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.
When either the propensity score model or the outcome model is misspecified, Propositions and provide a complete characterization of the asymptotic behavior of our estimator. In the same context, @cite_3 proved that the AIPW estimator is consistent, but Theorem 2 of that work does not yield an explicit convergence rate. In fact, we show in the supplementary material that the AIPW estimator has the same convergence rate as in , which is slower than @math , and thus the confidence intervals for the treatment effect are not available under model misspecification. In contrast, our estimator is root- @math consistent, which leads to honest confidence intervals as shown in Sections and . Indeed, this robustness of the asymptotic distributions to model specification is the main advantage over the AIPW estimators and the double selection estimator .
@cite_3
2786512041 2119711634 2769275910 2765948077
Consider the problem of estimating average treatment effects when a large number of covariates are used to adjust for possible confounding through outcome regression and propensity score models. The conventional approach of model building and fitting iteratively can be difficult to implement, depending on ad hoc choices of what variables are included. In addition, uncertainty from the iterative process of model selection is complicated and often ignored in subsequent inference about treatment effects. We develop new methods and theory to obtain not only doubly robust point estimators for average treatment effects, which remain consistent if either the propensity score model or the outcome regression model is correctly specified, but also model-assisted confidence intervals, which are valid when the propensity score model is correctly specified but the outcome regression model may be misspecified. With a linear outcome model, the confidence intervals are doubly robust, that is, being also valid when the outcome model is correctly specified but the propensity score model may be misspecified. Our methods involve regularized calibrated estimators with Lasso penalties, but carefully chosen loss functions, for fitting propensity score and outcome regression models. We provide high-dimensional analysis to establish the desired properties of our methods under comparable conditions to previous results, which give valid confidence intervals when both the propensity score and outcome regression are correctly specified. We present a simulation study and an empirical application which confirm the advantages of the proposed methods compared with related methods based on regularized maximum likelihood estimation. 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. Abstract. More than thirty years ago Halbert White inaugurated a “modelrobust” form of statistical inference based on the “sandwich estimator” of standard error. It is asymptotically correct even under “model misspecification,” that is, when models are approximations rather than generative truths. It is well-known to be “heteroskedasticity-consistent”, but it is less well-known to be “nonlinearity-consistent” as well. Nonlinearity, however, raises fundamental issues: When fitted models are approximations, conditioning on the regressor is no longer permitted because the ancillarity argument that justifies it breaks down. Two effects occur: (1) parameters become dependent on the regressor distribution; (2) the sampling variability of parameter estimates no longer derives from the conditional distribution of the response alone. Additional sampling variability arises when the nonlinearity conspires with the randomness of the regressors to generate a 1 √ N contribution to standard errors. Asymptotically, standard errors from “model-trusting” fixedregressor theories can deviate from those of “model-robust” randomregressor theories by arbitrary magnitudes. In the case of linear models, a test will be proposed for comparing the two types of standard errors. 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.