Asymptotic inference of causal effects with observational studies trimmed by the estimated propensity scores
Open accessAbstract
Causal inference with observational studies often relies on the assumptions of unconfoundedness and overlap of covariate distributions in different treatment groups. The overlap assumption is violated when some units have propensity scores close to |$0$| or |$1$|, so both practical and theoretical researchers suggest dropping units with extreme estimated propensity scores. However, existing trimming methods often do not incorporate the uncertainty in this design stage and restrict inference to only the trimmed sample, due to the nonsmoothness of the trimming. We propose a smooth weighting, which approximates sample trimming and has better asymptotic properties. An advantage of our estimator is its asymptotic linearity, which ensures that the bootstrap can be used to make inference for the target population, incorporating uncertainty arising from both design and analysis stages. We extend the theory to the average treatment effect on the treated, suggesting trimming samples with estimated propensity scores close to |$1$|.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Trimming extreme propensity score estimates would change the target parameter; one would not be recovering the ATT(g,t)'s.
“Alternatively, one may choose to trim extreme propensity score estimates though proceeding in this manner would change the target parameter; i.e., we would not be recovering the ATT ( g, t ) 's; see, e.g., Crump et al. (2009) and Yang and Ding (2018) for related discussion in other contexts.”
From Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods (2021) · cites this paper as Yang and Ding (2018)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
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
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- ANGRIST, J. D. & PISCHKE, J.-S. (2008). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- IMBENS, G. W. & RUBIN, D. B. (2015). Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- LI, F., MORGAN, K. L. & ZASLAVSKY, A. M. (2018). Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting. J. Am. Statist. Assoc., doi: 10.1080/01621459.2016.1260466. · DOI
- SHAO, J. & TU, D. (2012). The Jackknife and Bootstrap. New York: Springer.
- ZHAO, Q. & PERCIVAL, D. (2017). Entropy balancing is doubly robust. J. Causal Infer. 5, doi: 10.1515/jci-2016-0010. [Received on 3 April 2017. Editorial decision on 7 January 2018] · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods
Callaway, B., & Sant’Anna, P. H. C. (2021) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001 · Cited by 9,126 · see citing works
- Authors
- Yang, S., & Ding, P.
- Affiliations
- North Carolina State University (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Yang, S
- Venue
- Biometrika
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-03-12
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 487-493
- ISSN
- 0006-3444 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3510
- OpenAlex
- W2791096246
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 5.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Biometrika (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Institute of Education Sciences
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- causal inference, observational studies, propensity score, unconfoundedness, asymptotic linearity, bootstrap inference, average treatment effect on the treated, design uncertainty
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