arXiv subjects

Thomas Leavitt

Publications and source records attributed to Thomas Leavitt.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Beyond Pretrends: A Discordance-Based Sensitivity Analysis for Difference-in-Differences

In the canonical Difference-in-Differences design, the control group's post-treatment change serves as an imputation of the treated group's counterfactual change in the same period, an imputation justified by parallel trends. However, differences in group composition can produce between-group differences in how outcomes would evolve over time, rendering this imputation vulnerable to confounding. An alternative imputation -- such as one based on the treated group's pre-treatment change -- avoids such between-group confounding but introduces the risk of confounding from within-group temporal shifts. Ideally, both imputations, each vulnerable to different sources of confounding, would have concordant values, thereby yielding the same causal conclusions. When the imputations are discordant, conclusions under parallel trends hinge more critically on that assumption since alternative imputations would point to different results. Yet in these scenarios, existing pretrends-based sensitivity analyses can show low sensitivity because they ignore post-treatment deviations from pretrends in the control group. This paper therefore proposes a discordance-based sensitivity model in which parallel pretrends are necessary but not sufficient for low sensitivity. I formally justify this model in terms of the expected distance between the ATT under parallel trends and under alternative assumptions, weighted by the joint plausibility of those assumptions. I then provide a decision-theoretic rationale for benchmarking violations of parallel trends using the worst-case discordance between the parallel trends imputation and alternative imputations. Finally, I apply both pretrends- and discordance-based sensitivity models to assess how a labor supply shock influenced electoral support for apartheid-era policies in South Africa, showing how the two approaches yield different results.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Which Effect of Race? Causal Inference without Holding All Else Equal

Empirical studies of racial discrimination vary race while holding nonracial traits fixed, a design the literature defends as what credible inference requires. This defense bundles two claims: which effect of race a study should target, and whether its design can recover that effect. I separate them. The same randomization that secures credible estimation and inference recovers a family of race estimands, from the all-else-equal effect to a within-race effect that lets associated traits vary with race. Every member of that family is causal rather than descriptive, and the choice among members is a claim about what a racial category is -- a claim extending to ethnicity, religion, and other identity categories that index associated traits. I derive conditions, weaker than the literature's, for credible estimation and inference. Reanalyzing a Spanish-language campaign experiment, I find coethnic preference among Hispanic voters under the within-race effect and none under the all-else-equal effect.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Sequential Sensitivity Analysis for Multiple Assumptions: A Framework for Understanding Racial Disparity in Police Use of Force

Inferring racial discrimination in police use of force -- the average causal effect of civilian race on use of force -- requires two assumptions about policing prior to potential use of force: that officers do not discriminate in whom they would stop (no discrimination in stops) and that, conditional on patrol context, the probability that an encounter is with a minority rather than a white civilian does not vary across encounters (no bias in encounters). As Knox et al. (2020) show, violations of the first can mask racial disparity in force. Whether it reflects discrimination in force also depends on the second. Existing sensitivity analyses address one assumption at a time. We develop a framework that varies both sequentially and apply it to NYPD Stop, Question, and Frisk data (2003--2013). Under plausible levels of discrimination in stops, we find substantial racial disparity in force. However, the conclusion that this disparity reflects discrimination is fragile to modest departures from no bias in encounters that census-based calibration suggests are demographically feasible. By jointly addressing both confounding channels, the framework reveals how they interact in ways that separate analyses cannot, contributing to understanding what generates racial disparities and how they might be addressed.

stat.ME↗