IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2604.16690.html

Integrating Diagnostic Checks into Estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Reca Sarfati
  • Vod Vilfort

Abstract

Empirical researchers often use diagnostic checks to assess the plausibility of their modeling assumptions, such as testing for covariate balance in RCTs, pre-trends in event studies, or instrument validity in IV designs. While these checks are traditionally treated as external hurdles to estimation, we argue they should be integrated into the estimation process itself. In particular, we propose residualizing one's baseline estimator against the vector of diagnostic check statistics to remove the component of baseline sampling variation explained by the diagnostic checks. This residualized estimator offers researchers a "free lunch," delivering three properties simultaneously: (i) eliminating inference distortions from check-based selective reporting; (ii) reducing variance without changing the estimand when the baseline model is correctly specified; and (iii) minimizing worst-case bias under bounded local misspecification within the class of linear adjustments. We apply our method to the RCT in Kaur et al. (2024) and find that, even in a setting where all balance checks pass comfortably, residualization increases the magnitude of the baseline point estimate and reduces its standard error, equivalent to approximately a 10% increase in sample size.

Suggested Citation

  • Reca Sarfati & Vod Vilfort, 2026. "Integrating Diagnostic Checks into Estimation," Papers 2604.16690, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2604.16690
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.16690
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Roth & Pedro H. C. Sant’Anna, 2023. "Efficient Estimation for Staggered Rollout Designs," Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 669-709.
    2. Oren Danieli & Daniel Nevo & Itai Walk & Bar Weinstein & Dan Zeltzer, 2026. "Negative Control Falsification Tests for Instrumental Variable Designs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 116(4), pages 1380-1414, April.
    3. Abhijit V. Banerjee & Sylvain Chassang & Sergio Montero & Erik Snowberg, 2020. "A Theory of Experimenters: Robustness, Randomization, and Balance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1206-1230, April.
    4. Stéphane Bonhomme & Martin Weidner, 2022. "Minimizing sensitivity to model misspecification," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), pages 907-954, July.
    5. Simon Freyaldenhoven & Christian Hansen & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2019. "Pre-event Trends in the Panel Event-Study Design," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(9), pages 3307-3338, September.
    6. Clara Bicalho & Adam Bouyamourn & Thad Dunning, 2022. "The Power of Prognosis: Improving Covariate Balance Tests with Outcome Information," Papers 2205.10478, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2025.
    7. K. Newey, Whitney, 1985. "Generalized method of moments specification testing," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 229-256, September.
    8. Isaiah Andrews & Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2020. "On the Informativeness of Descriptive Statistics for Structural Estimates," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(6), pages 2231-2258, November.
    9. Timothy B. Armstrong & Michal Kolesár, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis using approximate moment condition models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 77-108, January.
    10. Isaiah Andrews & Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2017. "Measuring the Sensitivity of Parameter Estimates to Estimation Moments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(4), pages 1553-1592.
    11. Kirill Borusyak & Xavier Jaravel & Jann Spiess, 2024. "Revisiting Event-Study Designs: Robust and Efficient Estimation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(6), pages 3253-3285.
    12. Erin Hartman & F. Daniel Hidalgo, 2018. "An Equivalence Approach to Balance and Placebo Tests," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(4), pages 1000-1013, October.
    13. Isaiah Andrews & Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2020. "Reply to: Comments on “On the Informativeness of Descriptive Statistics for Structural Estimates”," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(6), pages 2277-2279, November.
    14. Ariella Kahn-Lang & Kevin Lang, 2020. "The Promise and Pitfalls of Differences-in-Differences: Reflections on 16 and Pregnant and Other Applications," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(3), pages 613-620, July.
    15. Charles F. Manski & John V. Pepper, 2018. "How Do Right-to-Carry Laws Affect Crime Rates? Coping with Ambiguity Using Bounded-Variation Assumptions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(2), pages 232-244, May.
    16. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Christian Hansen, 2011. "Inference on Treatment Effects After Selection Amongst High-Dimensional Controls," Papers 1201.0224, arXiv.org, revised May 2012.
