Skip to content
Preprint

Exact Inference in Fixed-Effect Regressions with Concentrated Identifying Variation

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 38 references
Economics

Abstract

In fixed-effect regressions with many groups, fixed effects can absorb most identifying variation, leaving a handful of observations to carry what remains. When variation is this concentrated, conventional $t$-tests can reject a true null more than half the time, and any fixed critical value is either invalid or so conservative it has essentially no power. This paper builds an exact test from the design alone. A \textit{nuisance-annihilating contrast} is a linear combination of the treatment and fixed-effect dummies that eliminates the fixed effects without touching the outcome; sign-flipping these contrasts is then an exact symmetry of the null distribution at every sample size, under arbitrary heteroskedasticity. In two-way designs --- worker-firm, firm-time --- these contrasts are exactly the cycles of the bipartite mobility graph, so the movement that identifies the treatment effect is what makes exact inference possible. Exactness costs power: relative to an oracle test, a chosen set of cycles has an observable \textit{capture ratio} $\kap\in[0,1]$ and standard-error premium $\kap^{-1/2}$, and a packing algorithm resolves the capture-granularity trade-off. In the Grunfeld investment regression (single-observation score concentration $73.9\%$), 32 cycle contrasts capture $\kap=0.627$ of the identifying variation, giving an exact $95\%$ confidence interval of $[0.150,\,0.450]$.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Analyzing Within-Subject Experiments: Identification, Testing, and Sensitivity

Recent work encourages political scientists to move from post-only toward within-subject designs for improved precision from repeated measurements. We formalize a potential-outcomes framework for two-period within-subject designs that allows for unequal allocation and heterogeneous treatment and carryover effects. We c...

Shi-Yao Liu, Jun-Ni L. Zhang · 0 citations
Preprint Sep 2026

Profiled Anderson--Rubin Test: Robust Inference Allowing for Direct Effects of Instruments

Instrumental variable analyses often rely on the assumption that instruments affect the outcome only through the endogenous regressor. In many applications, researchers can defend only a plausible range for direct effects of instruments, while conventional sensitivity analyses may be unreliable when instruments are wea...

Jung Hyub Lee · 0 citations
Review Sep 2026

Panel Conditioning in Fixed-Effects Models: Identification and Bias Propagation

Panel conditioning, the causal effect of prior survey participation on responses, can vary with tenure. Under an additive model of cell means in period, entry cohort, and tenure, we characterize which features of the conditioning path a staggered panel identifies on its observed support, and how the unidentified compon...

Shoki Okubo · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Difference-in-Differences Models in the Presence of Time-Varying Mediators and Lagged outcomes

We study difference-in-differences (DiD) designs in which a binary treatment changes an endogenous time-varying (continuous, discrete, or mixed) mediator that in turn affects an outcome. We allow for the inclusion of lagged outcomes in the model. Under our model assumptions, we show that the usual DiD estimand mixes th...

Kyunghoon Ban, Zheng Chen, D'esir'e K'edagni · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Partial Homogeneity in Staggered Difference-in-Differences

In staggered difference-in-differences (DiD) designs, units enter treatment at different calendar times, so the treatment effect is not a single number but a set of Cohort-Average Treatment effects on the Treated (CATTs), one per cohort-time cell. Estimating every CATT as its own parameter, as the standard fully flexib...

Parush Arora, Rohan Wagle · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Trading Scope for Credibility in Difference-in-Differences

When parallel trends fails for some treated cohorts but not others, the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), an average over all of them, is exactly the target that becomes hard to recover. We propose changing the estimand rather than defending it. The credible-subpopulation local ATT (LATT) is the effect for...

Parush Arora, Abhishek Chand · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.