Benefits and costs of matching prior to a Difference in Differences analysis when parallel trends does not hold

Dae Woong Ham; Luke Miratrix

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2205.08644

Benefits and costs of matching prior to a Difference in Differences analysis when parallel trends does not hold

Dae Woong Ham·Luke Miratrix

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Difference in Difference (DiD) estimator is a popular estimator built on the "parallel trends" assumption, which is an assertion that the treatment group, absent treatment, would change "similarly" to the control group over time. To bolster such a claim, one might generate a comparison group, via matching, that is similar to the treated group with respect to pre-treatment outcomes and/or pre-treatment covariates. Unfortunately, as has been previously pointed out, this intuitively appealing approach also has a cost in terms of bias. To assess the trade-offs of matching in our application, we first characterize the bias of matching prior to a DiD analysis under a linear structural model that allows for time-invariant observed and unobserved confounders with time-varying effects on the outcome. Given our framework, we verify that matching on baseline covariates generally reduces bias. We further show how additionally matching on pre-treatment outcomes has both cost and benefit. First, matching on pre-treatment outcomes partially balances unobserved confounders, which mitigates some bias. This reduction is proportional to the outcome's reliability, a measure of how coupled the outcomes are with the latent covariates. Offsetting these gains, matching also injects bias into the final estimate by undermining the second difference in the DiD via a regression-to-the-mean effect. Consequently, we provide heuristic guidelines for determining to what degree the bias reduction of matching is likely to outweigh the bias cost. We illustrate our guidelines by reanalyzing a principal turnover study that used matching prior to a DiD analysis and find that matching on both the pre-treatment outcomes and observed covariates makes the estimated treatment effect more credible.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME math.ST stat.TH

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Dae Woong Ham, Luke Miratrix. 2022-05-17. Benefits and costs of matching prior to a Difference in Differences analysis when parallel trends does not hold. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.08644

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