  When researchers develop new econometric methods it is common practice to
compare the performance of the new methods to those of existing methods in
Monte Carlo studies. The credibility of such Monte Carlo studies is often
limited because of the freedom the researcher has in choosing the design. In
recent years a new class of generative models emerged in the machine learning
literature, termed Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) that can be used to
systematically generate artificial data that closely mimics real economic
datasets, while limiting the degrees of freedom for the researcher and
optionally satisfying privacy guarantees with respect to their training data.
In addition if an applied researcher is concerned with the performance of a
particular statistical method on a specific data set (beyond its theoretical
properties in large samples), she may wish to assess the performance, e.g., the
coverage rate of confidence intervals or the bias of the estimator, using
simulated data which resembles her setting. Tol illustrate these methods we
apply Wasserstein GANs (WGANs) to compare a number of different estimators for
average treatment effects under unconfoundedness in three distinct settings
(corresponding to three real data sets) and present a methodology for assessing
the robustness of the results. In this example, we find that (i) there is not
one estimator that outperforms the others in all three settings, so researchers
should tailor their analytic approach to a given setting, and (ii) systematic
simulation studies can be helpful for selecting among competing methods in this
situation.
