Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2405.15740

On Flexible Inverse Probability of Treatment and Intensity Weighting: Informative Censoring, Variable Inclusion, and Weight Trimming

Grace Tompkins·Joel A Dubin·Michael Wallace
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Many observational studies feature irregular longitudinal data, where the observation times are not common across individuals in the study. Further, the observation times may be related to the longitudinal outcome. In this setting, failing to account for the informative observation process may result in biased causal estimates. This can be coupled with other sources of bias, including non-randomized treatment assignments and informative censoring. This paper provides an overview of a flexible weighting method used to adjust for informative observation processes and non-randomized treatment assignments. We investigate the sensitivity of the flexible weighting method to violations of the noninformative censoring assumption, examine variable selection for the observation process weighting model, known as inverse intensity weighting, and look at the impacts of weight trimming for the flexible weighting model. We show that the flexible weighting method is sensitive to violations of the noninformative censoring assumption and show that a previously proposed extension fails under such violations. We also show that variables confounding the observation and outcome processes should always be included in the observation intensity model. Finally, we show that weight trimming should be applied in the flexible weighting model when the treatment assignment process is highly informative and driving the extreme weights. We conclude with an application of the methodology to a real data set to examine the impacts of household water sources on malaria diagnoses.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEstat.AP

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Grace Tompkins, Joel A Dubin, Michael Wallace. 2024-05-24. On Flexible Inverse Probability of Treatment and Intensity Weighting: Informative Censoring, Variable Inclusion, and Weight Trimming. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15740

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↗