Motivated by a recent literature on the double-descent phenomenon in machine learning, we consider highly over-parameterized models in causal inference, including synthetic control with many control units.

The synthetic control (SC) framework is widely used for observational causal inference with time-series panel data. SC has been successful in diverse applications, but existing methods typically treat the ordering of pre-intervention time indices interchangeable. This invariance means they may not fully take advantage of temporal structure when strong trends are present. We propose Time-Aware Synthetic Control (TASC), which employs a state-space model with a constant trend while preserving a low-rank structure of the signal. TASC uses the Kalman filter and Rauch-Tung-Striebel smoother: it first fits a generative time-series model with expectation-maximization and then performs counterfactual inference. We evaluate TASC on both simulated and real-world datasets, including policy evaluation and sports prediction. Our results suggest that TASC offers advantages in settings with strong temporal trends and high levels of observation noise.

Motivated by a recent literature on the double-descent phenomenon in machine learning, we consider highly over-parameterized models in causal inference, including synthetic control with many control units. In such models, there may be so many free parameters that the model fits the training data perfectly. We first investigate high-dimensional linear regression for imputing wage data and estimating average treatment effects, where we find that models with many more covariates than sample size can outperform simple ones.

Estimating causal effects on time-to-event outcomes from observational data is particularly challenging due to censoring, limited sample sizes, and non-random treatment assignment. The need for answering such "when-if" questions--how the timing of an event would change under a specified intervention--commonly arises in real-world settings with heterogeneous treatment adoption and confounding. To address these challenges, we propose Synthetic Survival Control (SSC) to estimate counterfactual hazard trajectories in a panel data setting where multiple units experience potentially different treatments over multiple periods. In such a setting, SSC estimates the counterfactual hazard trajectory for a unit of interest as a weighted combination of the observed trajectories from other units. To provide formal justification, we introduce a panel framework with a low-rank structure for causal survival analysis. Indeed, such a structure naturally arises under classical parametric survival models. Within this framework, for the causal estimand of interest, we establish identification and finite sample guarantees for SSC. We validate our approach using a multi-country clinical dataset of cancer treatment outcomes, where the staggered introduction of new therapies creates a quasi-experimental setting. Empirically, we find that access to novel treatments is associated with improved survival, as reflected by lower post-intervention hazard trajectories relative to their synthetic counterparts. Given the broad relevance of survival analysis across medicine, economics, and public policy, our framework offers a general and interpretable tool for counterfactual survival inference using observational data.

The problem of causal inference with panel data is a central econometric question.

A.2: Comparison of the causal assumptions A.3: Comparison of allowed temporal covariates A.4: Unrelated works with similar terminology The SyncTwin algorithm. A.5: The generality of SyncTwin's assumed DGP A.6: Estimation for control and new individuals A.7: Algorithmic details and pseudocode A.8: Optimization for the matching loss L

We begin by thanking all reviewers for their extremely encouraging and helpful responses. We agree that the fact we do PCR on both the training and testing covariates should be more explicitly placed in the context of transductive semi-supervised learning. We have strived to interpret our major theorem results (Thm 4.2 & Thm 5.1) by: (i) providing examples of natural generating Proposition 4.2, should be tight). Their empirical results support our theoretical guarantees.