Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider estimation and inference about the effects of a policy in the absence of a control group. We obtain unbiased estimators of individual (heterogeneous) treatment effects and a consistent and asymptotically normal estimator of the average treatment effects, based on forecasting counterfactuals using a short time series of pre-treatment data. We show that the focus should be on forecast unbiasedness rather than accuracy. Correct specification of the forecasting model is not necessary to obtain unbiased estimates of the individual treatment effects. Instead, simple basis function (e.g., polynomial time trends) regressions deliver unbiasedness under a broad class of data-generating processes for the individual counterfactuals. Basing the forecasts on a model can introduce misspecification bias and does not necessarily improve performance even under correct specification. Consistency and asymptotic normality of the Forecasted Average Treatment effects (FAT) estimator attains under an additional assumption that rules out common and unforecastable shocks occurring between the treatment date and the date at which the effect is calculated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".