There are ~130 RD questions on the site (with some false positives) and it is a standard quasi-experimental inference method in economics and other fields. Does this volume merit its own tag?
I don't see why not. That is a perfectly valid topic. We have other, similar tags for methods used to infer causality from observational data, including:
- causality (387 threads)
- granger-causality (137 threads)
- instrumental-variables (292 threads)
- propensity-scores (201 threads)
- difference-in-difference (187 threads)
- fixed-effects-model (511 threads)
As always, if you do create the tag, please add a good excerpt to guide usage, and preferably a good full wiki as well.
It seems we already have a discontinuity tag with 40 threads (ht, @amoeba). Of those, 22 have both
[discontinuity] and certainly more than half are really about RD. There are also 17 threads with
[regression] and "discontinuity", but without the tag. I think it would be better to have an explicit
[r-d] tag specifically for RD. The term / idea of discontinuity is somewhat generic. It could cover RD, but could also be used for something like changepoint or something else (e.g., Is there a way to correct for continuity for the Shapiro-Wilk test?). If we did create a new tag for RD, the question then is what to do w/
[d]. My first thought would be to go through those 40 threads and properly retag them, leaving
[d] only on those threads like the one just linked that are about other senses of discontinuity and that can't be given a more specific tag. Then we could edit the wiki excerpt to provide better usage guidance.