SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2411.08491

Covariate Adjustment in Randomized Experiments Motivated by Higher-Order Influence Functions

Abstract

Higher-Order Influence Functions (HOIF), developed in a series of papers over the past twenty years, are a fundamental theoretical device for constructing rate-optimal causal-effect estimators from observational studies. However, the value of HOIF for analyzing well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCT) has not been explicitly explored. In the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency guidelines on the practice of covariate adjustment in analyzing RCT, in addition to the simple, unadjusted difference-in-mean estimator, it was also recommended to report the estimator adjusting for baseline covariates via a simple parametric working model, such as a linear model. However, when the number of baseline covariates $p$ is large, the recommendation is somewhat murky. In this paper, we show that HOIF-motivated estimators for the treatment-specific mean have significantly improved statistical properties compared to popular adjusted estimators in practice when $p$ is relatively large relative to the sample size $n$. We also characterize the conditions under which the HOIF-motivated estimator improves upon the unadjusted one. More importantly, we demonstrate that several state-of-the-art adjusted estimators proposed recently can be interpreted as particular HOIF-motivated estimators, thereby placing these estimators in a more unified framework. Numerical and empirical studies are conducted to corroborate our theoretical findings. An accompanying R package can be found on CRAN.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sihui Zhao, Xinbo Wang, Lin Liu, Xin Zhang. 2024-11-13. Covariate Adjustment in Randomized Experiments Motivated by Higher-Order Influence Functions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08491

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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