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。

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:摘要明确研究随机实验中的平均处理效应估计和协变量调整。

反馈分类问题

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
P L Cohen
C B Fogarty

广义 Oaxaca–Blinder 估计量的无损校准

研究问题
在随机实验中,如何让使用非线性结果模型的平均处理效应估计量,也具有渐近效率不低于未经调整均值差的性质?
方法与思路
作者提出适用于广泛非线性模型的校准方法,在线性最小二乘下恢复常规回归调整,并分析与特定逆概率加权估计的渐近等价性。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,校准估计量的渐近效率不低于均值差及未经校准的处理效应估计量,并展示部分非线性估计未经校准时的风险。
阅读关注点
应核对校准步骤、无损性质对应的渐近比较标准、模型类别和随机化条件,以及逆概率加权等价结果的具体设定。
阅读边界
仅据所给 Crossref 摘要,无损保证属于渐近效率结论,不能解释为每个有限样本都更准确,也不能直接外推到观察性研究。

原文摘要

Summary In randomized experiments, adjusting for observed features when estimating treatment effects has been proposed as a way to improve asymptotic efficiency. However, among parametric methods, only linear regression has been proven to form an estimate of the average treatment effect that is asymptotically no less efficient than the treated-minus-control difference in means regardless of the true data generating process. Randomized treatment assignment provides this do-no-harm property, with neither truth of a linear model nor a generative model for the outcomes being required. We present a general calibration method that confers the same no-harm property onto estimators leveraging a broad class of nonlinear models. This recovers the usual regression-adjusted estimator when ordinary least squares is used, and further provides noninferior treatment effect estimators using methods such as logistic and Poisson regression. The resulting estimators are noninferior to both the difference-in-means estimator and to treatment effect estimators that have not undergone calibration. We show that our estimator is asymptotically equivalent to an inverse-probability-weighted estimator using a logit link with predicted potential outcomes as covariates. In a simulation study, we demonstrate that common nonlinear estimators without our calibration procedure may perform markedly worse than both the calibrated estimator and the unadjusted difference in means.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文