Understanding how treatment effects vary across groups is central to policy evaluation. In Difference-in-Differences designs, heterogeneity is often studied using subgroup or triple-difference analyses, which can suffer from conservative inference, reliance on parametric interaction structures, and sensitivity to differences in covariate distributions across groups. We propose the Balanced Group Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (BGATT), a new estimand that isolates heterogeneity in treatment responses from differences in covariate composition and is identified under standard conditional parallel-trends assumptions. BGATT provides a transparent target for comparing group-specific treatment effects. We derive an influence-function representation and develop estimators that are $\sqrt{n}$-consistent and asymptotically normal under flexible machine-learning estimation of high-dimensional nuisance components, enabling valid inference on both group-specific effects and differences across groups. Simulation evidence shows favorable finite-sample performance.
Over the real numbers, the Kronecker sum is the unique operation on matrices which exponentiates to the Kronecker product. Kronecker quotients provide an algebraic view of decompositions of matrices in terms of Kronecker products. This article explores families of operations, Kronecker differences, which are a kind of "inverse" for Kronecker sums. The correspondence between Kronecker differences and Kronecker quotients is explored. Furthermore, we show that a certain class of Kronecker differences may be characterized by families of matrices with these families again being expressed as Kronecker products. This approach provides a different "nonlinear" view towards tensor decomposition.
Difference-in-differences (DID) is a widely used quasi-experimental design for causal inference, traditionally applied to scalar or Euclidean outcomes, while extensions to outcomes residing in non-Euclidean spaces remain limited. Existing methods for such outcomes have primarily focused on univariate distributions, leveraging linear operations in the space of quantile functions, but these approaches cannot be directly extended to outcomes in general metric spaces. In this paper, we propose geodesic DID, a novel DID framework for outcomes in geodesic metric spaces, such as distributions, networks, and manifold-valued data. To address the absence of algebraic operations in these spaces, we use geodesics as proxies for differences and introduce the geodesic average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) as the causal estimand. We establish the identification of the geodesic ATT and derive the convergence rate of its sample versions, employing tools from metric geometry and empirical process theory. This framework is further extended to the case of staggered DID settings, allowing for multiple time periods and varying treatment timings. To illustrate the practical utility of geodesic DI
The synthetic difference-in-differences method provides an efficient method to estimate a causal effect with a latent factor model. However, it relies on the use of panel data. This paper presents an adaptation of the synthetic difference-in-differences method for repeated cross-sectional data. The treatment is considered to be at the group level so that it is possible to aggregate data by group to compute the two types of synthetic difference-in-differences weights on these aggregated data. Then, I develop and compute a third type of weight that accounts for the different number of observations in each cross-section. Simulation results show that the performance of the synthetic difference-in-differences estimator is improved when using the third type of weights on repeated cross-sectional data.
Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) has been extensively employed to elucidate the enduring gender differences in mathematics-intensive fields, with a particular emphasis on the complex interplay of motivational factors and extra-personal influences contributing to the underrepresentation of women. Although a plethora of empirical studies corroborate SCCT, three crucial aspects for refinement have come to the fore. First, the theory should place a more substantial emphasis on how cultural and contextual diversity influences academic choices. Second, given the dynamic nature of motivation, which evolves over time, more longitudinal analyses are imperative to capture their temporal trajectory, in contrast to the predominantly cross-sectional empirical studies. Finally, considering the intricate interplay between emotion and motivation, integrating the dimension of emotion into SCCT would significantly augment its explanatory power and provide a more comprehensive understanding of academic selection processes.
This study examines how institutional differences and external crises shape volatility dynamics in emerging Asian stock markets. Using daily stock index returns for Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines from 2010 to 2024, we estimate EGARCH(1,1) and TGARCH(1,1) models in a by-window design. The sample is split into the 2013 Taper Tantrum, the 2020-2021 COVID-19 period, the 2022-2023 rate-hike cycle, and tranquil phases. Prior work typically studies a single market or a static period; to our knowledge no study unifies institutional comparison with multi-crisis dynamics within one GARCH framework. We address this gap and show that all three markets display strong volatility persistence and fat-tailed returns. During crises both persistence and asymmetry increase, while tail thickness rises, implying more frequent extreme moves. After crises, parameters revert toward pre-shock levels. Cross-country evidence indicates a buffering role of institutional maturity: Malaysias stronger regulatory and information systems dampen amplification and speed recovery, whereas the Philippines thinner market structure prolongs instability. We conclude that crises amplify volatility structures, whil
Most general population web surveys are based on online panels maintained by commercial survey agencies. However, survey agencies differ in their panel selection and management strategies. Little is known if these different strategies cause differences in survey estimates. This paper presents the results of a systematic study designed to analyze the differences in web survey results between agencies. Six different survey agencies were commissioned with the same web survey using an identical standardized questionnaire covering factual health items. Five surveys were fielded at the same time. A calibration approach was used to control the effect of demographics on the outcome. Overall, the results show differences between probability and non-probability surveys in health estimates, which were reduced but not eliminated by weighting. Furthermore, the differences between non-probability surveys before and after weighting are larger than expected between random samples from the same population.
