Randomization Inference for Differences-in-Differences with Few Treated Clusters

Inference using difference-in-differences with clustered data requires care. Previous research has shown that, when there are few treated clusters, t tests based on a cluster-robust variance estimator (CRVE) severely over-reject, different variants of the wild cluster bootstrap can over-reject or under-reject dramatically, and procedures based on randomization inference show promise. We demonstrate that randomization inference (RI) procedures based on estimated coefficients, such as the one proposed by Conley and Taber (2011), fail whenever the treated clusters are atypical. We propose an RI procedure based on t statistics which fails only when the treated clusters are atypical and few in number. We also propose a bootstrap-based alternative to randomization inference, which mitigates the discrete nature of RI P values when the number of clusters is small. Two empirical examples demonstrate that alternative procedures can yield dramatically different inferences

Wild Bootstrap Inference for Wildly Different Cluster Sizes

The cluster robust variance estimator (CRVE) relies on the number of clusters being sufficiently large. Monte Carlo evidence suggests that the 'rule of 42' is not true for unbalanced clusters. Rejection frequencies are higher for datasets with 50 clusters proportional to US state populations than with 50 balanced clusters. Using critical values based on the wild cluster bootstrap performs much better. However, this procedure fails when a small number of clusters is treated. We explain why CRVE t statistics and the wild bootstrap fail in this case, study the 'effective number' of clusters and simulate placebo laws with dummy variable regressors

Wild bootstrap randomization inference for few treated clusters

When there are few treated clusters in a pure treatment or difference-in-differences setting, t tests based on a cluster-robust variance estimator can severely over-reject. Although procedures based on the wild cluster bootstrap often work well when the number of treated clusters is not too small, they can either over-reject or under-reject seriously when it is. In a previous paper, we showed that procedures based on randomization inference (RI) can work well in such cases. However, RI can be impractical when the number of possible randomizations is small. We propose a bootstrap-based alternative to RI, which mitigates the discrete nature of RI p values in the few-clusters case. We also compare it to two other procedures. None of them works perfectly when the number of clusters is very small, but they can work surprisingly well

The wild bootstrap for few (treated) clusters

Inference based on cluster-robust standard errors in linear regression models, using either the Student's t-distribution or the wild cluster bootstrap, is known to fail when the number of treated clusters is very small. We propose a family of new procedures called the subcluster wild bootstrap, which includes the ordinary wild bootstrap as a limiting case. In the case of pure treatment models, where all observations within clusters are either treated or not, the latter procedure can work remarkably well. The key requirement is that all cluster sizes, regardless of treatment, should be similar. Unfortunately, the analogue of this requirement is not likely to hold for difference-in-differences regressions. Our theoretical results are supported by extensive simulations and an empirical example

Wild Bootstrap and Asymptotic Inference With Multiway Clustering

We study two cluster-robust variance estimators (CRVEs) for regression models with clustering in two dimensions and give conditions under which t-statistics based on each of them yield asymptotically valid inferences. In particular, one of the CRVEs requires stronger assumptions about the nature of the intra-cluster correlations. We then propose several wild bootstrap procedures and state conditions under which they are asymptotically valid for each type of t-statistic. Extensive simulations suggest that using certain bootstrap procedures with one of the t-statistics generally performs very well. An empirical example confirms that bootstrap inferences can differ substantially from conventional ones

Fast and wild: Bootstrap inference in Stata using boottest

The wild bootstrap was originally developed for regression models with heteroskedasticity of unknown form. Over the past 30 years, it has been extended to models estimated by instrumental variables and maximum likelihood and to ones where the error terms are (perhaps multiway) clustered. Like bootstrap methods in general, the wild bootstrap is especially useful when conventional inference methods are unreliable because large-sample assumptions do not hold. For example, there may be few clusters, few treated clusters, or weak instruments. The package boottest can perform a wide variety of wild bootstrap tests, often at remarkable speed. It can also invert these tests to construct confidence sets. As a postestimation command, boottest works after linear estimation commands, including regress, cnsreg, ivregress, ivreg2, areg, and reghdfe, as well as many estimation commands based on maximum likelihood. Although it is designed to perform the wild cluster bootstrap, boottest can also perform the ordinary (nonclustered) version. Wrappers offer classical Wald, score/Lagrange multiplier, and Anderson-Rubin tests, optionally with (multiway) clustering. We review the main ideas of the wild cluster bootstrap, offer tips for use, explain why it is particularly amenable to computational optimization, state the syntax of boottest, artest, scoretest, and waldtest, and present several empirical examples

25 Years of Self-Organized Criticality: Solar and Astrophysics

Shortly after the seminal paper “Self-Organized Criticality: An explanation of 1/fnoise” by Bak et al. (1987), the idea has been applied to solar physics, in “Avalanches and the Distribution of Solar Flares” by Lu and Hamilton (1991). In the following years, an inspiring cross-fertilization from complexity theory to solar and astrophysics took place, where the SOC concept was initially applied to solar flares, stellar flares, and magnetospheric substorms, and later extended to the radiation belt, the heliosphere, lunar craters, the asteroid belt, the Saturn ring, pulsar glitches, soft X-ray repeaters, blazars, black-hole objects, cosmic rays, and boson clouds. The application of SOC concepts has been performed by numerical cellular automaton simulations, by analytical calculations of statistical (powerlaw-like) distributions based on physical scaling laws, and by observational tests of theoretically predicted size distributions and waiting time distributions. Attempts have been undertaken to import physical models into the numerical SOC toy models, such as the discretization of magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD) processes. The novel applications stimulated also vigorous debates about the discrimination between SOC models, SOC-like, and non-SOC processes, such as phase transitions, turbulence, random-walk diffusion, percolation, branching processes, network theory, chaos theory, fractality, multi-scale, and other complexity phenomena. We review SOC studies from the last 25 years and highlight new trends, open questions, and future challenges, as discussed during two recent ISSI workshops on this theme.Fil: Aschwanden, Markus J.. Lockheed Martin Corporation; Estados UnidosFil: Crosby, Norma B.. Belgian Institute For Space Aeronomy; BélgicaFil: Dimitropoulou, Michaila. University Of Athens; GreciaFil: Georgoulis, Manolis K.. Academy Of Athens; GreciaFil: Hergarten, Stefan. Universitat Freiburg Im Breisgau; AlemaniaFil: McAteer, James. University Of New Mexico; Estados UnidosFil: Milovanov, Alexander V.. Max Planck Institute For The Physics Of Complex Systems; Alemania. Russian Academy Of Sciences. Space Research Institute; Rusia. Enea Centro Ricerche Frascati; ItaliaFil: Mineshige, Shin. Kyoto University; JapónFil: Morales, Laura Fernanda. Canadian Space Agency; Canadá. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Nishizuka, Naoto. Japan National Institute Of Information And Communications Technology; JapónFil: Pruessner, Gunnar. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Sanchez, Raul. Universidad Carlos Iii de Madrid. Instituto de Salud; EspañaFil: Sharma, A. Surja. University Of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Strugarek, Antoine. University Of Montreal; CanadáFil: Uritsky, Vadim. Nasa Goddard Space Flight Center; Estados Unido