The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating treatment effect heterogeneity in randomized program evaluation
Open accessAbstract
When evaluating the efficacy of social programs and medical treatments using randomized experiments, the estimated overall average causal effect alone is often of limited value and the researchers must investigate when the treatments do and do not work. Indeed, the estimation of treatment effect heterogeneity plays an essential role in (1) selecting the most effective treatment from a large number of available treatments, (2) ascertaining subpopulations for which a treatment is effective or harmful, (3) designing individualized optimal treatment regimes, (4) testing for the existence or lack of heterogeneous treatment effects, and (5) generalizing causal effect estimates obtained from an experimental sample to a target population. In this paper, we formulate the estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects as a variable selection problem. We propose a method that adapts the Support Vector Machine classifier by placing separate sparsity constraints over the pre-treatment parameters and causal heterogeneity parameters of interest. The proposed method is motivated by and applied to two well-known randomized evaluation studies in the social sciences. Our method selects the most effective voter mobilization strategies from a large number of alternative strategies, and it also identifies the characteristics of workers who greatly benefit from (or are negatively affected by) a job training program. In our simulation studies, we find that the proposed method often outperforms some commonly used alternatives.
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
The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory
Vapnik, V. N. (1995) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2440-0 · Cited by 39,138
Spline Models for Observational Data
Wahba, G. (1990) · doi:10.1137/1.9781611970128 · Cited by 4,184
Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A. (2006) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1198/106186006x133933 · Cited by 4,021
The Challenge of Subgroup Analyses — Reporting without Distorting
Lagakos, S. W. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp068070 · Cited by 504
Cited by
Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests
Wager, S., & Athey, S. (2018) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2017.1319839 · Cited by 2,917
Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects
Athey, S., & Imbens, G. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1510489113 · Cited by 1,586
Covariate Balancing Propensity Score
Imai, K., & Ratkovic, M. (2014) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/rssb.12027 · Cited by 1,315
Self-citationMachine Learning Methods That Economists Should Know About
Athey, S., & Imbens, G. W. (2019) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080217-053433 · Cited by 1,163
Hainmueller, J., Mummolo, J., & Xu, Y. (2019) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2018.46 · Cited by 959
Metadata
- Authors
- Imai, K., & Ratkovic, M.
- Venue
- The Annals of Applied Statistics
- Publisher
- Institute of Mathematical Statistics
- Published
- 2013-03-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 443-470
- ISSN
- 1932-6157 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2058248640
- Cited by
- 480
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.06
- 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: Estimating treatment effect heterogeneity in randomized program evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1214/12-aoas593
- The paper
- Imai, K., & Ratkovic, M. (2013). Estimating treatment effect heterogeneity in randomized program evaluation. The Annals of Applied Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1214/12-aoas593
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.