We propose the Sequential Synthetic Difference-in-Differences (Sequential SDiD) estimator for event studies with staggered treatment adoption, particularly when the parallel trends assumption fails. The method uses an iterative imputation procedure on aggregated data, where estimates for early-adopting cohorts are used to construct counterfactuals for later ones. We prove the estimator is asymptotically equivalent to an infeasible oracle OLS estimator within a linear model with interactive fixed effects. This key theoretical result provides a foundation for standard inference by establishing asymptotic normality and clarifying the estimator's efficiency. By offering a robust and transparent method with formal statistical guarantees, Sequential SDiD is a powerful alternative to conventional difference-in-differences strategies.
Relative attribute models can compare images in terms of all detected properties or attributes, exhaustively predicting which image is fancier, more natural, and so on without any regard to ordering. However, when humans compare images, certain differences will naturally stick out and come to mind first. These most noticeable differences, or prominent differences, are likely to be described first. In addition, many differences, although present, may not be mentioned at all. In this work, we introduce and model prominent differences, a rich new functionality for comparing images. We collect instance-level annotations of most noticeable differences, and build a model trained on relative attribute features that predicts prominent differences for unseen pairs. We test our model on the challenging UT-Zap50K shoes and LFW10 faces datasets, and outperform an array of baseline methods. We then demonstrate how our prominence model improves two vision tasks, image search and description generation, enabling more natural communication between people and vision systems.
We consider the ordered sequence of coprimes to a given primorial number and investigate differences between consecutive elements. The Jacobsthal function applied to the concerning primorial turns out to represent the greatest of these differences. We will explore the smallest even number which does not occur as such a difference. Little is known about even natural numbers below the respective Jacobsthal function which cannot be represented as a difference between consecutive numbers coprime to a primorial. Existence and frequency of these numbers have not yet been clarified. Using the relation between restricted coverings of sequences of consecutive integers and the occuring differences, we derive a bound below which all even natural numbers are differences between consecutive numbers coprime to a given primorial $p_k\#$. Furthermore, we provide exhaustive computational results on non-existent differences for primes $p_k$ up to $k=44$. The data suggest the assumption that all even natural numbers up to $h(k-1)$ occur as differences of coprimes to $p_k\#$ where $h(n)$ is the Jacobsthal function applied to $p_n\#$.
We Investigate two types of dual identities for Caputo fractional differences. The first type relates nabla and delta type fractional sums and differences. The second type represented by the Q-operator relates left and right fractional sums and differences. Two types of Caputo fractional differences are introduced, one of them (dual one) is defined so that it obeys the investigated dual identities. The relation between Rieamnn and Caputo fractional differences is investigated and the delta and nabla discrete Mittag-Leffler functions are confirmed by solving Caputo type linear fractional difference equations. A nabla integration by parts formula is obtained for Caputo fractional differences as well.
The plausibility of the ``parallel trends assumption'' in Difference-in-Differences estimation is usually assessed by a test of the null hypothesis that the difference between the average outcomes of both groups is constant over time before the treatment. However, failure to reject the null hypothesis does not imply the absence of differences in time trends between both groups. We provide equivalence tests that allow researchers to find evidence in favor of the parallel trends assumption and thus increase the credibility of their treatment effect estimates. While we motivate our tests in the standard two-way fixed effects model, we discuss simple extensions to settings in which treatment adoption is staggered over time.
In this paper, we describe a computational implementation of the Synthetic difference-in-differences (SDID) estimator of Arkhangelsky et al. (2021) for Stata. Synthetic difference-in-differences can be used in a wide class of circumstances where treatment effects on some particular policy or event are desired, and repeated observations on treated and untreated units are available over time. We lay out the theory underlying SDID, both when there is a single treatment adoption date and when adoption is staggered over time, and discuss estimation and inference in each of these cases. We introduce the sdid command which implements these methods in Stata, and provide a number of examples of use, discussing estimation, inference, and visualization of results.
