Nearest neighbor (NN) matching is widely used in observational studies for causal effects. Abadie and Imbens (2006) provided the first large‐sample analysis of NN matching. Their theory focuses on the case with the number of NNs, M fixed. We reveal something new out of their study and show that once allowing M to diverge with the sample size an intrinsic statistic in their analysis constitutes a consistent estimator of the density ratio with regard to covariates across the treated and control groups. Consequently, with a diverging M , the NN matching with Abadie and Imbens' (2011) bias correction yields a doubly robust estimator of the average treatment effect and is semiparametrically efficient if the density functions are sufficiently smooth and the outcome model is consistently estimated. It can thus be viewed as a precursor of the double machine learning estimators.

Measuring the effect of peers on individuals' outcomes is a challenging problem, in part because individuals often select peers who are similar in both observable and unobservable ways. Group formation experiments avoid this problem by randomly assigning individuals to groups and observing their responses; for example, do first‐year students have better grades when they are randomly assigned roommates who have stronger academic backgrounds? In this paper, we propose randomization‐based permutation tests for group formation experiments, extending classical Fisher Randomization Tests to this setting. The proposed tests are justified by the randomization itself, require relatively few assumptions, and are exact in finite samples. This approach can also complement existing strategies, such as linear‐in‐means models, by using a regression coefficient as the test statistic. We apply the proposed tests to two recent group formation experiments.

One dominant approach to evaluate the causal effect of a treatment is through panel data analysis, whereby the behaviors of multiple units are observed over time. The information across time and units motivates two general approaches: (i) horizontal regression (i.e., unconfoundedness), which exploits time series patterns, and (ii) vertical regression (e.g., synthetic controls), which exploits cross‐sectional patterns. Conventional wisdom often considers the two approaches to be different. We establish this position to be partly false for estimation but generally true for inference. In the absence of any assumptions, we show that both approaches yield algebraically equivalent point estimates for several standard estimators. However, the source of randomness assumed by each approach leads to a distinct estimand and quantification of uncertainty even for the same point estimate. This emphasizes that researchers should carefully consider where the randomness stems from in their data, as it has direct implications for the accuracy of inference.