The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Approximate Residual Balancing: Debiased Inference of Average Treatment Effects in High Dimensions
Open accessAbstract
Summary: There are many settings where researchers are interested in estimating average treatment effects and are willing to rely on the unconfoundedness assumption, which requires that the treatment assignment be as good as random conditional on pretreatment variables. The unconfoundedness assumption is often more plausible if a large number of pretreatment variables are included in the analysis, but this can worsen the performance of standard approaches to treatment effect estimation. We develop a method for debiasing penalized regression adjustments to allow sparse regression methods like the lasso to be used for √n-consistent inference of average treatment effects in high dimensional linear models. Given linearity, we do not need to assume that the treatment propensities are estimable, or that the average treatment effect is a sparse contrast of the outcome model parameters. Rather, in addition to standard assumptions used to make lasso regression on the outcome model consistent under 1-norm error, we require only overlap, i.e. that the propensity score be uniformly bounded away from 0 and 1. Procedurally, our method combines balancing weights with a regularized regression adjustment.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
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
Hainmueller, J. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr025 · Cited by 6,026
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
Self-citationCalibration Estimators in Survey Sampling
Deville, J.-C., & Särndal, C.-E. (1992) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1992.10475217 · Cited by 1,735
McCaffrey, D. F., Ridgeway, G., & Morral, A. R. (2004) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.9.4.403 · Cited by 1,317
For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis
Rubin, D. B. (2008) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/08-aoas187 · Cited by 831
The Asymptotic Variance of Semiparametric Estimators
Newey, W. K. (1994) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2951752 · Cited by 717
Stable weights that balance covariates for estimation with incomplete outcome data
Zubizarreta, J. R. (2015) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2015.1023805 · Cited by 369
Inverse probability tilting for moment condition models with missing data
Graham, B. S., De Xavier Pinto, C. C., & Egel, D. (2012) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/restud/rdr047 · Cited by 174 · cited 7×
“Similar estimators have been considered by Graham et al. (2012, 2016) and Hainmueller (2012) in a setting where exact balancing is possible, with slightly different objection functions.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
Cited by
Synthetic Difference-in-Differences
Arkhangelsky, D., Athey, S., Hirshberg, D. A., Imbens, G. W., & Wager, S. (2021) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20190159 · Cited by 1,518
Self-citationDouble/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters
Newey, W. K., Hansen, C., Duflo, E., Robins, J., Chernozhukov, V., Demirer, M., & Chetverikov, D. (2017) · doi:10.1920/wp.cem.2017.2817 · Cited by 486
The Augmented Synthetic Control Method
Ben-Michael, E., Feller, A., & Rothstein, J. (2021) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2021.1929245 · Cited by 462
“See Athey, Imbens, and Wager (2018) for analogous results on balancing weights in high dimensional cross-sectional settings.”
BackgroundA Survey of Learning Causality with Data: Problems and Methods
Guo, R., Cheng, L., Li, J., Hahn, P. R., & Liu, H. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3397269 · Cited by 362
Gordon, B. R., Zettelmeyer, F., Bhargava, N., & Chapsky, D. (2019) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.2018.1135 · Cited by 287
Metadata
- Authors
- Athey, S., Imbens, G. W., & Wager, S.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-02-15
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 597-623
- ISSN
- 1369-7412 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9868
- OpenAlex
- W2565113373
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 30.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Approximate Residual Balancing: Debiased Inference of Average Treatment Effects in High Dimensions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/rssb.12268
- The paper
- Athey, S., Imbens, G. W., & Wager, S. (2018). Approximate Residual Balancing: Debiased Inference of Average Treatment Effects in High Dimensions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12268
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