We present a study of two model liquids with different interaction potentials, exhibiting similar structure but significantly different dynamics at low temperatures. By evaluating the configurational entropy, we show that the differences in the dynamics of these systems can be understood in terms of their thermodynamic differences. Analyzing their structure, we demonstrate that differences in pair correlation functions between the two systems, through their contribution to the entropy, dominate the differences in their dynamics, and indeed overestimate the differences. Including the contribution of higher order structural correlations to the entropy leads to smaller estimates for the relaxation times, as well as smaller differences between the two studied systems.
This is the third and final installment in our series of papers applying the method of Atkin and Swinnerton-Dyer to deduce formulas for rank differences. The study of rank differences was initiated by Atkin and Swinnerton-Dyer in their proof of Dyson's conjectures concerning Ramanujan's congruences for the partition function. Since then, other types of rank differences for statistics associated to partitions have been investigated. In this paper, we prove explicit formulas for M_2-rank differences for overpartitions. Additionally, we express a third order mock theta function in terms of rank differences.
We introduce principal differences analysis (PDA) for analyzing differences between high-dimensional distributions. The method operates by finding the projection that maximizes the Wasserstein divergence between the resulting univariate populations. Relying on the Cramer-Wold device, it requires no assumptions about the form of the underlying distributions, nor the nature of their inter-class differences. A sparse variant of the method is introduced to identify features responsible for the differences. We provide algorithms for both the original minimax formulation as well as its semidefinite relaxation. In addition to deriving some convergence results, we illustrate how the approach may be applied to identify differences between cell populations in the somatosensory cortex and hippocampus as manifested by single cell RNA-seq. Our broader framework extends beyond the specific choice of Wasserstein divergence.
While there are many machine learning methods to classify and cluster sequences, they fail to explain what are the differences in groups of sequences that make them distinguishable. Although in some cases having a black box model is sufficient, there is a need for increased explainability in research areas focused on human behaviors. For example, psychologists are less interested in having a model that predicts human behavior with high accuracy and more concerned with identifying differences between actions that lead to divergent human behavior. This paper presents techniques for understanding differences between classes of discrete sequences. Approaches introduced in this paper can be utilized to interpret black box machine learning models on sequences. The first approach compares k-gram representations of sequences using the silhouette score. The second method characterizes differences by analyzing the distance matrix of subsequences. As a case study, we trained black box supervised learning methods to classify sequences of GitHub teams and then utilized our sequence analysis techniques to measure and characterize differences between event sequences of teams with bots and teams w
A recent literature has shown that when adoption of a treatment is staggered and average treatment effects vary across groups and over time, difference-in-differences regression does not identify an easily interpretable measure of the typical effect of the treatment. In this paper, I extend this literature in two ways. First, I provide some simple underlying intuition for why difference-in-differences regression does not identify a group$\times$period average treatment effect. Second, I propose an alternative two-stage estimation framework, motivated by this intuition. In this framework, group and period effects are identified in a first stage from the sample of untreated observations, and average treatment effects are identified in a second stage by comparing treated and untreated outcomes, after removing these group and period effects. The two-stage approach is robust to treatment-effect heterogeneity under staggered adoption, and can be used to identify a host of different average treatment effect measures. It is also simple, intuitive, and easy to implement. I establish the theoretical properties of the two-stage approach and demonstrate its effectiveness and applicability usin
The selection pressures that have shaped the evolution of complex traits in humans remain largely unknown, and in some contexts highly contentious, perhaps above all where they concern mean trait differences among groups. To date, the discussion has focused on whether such group differences have any genetic basis, and if so, whether they are without fitness consequences and arose via random genetic drift, or whether they were driven by selection for different trait optima in different environments. Here, we highlight a plausible alternative, that many complex traits evolve under stabilizing selection in the face of shifting environmental effects. Under this scenario, there will be rapid evolution at the loci that contribute to trait variation, even when the trait optimum remains the same. These considerations underscore the strong assumptions about environmental effects that are required in ascribing trait differences among groups to genetic differences.
We propose a method for discovering and visualizing the differences between two learned representations, enabling more direct and interpretable model comparisons. We validate our method, which we call Representational Differences Explanations (RDX), by using it to compare models with known conceptual differences and demonstrate that it recovers meaningful distinctions where existing explainable AI (XAI) techniques fail. Applied to state-of-the-art models on challenging subsets of the ImageNet and iNaturalist datasets, RDX reveals both insightful representational differences and subtle patterns in the data. Although comparison is a cornerstone of scientific analysis, current tools in machine learning, namely post hoc XAI methods, struggle to support model comparison effectively. Our work addresses this gap by introducing an effective and explainable tool for contrasting model representations.