No star is good news: A unified look at rerandomization based on p -values from covariate balance tests
没有显著性星号是好消息:基于协变量平衡检验 p 值的再随机化AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要围绕随机实验的处理分配、平均处理效应及设计下的推断展开,文本直接支持归入因果推断这一领域细分。
没有显著性星号是好消息:基于协变量平衡检验 p 值的再随机化AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Randomized experiments balance all covariates on average and are considered the gold standard for estimating treatment effects. Chance imbalances are nonetheless common in realized treatment allocations. To inform readers of the comparability of treatment groups at baseline, contemporary scientific publications often report covariate balance tables with not only covariate means by treatment group but also the associated p-values from significance tests of their differences. The practical need to avoid small p-values as indicators of poor balance motivates balance check and rerandomization based on these p-values from covariate balance tests (ReP) as an attractive tool for improving covariate balance in designing randomized experiments. Despite the intuitiveness of such strategy and its possibly already widespread use in practice, the literature lacks results about its implications on subsequent inference, subjecting many effectively rerandomized experiments to possibly inefficient analyses. To fill this gap, we examine a variety of potentially useful schemes for ReP and quantify their impact on subsequent inference. Specifically, we focus on three estimators of the average treatment effect from the unadjusted, additive, and interacted linear regressions of the outcome on treatment, respectively, and derive their asymptotic sampling properties under ReP. The main findings are threefold. First, the estimator from the interacted regression is asymptotically the most efficient under all ReP schemes examined, and permits convenient regression-assisted inference identical to that under complete randomization. Second, ReP, in contrast to complete randomization, improves the asymptotic efficiency of the estimators from the unadjusted and additive regressions. Standard regression analyses are accordingly still valid but in general overconservative. Third, ReP reduces the asymptotic conditional biases of the three estimators and improves their coherence in terms of mean squared difference. These results establish ReP as a convenient tool for improving covariate balance in designing randomized experiments, and we recommend using the interacted regression for analyzing data from ReP designs.