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.
In this subsection, we compare our method with the related work. First, we comment on the theoretical results of the AIPW estimator and double selection estimator when both the propensity score and outcome models are correctly specified. Second, we compare the results when one of the two models is misspecified. Finally, we consider the more recent work by @cite_29 , @cite_35 and @cite_33 @cite_14 .
@cite_35 @cite_29 @cite_14 @cite_33
2261710003 2565113373 2786512041 2765948077
In observational studies, propensity scores are commonly estimated by maxi- mum likelihood but may fail to balance high-dimensional pre-treatment covariates even after specification search. We introduce a general framework that unifies and generalizes several recent proposals to improve covariate balance when designing an observational study. In- stead of the likelihood function, we propose to optimize special loss functions---covariate balancing scoring rules (CBSR)---to estimate the propensity score. A CBSR is uniquely determined by the link function in the GLM and the estimand (a weighted average treatment effect). We show CBSR does not lose asymptotic efficiency to the Bernoulli likelihood in estimating the weighted average treatment effect compared, but CBSR is much more robust in finite sample. Borrowing tools developed in statistical learning, we propose practical strategies to balance covariate functions in rich function classes. This is useful to estimate the maximum bias of the inverse probability weighting (IPW) estimators and construct honest confidence interval in finite sample. Lastly, we provide several numerical examples to demonstrate the trade-off of bias and variance in the IPW-type estimators and the trade-off in balancing different function classes of the covariates. 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 pre-treatment variables. The unconfoundedness assumption is often more plausible if a large number of pre-treatment variables are included in the analysis, but this can worsen the performance of standard approaches to treatment effect estimation. In this paper, we develop a method for de-biasing penalized regression adjustments to allow sparse regression methods like the lasso to be used for sqrt 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 standard assumptions used to make lasso regression on the outcome model consistent under 1-norm error, we only require 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. 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. 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.