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:摘要明确研究政策或处理效应的选择后推断,并考虑为控制潜在混杂而加入大量协变量。

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
Waverly Wei
Yuqing Zhou
Zeyu Zheng
Jingshen Wang

大量协变量下最优政策效应的推断

研究问题
从同一随机样本中挑选效果最好的政策或处理后,如何同时纠正赢家诅咒和大量协变量带来的推断问题,避免效果评估过于乐观?
方法与思路
作者提出重抽样程序,对样本中选出的多个最佳政策效应进行点估计和置信区间构造,并处理纳入大量协变量的情形。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称该程序能够纠正赢家诅咒,置信区间渐近达到名义覆盖水平,并以模拟、慈善捐赠政策和就业支持项目展示有限样本表现。
阅读关注点
应核对最佳政策的选择规则、多个效果的推断目标、重抽样如何处理选择与协变量,以及覆盖结论所需的维数增长条件。
阅读边界
仅据所给 RePEc 出版社摘要,政策效应识别、协变量条件和覆盖保证的形式未说明,不能把渐近结果当作有限样本保证或推断版本变化。

原文摘要

Understanding the impact of the most effective policies or treatments on a response variable of interest is desirable in many empirical works in economics, statistics and other disciplines. Due to the widespread winner’s curse phenomenon, conventional statistical inference assuming that the top policies are chosen independent of the random sample may lead to overly optimistic evaluations of the best policies. In recent years, given the increased availability of large datasets, such an issue can be further complicated when researchers include many covariates to estimate the policy or treatment effects in an attempt to control for potential confounders. In this manuscript, to simultaneously address the above-mentioned issues, we propose a resampling-based procedure that not only lifts the winner’s curse in evaluating the best policies observed in a random sample, but also is robust to the presence of many covariates. The proposed inference procedure yields accurate point estimates and valid frequentist confidence intervals that achieve the exact nominal level as the sample size goes to infinity for multiple best policy effect sizes. We illustrate the finite-sample performance of our approach through Monte Carlo experiments and two empirical studies, evaluating the most effective policies in charitable giving and the most beneficial group of workers in the National Supported Work program.

笔记与分组