A formal approach to variable selection in difference-in-differences

Daniela Rodrigues; Laura A. Hatfield

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.01114

A formal approach to variable selection in difference-in-differences

Daniela Rodrigues·Laura A. Hatfield

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Difference-in-differences (DiD) identification relies mainly on a parallel trends assumption about untreated potential outcomes. Researchers often relax this assumption by assuming conditional parallel trends within units with the same covariate values. However, the process of selecting which covariates to include in this assumption is often \emph{ad hoc}. We propose a formal approach to select the variables that support conditional parallel trends based on graphical criteria. We show that the parallel trends assumption is rarely justified without conditioning on covariates, and that unconditional and conditional parallel trends can conflict with one another. We also demonstrate that a time-invariant covariate with a time-invariant effect on the outcome, which might not ordinarily be considered a confounder in DiD, may be a useful conditioning variable. We clarify that adjustment for a post-treatment covariate depends on what causes that covariate to change. Extending our framework to multiple time periods, we distinguish between treatment type and rollout strategy and examine the problem of treatment-confounder feedback. On the estimation side, we argue that the difficulty of incorporating covariates in DiD, often framed as an estimator problem, is more accurately understood as a misalignment between the adjustment set used by the estimator and the adjustment set required for identification. This misalignment affects several popular estimation procedures, and resolving it requires not a change of estimator, but a change in how covariates enter the estimation procedure. We show how to achieve this alignment for all estimators we evaluate.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Daniela Rodrigues, Laura A. Hatfield. 2026-05-01. A formal approach to variable selection in difference-in-differences. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01114

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↗