Counterfactual distributions are important ingredients for policy analysis and decomposition analysis in empirical economics. In this article, we develop modeling and inference tools for counterfactual distributions based on regression methods. The counterfactual scenarios that we consider consist of ceteris paribus changes in either the distribution of covariates related to the outcome of interest or the conditional distribution of the outcome given covariates. For either of these scenarios, we derive joint functional central limit theorems and bootstrap validity results for regression-based estimators of the status quo and counterfactual outcome distributions. These results allow us to construct simultaneous confidence sets for function-valued effects of the counterfactual changes, including the effects on the entire distribution and quantile functions of the outcome as well as on related functionals. These confidence sets can be used to test functional hypotheses such as no-effect, positive effect, or stochastic dominance. Our theory applies to general counterfactual changes and covers the main regression methods including classical, quantile, duration, and distribution regressions. We illustrate the results with an empirical application to wage decompositions using data for the United States. As a part of developing the main results, we introduce distribution regression as a comprehensive and flexible tool for modeling and estimating the entire conditional distribution. We show that distribution regression encompasses the Cox duration regression and represents a useful alternative to quantile regression. We establish functional central limit theorems and bootstrap validity results for the empirical distribution regression process and various related functionals.

Nonseparable panel models are important in a variety of economic settings, including discrete choice. This paper gives identification and estimation results for nonseparable models under time-homogeneity conditions that are like “time is randomly assigned” or “time is an instrument.” Partial-identification results for average and quantile effects are given for discrete regressors, under static or dynamic conditions, in fully nonparametric and in semiparametric models, with time effects. It is shown that the usual, linear, fixed-effects estimator is not a consistent estimator of the identified average effect, and a consistent estimator is given. A simple estimator of identified quantile treatment effects is given, providing a solution to the important problem of estimating quantile treatment effects from panel data. Bounds for overall effects in static and dynamic models are given. The dynamic bounds provide a partial-identification solution to the important problem of estimating the effect of state dependence in the presence of unobserved heterogeneity. The impact of T, the number of time periods, is shown by deriving shrinkage rates for the identified set as T grows. We also consider semiparametric, discrete-choice models and find that semiparametric panel bounds can be much tighter than nonparametric bounds. Computationally convenient methods for semiparametric models are presented. We propose a novel inference method that applies in panel data and other settings and show that it produces uniformly valid confidence regions in large samples. We give empirical illustrations.

We propose strategies to estimate and make inference on key features of heterogeneous effects in randomized experiments. These key features include best linear predictors of the effects using machine learning proxies, average effects sorted by impact groups , and average characteristics of most and least impacted units . The approach is valid in high‐dimensional settings, where the effects are proxied (but not necessarily consistently estimated) by predictive and causal machine learning methods. We post‐process these proxies into estimates of the key features. Our approach is generic; it can be used in conjunction with penalized methods, neural networks, random forests, boosted trees, and ensemble methods, both predictive and causal. Estimation and inference are based on repeated data splitting to avoid overfitting and achieve validity. We use quantile aggregation of the results across many potential splits, in particular taking medians of p ‐values and medians and other quantiles of confidence intervals. We show that quantile aggregation lowers estimation risks over a single split procedure, and establish its principal inferential properties. Finally, our analysis reveals ways to build provably better machine learning proxies through causal learning: we can use the objective functions that we develop to construct the best linear predictors of the effects, to obtain better machine learning proxies in the initial step. We illustrate the use of both inferential tools and causal learners with a randomized field experiment that evaluates a combination of nudges to stimulate demand for immunization in India.

This zip file contains the replication files for the manuscript. It also contains an online appendix. The supplementary material contains 7 appendices with additional results and some omitted proofs. Appendix C introduces some notation. Appendix D includes a brief review of differential geometry. Appendix E gathers the proofs of the key mathematical results in Appendix A. Appendix F provides sufficient conditions for the u-Donsker properties in Section 4. Appendix G extends the theoretical analysis to include discrete covariates. Appendices H and I report the results of 3 numerical simulations and an empirical application to the effect of race on mortgage denials, respectively.