Propensity score regression for causal inference with treatment heterogeneity

Peng Wu; ShaSha Han; Xingwei Tong; Runze Li

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2109.07722

Propensity score regression for causal inference with treatment heterogeneity

Peng Wu·ShaSha Han·Xingwei Tong·Runze Li

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Understanding how treatment effects vary on individual characteristics is critical in the contexts of personalized medicine, personalized advertising and policy design. When the characteristics are of practical interest are only a subset of full covariate, non-parametric estimation is often desirable; but few methods are available due to the computational difficult. Existing non-parametric methods such as the inverse probability weighting methods have limitations that hinder their use in many practical settings where the values of propensity scores are close to 0 or 1. We propose the propensity score regression (PSR) that allows the non-parametric estimation of the heterogeneous treatment effects in a wide context. PSR includes two non-parametric regressions in turn, where it first regresses on the propensity scores together with the characteristics of interest, to obtain an intermediate estimate; and then, regress the intermediate estimates on the characteristics of interest only. By including propensity scores as regressors in the non-parametric manner, PSR is capable of substantially easing the computational difficulty while remain (locally) insensitive to any value of propensity scores. We present several appealing properties of PSR, including the consistency and asymptotical normality, and in particular the existence of an explicit variance estimator, from which the analytical behaviour of PSR and its precision can be assessed. Simulation studies indicate that PSR outperform existing methods in varying settings with extreme values of propensity scores. We apply our method to the national 2009 flu survey (NHFS) data to investigate the effects of seasonal influenza vaccination and having paid sick leave across different age groups.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Peng Wu, ShaSha Han, Xingwei Tong, Runze Li. 2021-09-16. Propensity score regression for causal inference with treatment heterogeneity. https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.07722

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↗