General Forms of Finite Population Central Limit Theorems with Applications to Causal Inference
Open accessAbstract
Frequentists’ inference often delivers point estimators associated with confidence intervals or sets for parameters of interest. Constructing the confidence intervals or sets requires understanding the sampling distributions of the point estimators, which, in many but not all cases, are related to asymptotic Normal distributions ensured by central limit theorems. Although previous literature has established various forms of central limit theorems for statistical inference in super population models, we still need general and convenient forms of central limit theorems for some randomization-based causal analyses of experimental data, where the parameters of interests are functions of a finite population and randomness comes solely from the treatment assignment. We use central limit theorems for sample surveys and rank statistics to establish general forms of the finite population central limit theorems that are particularly useful for proving asymptotic distributions of randomization tests under the sharp null hypothesis of zero individual causal effects, and for obtaining the asymptotic repeated sampling distributions of the causal effect estimators. The new central limit theorems hold for general experimental designs with multiple treatment levels, multiple treatment factors and vector outcomes, and are immediately applicable for studying the asymptotic properties of many methods in causal inference, including instrumental variable, regression adjustment, rerandomization, cluster-randomized experiments, and so on. Previously, the asymptotic properties of these problems are often based on heuristic arguments, which in fact rely on general forms of finite population central limit theorems that have not been established before. Our new theorems fill this gap by providing more solid theoretical foundation for asymptotic randomization-based causal inference. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Randomization inference yields valid p-values for two null hypotheses: finite-sample exact inference on the sharp null of no treatment effect on all individuals, and asymptotically valid inference on the null hypothesis of no average treatment effect.
“Note that randomization inference yields valid p-values for two null hypotheses.First, it provides finite-sample exact inference on the sharp null of no treatment effect on all individuals.Second, when the sharp null hypothesis is incorrect (e.g., some units are impacted positively while others negatively), randomization inference still provides asymptotically valid inference on the null hypothesi”
From Can Restorative Justice Conferencing Reduce Recidivism? Evidence From the Make-it-Right Program (2021) · cites this paper as Li and Ding (2017)
Cites
Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies
Rubin, D. B. (1974) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0037350 · Cited by 9,436 · see citing works
Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction
Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (2015) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139025751 · Cited by 4,210 · see citing works
On regression adjustments to experimental data
Freedman, D. A. (2008) · Advances in Applied Mathematics · doi:10.1016/j.aam.2006.12.003 · Cited by 417 · see citing works
Statistical Tests Based on Permutations of the Observations
Wald, A., & Wolfowitz, J. (1944) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177731207 · Cited by 260 · see citing works
Sharp bounds on the variance in randomized experiments
Aronow, P. M., Green, D. P., & Lee, D. K. K. (2014) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/13-aos1200 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Panel Experiments and Dynamic Causal Effects: A Finite Population Perspective
Bojinov, I., Rambachan, A., & Shephard, N. (2021) · Quantitative Economics · doi:10.3982/qe1744 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
“As discussed in Li and Ding (2017), this assumption can often be replaced by a finite-population analogue of the Lindeberg condition in analyses of cross-sectional, randomized experiments.”
BackgroundCan Restorative Justice Conferencing Reduce Recidivism? Evidence From the Make-it-Right Program
Shem-Tov, Y., Raphael, S., & Skog, A. (2021) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w29150 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Li, X., & Ding, P.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ding, Peng
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-10-02
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 520
- Pages
- 1759-1769
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W2533232082
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 8.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of the American Statistical Association (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Figshare (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- permutation tests, asymptotic distribution, sample surveys, rank statistics, superpopulation model, re-randomization, instrumental variables, regression adjustment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review