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:摘要直接研究多处理随机试验中平均处理效应的估计和设计适配推断。

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
Federico A. Bugni
Ivan A. Canay
Azeem M. Shaikh

多处理协变量自适应随机化下的推断

研究问题
在按基线协变量分层并追求层内平衡的多处理随机试验中,尤其当分配比例随层变化时,如何对处理之间的平均效应进行有效推断?
方法与思路
作者分析处理与分层完全交互的饱和回归,以及分配比例跨层相同时的分层固定效应回归,分别构造适合随机化设计的方差估计。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,常规异方差稳健方差在饱和回归中可能过度拒绝,在特定固定效应设定中则保守;所提修正使渐近拒绝率达到名义水平。
阅读关注点
应核对随机化方案的条件、跨层目标分配比例与估计对象的关系,以及两种回归规格下常规和修正方差公式为何不同。
阅读边界
仅依据所给 Crossref 摘要版本;摘要中的精确性指渐近拒绝率等于名义水平,并非有限样本精确,完整随机化条件和模拟数值未说明。

原文摘要

This paper studies inference in randomized controlled trials with covariate‐adaptive randomization when there are multiple treatments. More specifically, we study in this setting inference about the average effect of one or more treatments relative to other treatments or a control. As in Bugni, Canay, and Shaikh (2018), covariate‐adaptive randomization refers to randomization schemes that first stratify according to baseline covariates and then assign treatment status so as to achieve “balance” within each stratum. Importantly, in contrast to Bugni, Canay, and Shaikh (2018), we not only allow for multiple treatments, but further allow for the proportion of units being assigned to each of the treatments to vary across strata. We first study the properties of estimators derived from a “fully saturated” linear regression, that is, a linear regression of the outcome on all interactions between indicators for each of the treatments and indicators for each of the strata. We show that tests based on these estimators using the usual heteroskedasticity‐consistent estimator of the asymptotic variance are invalid in the sense that they may have limiting rejection probability under the null hypothesis strictly greater than the nominal level; on the other hand, tests based on these estimators and suitable estimators of the asymptotic variance that we provide are exact in the sense that they have limiting rejection probability under the null hypothesis equal to the nominal level. For the special case in which the target proportion of units being assigned to each of the treatments does not vary across strata, we additionally consider tests based on estimators derived from a linear regression with “strata fixed effects,” that is, a linear regression of the outcome on indicators for each of the treatments and indicators for each of the strata. We show that tests based on these estimators using the usual heteroskedasticity‐consistent estimator of the asymptotic variance are conservative in the sense that they have limiting rejection probability under the null hypothesis no greater than and typically strictly less than the nominal level, but tests based on these estimators and suitable estimators of the asymptotic variance that we provide are exact, thereby generalizing results in Bugni, Canay, and Shaikh (2018) for the case of a single treatment to multiple treatments. A simulation study and an empirical application illustrate the practical relevance of our theoretical results.

笔记与分组