跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

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。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究不依从、结果缺失和主分层条件下平均因果效应的识别,因此归入因果推断。

反馈分类问题

Identification of complier and noncomplier average causal effects in the presence of latent missing-at-random (LMAR) outcomes: a unifying view and choices of assumptions

潜在随机缺失结果下依从者与非依从者平均因果效应的识别

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者

潜在随机缺失结果下依从者与非依从者平均因果效应的识别

研究问题
在单侧不依从且结果满足潜在随机缺失的情形下,如何识别依从者与非依从者平均因果效应,并灵活选择不同识别假设?
方法与思路
作者将处理分配可忽略性与 LMAR 下的不可识别问题归结为两条相连的混合方程,分别讨论缺失机制假设与主分层识别假设。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称除特殊情况外通常需要两类附加假设,提出统一识别模板、讨论新旧缺失假设并修正已有假设的问题,结合试验数据说明。
阅读关注点
应核对两条混合方程、特殊可识别情形、各附加假设的实质含义,以及采用工具变量或其他主分层识别路径时的差别。
阅读边界
这是 arXiv 预印本,同行评审或期刊接收未核实。摘要未给出各假设与修正的具体形式,不能判断其可检验性或应用中的可信程度。

原文摘要

The study of treatment effects is often complicated by noncompliance and missing data. In the one-sided noncompliance setting where of interest are the complier and noncomplier average causal effects (CACE and NACE), we address outcome missingness of the \textit{latent missing at random} type (LMAR, also known as \textit{latent ignorability}). That is, conditional on covariates and treatment assigned, the missingness may depend on compliance type. Within the instrumental variable (IV) approach to noncompliance, methods have been proposed for handling LMAR outcome that additionally invoke an exclusion restriction type assumption on missingness, but no solution has been proposed for when a non-IV approach is used. This paper focuses on effect identification in the presence of LMAR outcome, with a view to flexibly accommodate different principal identification approaches. We show that under treatment assignment ignorability and LMAR only, effect nonidentifiability boils down to a set of two connected mixture equations involving unidentified stratum-specific response probabilities and outcome means. This clarifies that (except for a special case) effect identification generally requires two additional assumptions: a \textit{specific missingness mechanism} assumption and a \textit{principal identification} assumption. This provides a template for identifying effects based on separate choices of these assumptions. We consider a range of specific missingness assumptions, including those that have appeared in the literature and some new ones. Incidentally, we find an issue in the existing assumptions, and propose a modification of the assumptions to avoid the issue. Results under different assumptions are illustrated using data from the Baltimore Experience Corps Trial.

笔记与分组