effects.
appendix boundary found by appendix_command · 55% 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 | Berk, Richard and Brown, Lawrence and Buja, Andreas and Zhang, Kai a… (2013) Valid Post-Selection Inference | 1.000 | 5 | 3 | 100% |
| 2 | Romano, Joseph P and Wolf, Michael (2005) Stepwise multiple testing as formalized data snooping | 0.928 | 5 | 5 | 80% |
| 3 | Fithian, William and Sun, Dennis and Taylor, Jonathan (2017) Optimal Inference After Model Selection | 0.874 | 8 | 2 | 100% |
| 4 | Lee, Jason D. and Sun, Dennis L. and Sun, Yuekai and Taylor, Jonatha… (2016) Exact post-selection inference, with application to the lasso | 0.874 | 5 | 2 | 100% |
| 5 | Andrews, Isaiah and Kitagawa, Toru and McCloskey, Adam (2024) Inference on Winners* | 0.843 | 3 | 3 | 100% |
| 6 | List, John A and Shaikh, Azeem M and Xu, Yang (2019) Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental economics | 0.836 | 12 | 4 | 58% |
| 7 | Karlan, Dean and List, John A (2007) Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment | 0.830 | 7 | 4 | 57% |
| 8 | Benjamini, Yoav and Yekutieli, Daniel (2001) The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency | 0.737 | 5 | 4 | 40% |
| 9 | Benjamini, Yoav and Yekutieli, Daniel (2005) False discovery rate–adjusted multiple confidence intervals for selected parameters | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
| 10 | Leiner, James and Duan, Boyan and Wasserman, Larry and Ramdas, Aaditya (2025) Data fission: splitting a single data point | 0.644 | 4 | 1 | 100% |
Showing the top 10 of 49 scored citations.