In many scientific fields such as biology, psychology and sociology, there is an increasing interest in estimating the causal effect of a matrix exposure on an outcome. Covariate balancing is crucial in causal inference and both exact balancing and approximate balancing methods have been proposed in the past decades. However, due to the large number of constraints, it is difficult to achieve exact balance or to select the threshold parameters for approximate balancing methods when the treatment is a matrix. To meet these challenges, we propose the weighted Euclidean balancing method, which approximately balance covariates from an overall perspective. This method is also applicable to high-dimensional covariates scenario. Both parametric and nonparametric methods are proposed to estimate the causal effect of matrix treatment and theoretical properties of the two estimations are provided. Furthermore, the simulation results show that the proposed method outperforms other methods in various cases. Finally, the method is applied to investigating the causal relationship between children's participation in various training courses and their IQ. The results show that the duration of attending hands-on practice courses for children at 6-9 years old has a siginificantly positive impact on children's IQ.
相關內容
Estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects is an active area of research in causal inference. Most of the existing methods, however, focus on estimating the conditional average treatment effects of a single, binary treatment given a set of pre-treatment covariates. In this paper, we propose a method to estimate the heterogeneous causal effects of high-dimensional treatments, which poses unique challenges in terms of estimation and interpretation. The proposed approach is based on a Bayesian mixture of regularized logistic regressions to identify groups of units who exhibit similar patterns of treatment effects. By directly modeling cluster membership with covariates, the proposed methodology allows one to explore the unit characteristics that are associated with different patterns of treatment effects. Our motivating application is conjoint analysis, which is a popular survey experiment in social science and marketing research and is based on a high-dimensional factorial design. We apply the proposed methodology to the conjoint data, where survey respondents are asked to select one of two immigrant profiles with randomly selected attributes. We find that a group of respondents with a relatively high degree of prejudice appears to discriminate against immigrants from non-European countries like Iraq. An open-source software package is available for implementing the proposed methodology.
In this paper we discuss potentially practical ways to produce expander graphs with good spectral properties and a compact description. We focus on several classes of uniform and bipartite expander graphs defined as random Schreier graphs of the general linear group over the finite field of size two. We perform numerical experiments and show that such constructions produce spectral expanders that can be useful for practical applications. To find a theoretical explanation of the observed experimental results, we used the method of moments to prove upper bounds for the expected second largest eigenvalue of the random Schreier graphs used in our constructions. We focus on bounds for which it is difficult to study the asymptotic behaviour but it is possible to compute non-trivial conclusions for relatively small graphs with parameters from our numerical experiments (e.g., with less than 2^200 vertices and degree at least logarithmic in the number of vertices).
Across research disciplines, cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are commonly implemented to evaluate interventions delivered to groups of participants, such as communities and clinics. Despite advances in the design and analysis of CRTs, several challenges remain. First, there are many possible ways to specify the causal effect of interest (e.g., at the individual-level or at the cluster-level). Second, the theoretical and practical performance of common methods for CRT analysis remain poorly understood. Here, we present a general framework to formally define an array of causal effects in terms of summary measures of counterfactual outcomes. Next, we provide a comprehensive overview of CRT estimators, including the t-test, generalized estimating equations (GEE), augmented-GEE, and targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE). Using finite sample simulations, we illustrate the practical performance of these estimators for different causal effects and when, as commonly occurs, there are limited numbers of clusters of different sizes. Finally, our application to data from the Preterm Birth Initiative (PTBi) study demonstrates the real-world impact of varying cluster sizes and targeting effects at the cluster-level or at the individual-level. Specifically, the relative effect of the PTBI intervention was 0.81 at the cluster-level, corresponding to a 19% reduction in outcome incidence, and was 0.66 at the individual-level, corresponding to a 34% reduction in outcome risk. Given its flexibility to estimate a variety of user-specified effects and ability to adaptively adjust for covariates for precision gains while maintaining Type-I error control, we conclude TMLE is a promising tool for CRT analysis.
We introduce and illustrate through numerical examples the R package \texttt{SIHR} which handles the statistical inference for (1) linear and quadratic functionals in the high-dimensional linear regression and (2) linear functional in the high-dimensional logistic regression. The focus of the proposed algorithms is on the point estimation, confidence interval construction and hypothesis testing. The inference methods are extended to multiple regression models. We include real data applications to demonstrate the package's performance and practicality.
