Inference of Sample Complier Average Causal Effects under Experiments with Completely Randomized Design and Computer Assisted Balance-Improving Designs
完全随机化与计算机辅助平衡设计下的样本依从者平均因果效应推断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:摘要明确研究存在不依从的随机实验、依从者平均因果效应及重随机化设计,直接对应实验因果推断。
完全随机化与计算机辅助平衡设计下的样本依从者平均因果效应推断AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Non-compliance is common in real world experiments. We focus on inference about the sample complier average causal effect, that is, the average treatment effect for experimental units who are compliers. We present three types of inference strategies for the sample complier average causal effect: the Wald estimator, regression adjustment estimators and model-based Bayesian inference. Because modern computer assisted experimental designs have been used to improve covariate balance over complete randomization, we discuss inference under both complete randomization and a specific computer assisted experimental design - Mahalanobis distance based rerandomization, under which asymptotic properties of the Wald estimator and regression adjustment estimators can be derived. We use Monte Carlo simulation to compare the finite sample performance of the methods under both experimental designs. We find that under either design, the Bayesian method performs the best because it is stable, it yields smallest median absolute error and smallest median interval length. The improvement by the Bayesian method is especially large when the fraction of compliers is small. We present an application to a job training experiment with non-compliance.