论文检索

处理效应的覆盖范围：零效应区域的随机化推断AI 解读

A treatment may affect some individuals while leaving others unaffected. We study the reach of treatment effects by asking how large an unaffected covariate region could be. We develop efficient local randomization tests over nearest-neighbour regions to construct a finite-sample valid upper confidence bound for the size of the largest zero-effect region. A small bound provides evidence that treatment effects extend broadly across covariate values by ruling out large…

只拟合一次 CATE：无需样本分割的模型辅助随机化检验AI 解读

Randomization tests and flexible treatment-effect models offer complementary strengths for analyzing data from randomized panel experiments: the former provide valid inference under the known assignment mechanism, while the latter can capture complex patterns of effect heterogeneity. We develop model-assisted randomization tests that combine these strengths without sample splitting. The key idea is to estimate an unsigned version of the conditional average treatment effect…

随机化检验的自适应样本分割AI 解读

Randomization tests are widely used to generate finite-sample valid $p$-values for causal inference on experimental data. However, when applied to subgroup analysis, these tests may lack power due to small subgroup sizes. Incorporating a shared estimator of the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) can substantially improve power across subgroups but requires sample splitting to preserve validity. To this end, we quantify each unit's contribution to estimation and…

滞后与溢出处理效应的多个条件随机化检验AI 解读

We consider the problem of constructing multiple independent conditional randomization tests using a single dataset. Because the tests are independent, the randomization p-values can be interpreted individually and combined using standard methods for multiple testing. We give a simple, sequential construction of such tests, and then discuss its application to three problems: Rosenbaum's evidence factors for observational studies, lagged treatment effect in stepped-wedge…

什么是随机化检验？AI 解读

The meaning of randomization tests has become obscure in statistics education and practice over the last century. This article makes a fresh attempt at rectifying this core concept of statistics. A new term -- "quasi-randomization test" -- is introduced to define significance tests based on theoretical models and distinguish these tests from the "randomization tests" based on the physical act of randomization. The practical importance of this distinction is illustrated…