    17. Jonathan Roth, 2022. "Pretest with Caution: Event-Study Estimates after Testing for Parallel Trends," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 305-322, September.
    18. Ashesh Rambachan & Jonathan Roth, 2023. "A More Credible Approach to Parallel Trends," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(5), pages 2555-2591.
    19. Isaiah Andrews & Toru Kitagawa & Adam McCloskey, 2024. "Inference on Winners," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 139(1), pages 305-358.
    20. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Christian Hansen, 2013. "Supplementary Appendix for "Inference on Treatment Effects After Selection Amongst High-Dimensional Controls"," Papers 1305.6099, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2013.
    21. Jerry Hausman, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arne Henningsen & Guy Low & David Wuepper & Tobias Dalhaus & Hugo Storm & Dagim Belay & Stefan Hirsch, 2026. "Estimating Causal Effects With Observational Data: Guidelines for Agricultural and Applied Economists," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 77(2), pages 356-382, June.
    2. Stéphane Bonhomme & Martin Weidner, 2022. "Minimizing sensitivity to model misspecification," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), pages 907-954, July.
    3. Ratzanyel Rinc'on & Kyungchul Song, 2025. "Causal Inference with Groupwise Matching," Papers 2510.26106, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2026.
    4. Philipp Bach & Sven Klaassen & Jannis Kueck & Mara Mattes & Martin Spindler, 2025. "Sensitivity Analysis for Treatment Effects in Difference-in-Differences Models using Riesz Representation," Papers 2510.09064, arXiv.org.
    5. Philipp Eisenhauer & Lena Janys & Christopher Walsh & Janós Gabler, 2023. "Structural Models for Policy-Making," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_484, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    6. Bach, Philipp & Klaaßen, Sven & Kueck, Jannis & Mattes, Mara & Spindler, Martin, 2025. "Sensitivity analysis for treatment effects in difference-in-differences models using Riesz Rrepresentation," Discussion Papers 2025/7, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    7. Naoya Sueishi, 2022. "On the Informativeness of Specification Tests for Estimator Validity," Papers 2211.11915, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2026.
    8. Timothy Christensen & Benjamin Connault, 2023. "Counterfactual Sensitivity and Robustness," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(1), pages 263-298, January.
    9. Timothy B. Armstrong & Michal Kolesár, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis using approximate moment condition models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 77-108, January.
    10. Stéphane Bonhomme & Martin Weidner, 2020. "Minimizing Sensitivity to Model Misspecification," CeMMAP working papers CWP37/20, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    11. Jens Klooster & Mikhail Zhelonkin, 2024. "Outlier robust inference in the instrumental variable model with applications to causal effects," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(1), pages 86-106, January.
    12. Roth, Jonathan & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Bilinski, Alyssa & Poe, John, 2023. "What’s trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 2218-2244.
    13. Gregory Faletto, 2023. "Fused Extended Two-Way Fixed Effects for Difference-in-Differences With Staggered Adoptions," Papers 2312.05985, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2025.
    14. Maximilian Blesch & Philipp Eisenhauer, 2023. "Robust Decision-Making under Risk and Ambiguity," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 463, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    15. Nilsen, Øivind A. & Raknerud, Arvid, 2024. "Dynamics of first-time patenting firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(8).
    16. Sarah Gust, 2024. "(Not) Going to School in Times of Climate Change: Natural Disasters and Student Achievement," ifo Working Paper Series 413, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    17. Elena Kotyrlo, 2024. "Simple and complex difference-in-differences approach," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 73, pages 119-142.
    18. Shany Azaria & Boaz Ronen & Noam Shamir, 2024. "Alleviating Court Congestion: The Case of the Jerusalem District Court," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 267-281, May.
    19. Young Ahn & Hiroyuki Kasahara, 2026. "Event-Study Designs for Discrete Outcomes under Transition Independence," Papers 2603.07914, arXiv.org.
    20. Clément de Chaisemartin & Xavier D’Haultfœuille, 2023. "Two-way fixed effects and differences-in-differences with heterogeneous treatment effects: a survey," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 26(3), pages 1-30.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2604.16690. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.