In this paper, we propose a robust method to estimate the average treatment effects in observational studies when the number of potential confounders is possibly much greater than the sample size. We first use a class of penalized M-estimators for the propensity score and outcome models. We then calibrate the initial estimate of the propensity score by balancing a carefully selected subset of covariates that are predictive of the outcome. Finally, the estimated propensity score is used to construct the inverse probability weighting estimator. We prove that the proposed estimator, which has the sample boundedness property, is root-n consistent, asymptotically normal, and semiparametrically efficient when the propensity score model is correctly specified and the outcome model is linear in covariates. More importantly, we show that our estimator remains root-n consistent and asymptotically normal so long as either the propensity score model or the outcome model is correctly specified. We provide valid confidence intervals in both cases and further extend these results to the case where the outcome model is a generalized linear model. In simulation studies, we find that the proposed methodology often estimates the average treatment effect more accurately than the existing methods. We also present an empirical application, in which we estimate the average causal effect of college attendance on adulthood political participation. Open-source software is available for implementing the proposed methodology.
In another recent work, @cite_35 proposed a generalized covariate balancing method based on a class of scoring rules. Many existing covariate balancing estimators can be treated as the primal or dual problems of their optimization problem. @cite_35 studied the robustness of these estimators to misspecified propensity score models under the constant treatment effect model @math for some constant @math . In contrast, our methodology allows for the heterogeneity of causal effects. In addition, while our work mainly focuses on the high-dimensional settings, @cite_35 does not provide statistical guarantees in such settings.
@cite_35
2765948077 2119711634 2261710003 2150291618
Propensity score methods are widely used for estimating treatment effects from observational studies. A popular approach is to estimate propensity scores by maximum likelihood based on logistic regression, and then apply inverse probability weighted estimators or extensions to estimate treatment effects. However, a challenging issue is that such inverse probability weighting methods including doubly robust methods can perform poorly even when the logistic model appears adequate as examined by conventional techniques. In addition, there is increasing difficulty to appropriately estimate propensity scores when dealing with a large number of covariates. To address these issues, we study calibrated estimation as an alternative to maximum likelihood estimation for fitting logistic propensity score models. We show that, with possible model misspecification, minimizing the expected calibration loss underlying the calibrated estimators involves reducing both the expected likelihood loss and a measure of relative errors which controls the mean squared errors of inverse probability weighted estimators. Furthermore, we propose a regularized calibrated estimator by minimizing the calibration loss with a Lasso penalty. We develop a novel Fisher scoring descent algorithm for computing the proposed estimator, and provide a high-dimensional analysis of the resulting inverse probability weighted estimators of population means, leveraging the control of relative errors for calibrated estimation. We present a simulation study and an empirical application to demonstrate the advantages of the proposed methods compared with maximum likelihood and regularization. We are interested in estimating the average effect of a binary treatment on a scalar outcome. If assignment to the treatment is independent of the potential outcomes given pretreatment variables, biases associated with simple treatment-control average comparisons can be removed by adjusting for differences in the pre-treatment variables. Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983, 1984) show that adjusting solely for differences between treated and control units in a scalar function of the pre-treatment, the propensity score, also removes the entire bias associated with differences in pre-treatment variables. Thus it is possible to obtain unbiased estimates of the treatment effect without conditioning on a possibly high-dimensional vector of pre-treatment variables. Although adjusting for the propensity score removes all the bias, this can come at the expense of efficiency. We show that weighting with the inverse of a nonparametric estimate of the propensity score, rather than the true propensity score, leads to efficient estimates of the various average treatment effects. This result holds whether the pre-treatment variables have discrete or continuous distributions. We provide intuition for this result in a number of ways. First we show that with discrete covariates, exact adjustment for the estimated propensity score is identical to adjustment for the pre-treatment variables. Second, we show that weighting by the inverse of the estimated propensity score can be interpreted as an empirical likelihood estimator that efficiently incorporates the information about the propensity score. Finally, we make a connection to results to other results on efficient estimation through weighting in the context of variable probability sampling. In observational studies, propensity scores are commonly estimated by maxi- mum likelihood but may fail to balance high-dimensional pre-treatment covariates even after specification search. We introduce a general framework that unifies and generalizes several recent proposals to improve covariate balance when designing an observational study. In- stead of the likelihood function, we propose to optimize special loss functions---covariate balancing scoring rules (CBSR)---to estimate the propensity score. A CBSR is uniquely determined by the link function in the GLM and the estimand (a weighted average treatment effect). We show CBSR does not lose asymptotic efficiency to the Bernoulli likelihood in estimating the weighted average treatment effect compared, but CBSR is much more robust in finite sample. Borrowing tools developed in statistical learning, we propose practical strategies to balance covariate functions in rich function classes. This is useful to estimate the maximum bias of the inverse probability weighting (IPW) estimators and construct honest confidence interval in finite sample. Lastly, we provide several numerical examples to demonstrate the trade-off of bias and variance in the IPW-type estimators and the trade-off in balancing different function classes of the covariates. Abstract : The results of observational studies are often disputed because of nonrandom treatment assignment. For example, patients at greater risk may be overrepresented in some treatment group. This paper discusses the central role of propensity scores and balancing scores in the analysis of observational studies. The propensity score is the (estimated) conditional probability of assignment to a particular treatment given a vector of observed covariates. Both large and small sample theory show that adjustment for the scalar propensity score is sufficient to remove bias due to all observed covariates. Applications include: matched sampling on the univariate propensity score which is equal percent bias reducing under more general conditions than required for discriminant matching, multivariate adjustment by subclassification on balancing scores where the same subclasses are used to estimate treatment effects for all outcome variables and in all subpopulations, and visual representation of multivariate adjustment by a two-dimensional plot. (Author)