We present new results on average causal effects in settings with unmeasured exposure-outcome confounding. Our results are motivated by a class of estimands, e.g., frequently of interest in medicine and public health, that are currently not targeted by standard approaches for average causal effects. We recognize these estimands as queries about the average causal effect of an intervening variable. We anchor our introduction of these estimands in an investigation of the role of chronic pain and opioid prescription patterns in the opioid epidemic, and illustrate how conventional approaches will lead unreplicable estimates with ambiguous policy implications. We argue that our altenative effects are replicable and have clear policy implications, and furthermore are non-parametrically identified by the classical frontdoor formula. As an independent contribution, we derive a new semiparametric efficient estimator of the frontdoor formula with a uniform sample boundedness guarantee. This property is unique among previously-described estimators in its class, and we demonstrate superior performance in finite-sample settings. Theoretical results are applied with data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Assessing causal effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding is a challenging problem. Although auxiliary variables, such as instrumental variables, are commonly used to identify causal effects, they are often unavailable in practice due to stringent and untestable conditions. To address this issue, previous researches have utilized linear structural equation models to show that the causal effect can be identifiable when noise variables of the treatment and outcome are both non-Gaussian. In this paper, we investigate the problem of identifying the causal effect using auxiliary covariates and non-Gaussianity from the treatment. Our key idea is to characterize the impact of unmeasured confounders using an observed covariate, assuming they are all Gaussian. The auxiliary covariate can be an invalid instrument or an invalid proxy variable. We demonstrate that the causal effect can be identified using this measured covariate, even when the only source of non-Gaussianity comes from the treatment. We then extend the identification results to the multi-treatment setting and provide sufficient conditions for identification. Based on our identification results, we propose a simple and efficient procedure for calculating causal effects and show the $\sqrt{n}$-consistency of the proposed estimator. Finally, we evaluate the performance of our estimator through simulation studies and an application.
There has been a recent surge in statistical methods for handling the lack of adequate positivity when using inverse probability weights (IPW). However, these nascent developments have raised a number of questions. Thus, we demonstrate the ability of equipoise estimators (overlap, matching, and entropy weights) to handle the lack of positivity. Compared to IPW, the equipoise estimators have been shown to be flexible and easy to interpret. However, promoting their wide use requires that researchers know clearly why, when to apply them and what to expect. In this paper, we provide the rationale to use these estimators to achieve robust results. We specifically look into the impact imbalances in treatment allocation can have on the positivity and, ultimately, on the estimates of the treatment effect. We zero into the typical pitfalls of the IPW estimator and its relationship with the estimators of the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) and on the controls (ATC). Furthermore, we also compare IPW trimming to the equipoise estimators. We focus particularly on two key points: What fundamentally distinguishes their estimands? When should we expect similar results? Our findings are illustrated through Monte-Carlo simulation studies and a data example on healthcare expenditure.
To estimate causal effects, analysts performing observational studies in health settings utilize several strategies to mitigate bias due to confounding by indication. There are two broad classes of approaches for these purposes: use of confounders and instrumental variables (IVs). Because such approaches are largely characterized by untestable assumptions, analysts must operate under an indefinite paradigm that these methods will work imperfectly. In this tutorial, we formalize a set of general principles and heuristics for estimating causal effects in the two approaches when the assumptions are potentially violated. This crucially requires reframing the process of observational studies as hypothesizing potential scenarios where the estimates from one approach are less inconsistent than the other. While most of our discussion of methodology centers around the linear setting, we touch upon complexities in non-linear settings and flexible procedures such as target minimum loss-based estimation (TMLE) and double machine learning (DML). To demonstrate the application of our principles, we investigate the use of donepezil off-label for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We compare and contrast results from confounder and IV methods, traditional and flexible, within our analysis and to a similar observational study and clinical trial.
We provide a novel characterization of augmented balancing weights, also known as Automatic Debiased Machine Learning (AutoDML). These estimators combine outcome modeling with balancing weights, which estimate inverse propensity score weights directly. When the outcome and weighting models are both linear in some (possibly infinite) basis, we show that the augmented estimator is equivalent to a single linear model with coefficients that combine the original outcome model coefficients and OLS; in many settings, the augmented estimator collapses to OLS alone. We then extend these results to specific choices of outcome and weighting models. We first show that the combined estimator that uses (kernel) ridge regression for both outcome and weighting models is equivalent to a single, undersmoothed (kernel) ridge regression; this also holds when considering asymptotic rates. When the weighting model is instead lasso regression, we give closed-form expressions for special cases and demonstrate a ``double selection'' property. Finally, we generalize these results to linear estimands via the Riesz representer. Our framework ``opens the black box'' on these increasingly popular estimators and provides important insights into estimation choices for augmented balancing weights.
This paper focuses on the expected difference in borrower's repayment when there is a change in the lender's credit decisions. Classical estimators overlook the confounding effects and hence the estimation error can be magnificent. As such, we propose another approach to construct the estimators such that the error can be greatly reduced. The proposed estimators are shown to be unbiased, consistent, and robust through a combination of theoretical analysis and numerical testing. Moreover, we compare the power of estimating the causal quantities between the classical estimators and the proposed estimators. The comparison is tested across a wide range of models, including linear regression models, tree-based models, and neural network-based models, under different simulated datasets that exhibit different levels of causality, different degrees of nonlinearity, and different distributional properties. Most importantly, we apply our approaches to a large observational dataset provided by a global technology firm that operates in both the e-commerce and the lending business. We find that the relative reduction of estimation error is strikingly substantial if the causal effects are accounted for correctly.
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191