Smaller Confidence Intervals From IPW Estimators via Data-Dependent Coarsening
通过数据依赖粗化缩小逆倾向得分加权估计的置信区间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。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
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:摘要明确研究无混杂条件下平均处理效应的逆倾向得分加权及稳健区间推断。
通过数据依赖粗化缩小逆倾向得分加权估计的置信区间AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Inverse propensity-score weighted (IPW) estimators are prevalent in causal inference for estimating average treatment effects in observational studies. Under unconfoundedness, given accurate propensity scores and $n$ samples, the size of confidence intervals of IPW estimators scales down with $n$, and, several of their variants improve the rate of scaling. However, neither IPW estimators nor their variants are robust to inaccuracies: even if a single covariate has an $\varepsilon>0$ additive error in the propensity score, the size of confidence intervals of these estimators can increase arbitrarily. Moreover, even without errors, the rate with which the confidence intervals of these estimators go to zero with $n$ can be arbitrarily slow in the presence of extreme propensity scores (those close to 0 or 1). We introduce a family of Coarse IPW (CIPW) estimators that captures existing IPW estimators and their variants. Each CIPW estimator is an IPW estimator on a coarsened covariate space, where certain covariates are merged. Under mild assumptions, e.g., Lipschitzness in expected outcomes and sparsity of extreme propensity scores, we give an efficient algorithm to find a robust estimator: given $\varepsilon$-inaccurate propensity scores and $n$ samples, its confidence interval size scales with $\varepsilon+1/\sqrt{n}$. In contrast, under the same assumptions, existing estimators' confidence interval sizes are $Ω(1)$ irrespective of $\varepsilon$ and $n$. Crucially, our estimator is data-dependent and we show that no data-independent CIPW estimator can be robust to inaccuracies.