Source author record

Jonathan Roth

Jonathan Roth appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

econ.EM Methodology math.ST Statistics Theory

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works

4topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2026arXiv

Interpreting Event-Studies from Recent Difference-in-Differences Methods

This note discusses the interpretation of event-study plots produced by recent difference-in-differences methods. I show that even when specialized to the case of non-staggered treatment timing, the default plots produced by software for several of the most popular recent methods do not match those of traditional two-way fixed effects (TWFE) event-studies. The plots produced by the new methods may show a kink or jump at the time of treatment even when the TWFE event-study shows a straight line. This difference stems from the fact that the new methods construct the pre-treatment coefficients asymmetrically from the post-treatment coefficients. As a result, visual heuristics for evaluating violations of parallel trends using TWFE event-study plots should not be immediately applied to those from these methods. I conclude with practical recommendations for constructing and interpreting event-study plots when using these methods.

preprint2026arXiv

Testing Monotonicity in a Finite Population

We consider the extent to which we can learn from a completely randomized experiment whether all individuals have treatment effects that are weakly of the same sign, a condition we call monotonicity. From a classical sampling perspective, it is well-known that monotonicity is not falsifiable. By contrast, we show from the design-based perspective -- in which the units in the population are fixed and only treatment assignment is stochastic -- that the distribution of treatment effects in the finite population (and hence whether monotonicity holds) is formally identified. We argue, however, that the usual definition of identification is unnatural in the design-based setting because it imagines knowing the distribution of outcomes over different treatment assignments for the same units. We thus evaluate the informativeness of the data by the extent to which it enables frequentist testing and Bayesian updating. We show that frequentist tests can have nontrivial power against some alternatives, but power is generically limited. Likewise, we show that there exist (non-degenerate) Bayesian priors that never update about whether monotonicity holds. We conclude that, despite the formal identification result, the ability to learn about monotonicity from data in practice is severely limited.

preprint2023arXiv

What's Trending in Difference-in-Differences? A Synthesis of the Recent Econometrics Literature

This paper synthesizes recent advances in the econometrics of difference-in-differences (DiD) and provides concrete recommendations for practitioners. We begin by articulating a simple set of ``canonical'' assumptions under which the econometrics of DiD are well-understood. We then argue that recent advances in DiD methods can be broadly classified as relaxing some components of the canonical DiD setup, with a focus on $(i)$ multiple periods and variation in treatment timing, $(ii)$ potential violations of parallel trends, or $(iii)$ alternative frameworks for inference. Our discussion highlights the different ways that the DiD literature has advanced beyond the canonical model, and helps to clarify when each of the papers will be relevant for empirical work. We conclude by discussing some promising areas for future research.