On the implied weights of linear regression for causal inference

Ambarish Chattopadhyay; Jose R. Zubizarreta

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2104.06581

On the implied weights of linear regression for causal inference

Ambarish Chattopadhyay·Jose R. Zubizarreta

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A basic principle in the design of observational studies is to approximate the randomized experiment that would have been conducted under controlled circumstances. Now, linear regression models are commonly used to analyze observational data and estimate causal effects. How do linear regression adjustments in observational studies emulate key features of randomized experiments, such as covariate balance, self-weighted sampling, and study representativeness? In this paper, we provide answers to this and related questions by analyzing the implied (individual-level data) weights of linear regression methods. We derive new closed-form expressions of the weights and examine their properties in both finite and asymptotic regimes. We show that the implied weights of general regression problems can be equivalently obtained by solving a convex optimization problem. Among others, we study doubly and multiply robust properties of regression estimators from the perspective of their implied weights. This equivalence allows us to bridge ideas from the regression modeling and causal inference literatures. As a result, we propose novel regression diagnostics for causal inference that are part of the design stage of an observational study. As special cases, we analyze the implied weights in common settings such as multi-valued treatments and regression adjustment after matching. We implement the weights and diagnostics in the new lmw package for R.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Ambarish Chattopadhyay, Jose R. Zubizarreta. 2021-04-14. On the implied weights of linear regression for causal inference. https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.06581

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