arXiv subjects

Guido W. Imbens

Publications and source records attributed to Guido W. Imbens.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Neymanian inference in randomized experiments

In his seminal 1923 work, Neyman studied the variance estimation problem for the difference-in-means estimator of the average treatment effect in completely randomized experiments. He proposed a variance estimator that is conservative in general and unbiased under homogeneous treatment effects. While widely used under complete randomization, there is no unique or natural way to extend this estimator to more complex designs. To this end, we show that Neyman's estimator can be alternatively derived in two ways, leading to two novel variance estimation approaches: the imputation approach and the contrast approach. While both approaches recover Neyman's estimator under complete randomization, they yield fundamentally different variance estimators for more general designs. In the imputation approach, the variance is expressed in terms of observed and missing potential outcomes and then estimated by imputing the missing potential outcomes, akin to Fisherian inference. In the contrast approach, the variance is expressed in terms of unobservable contrasts of potential outcomes and then estimated by exchanging each unobservable contrast with an observable contrast. We examine the properties of both approaches, showing that for a large class of designs, each produces non-negative, conservative variance estimators that are unbiased in finite samples or asymptotically under homogeneous treatment effects.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

Cross-Validated Causal Inference: a Modern Method to Combine Experimental and Observational Data

We develop new methods to integrate experimental and observational data in causal inference. While randomized controlled trials offer strong internal validity, they are often costly and therefore limited in sample size. Observational data, though cheaper and often with larger sample sizes, are prone to biases due to unmeasured confounders. To harness their complementary strengths, we propose a systematic framework that formulates causal estimation as an empirical risk minimization (ERM) problem. A full model containing the causal parameter is obtained by minimizing a weighted combination of experimental and observational losses--capturing the causal parameter's validity and the full model's fit, respectively. The weight is chosen through cross-validation on the causal parameter across experimental folds. Our experiments on real and synthetic data show the efficacy and reliability of our method. We also provide theoretical non-asymptotic error bounds.

econ.EM↗

arXiv2024

Design-Robust Two-Way-Fixed-Effects Regression For Panel Data

We propose a new estimator for average causal effects of a binary treatment with panel data in settings with general treatment patterns. Our approach augments the popular two-way-fixed-effects specification with unit-specific weights that arise from a model for the assignment mechanism. We show how to construct these weights in various settings, including the staggered adoption setting, where units opt into the treatment sequentially but permanently. The resulting estimator converges to an average (over units and time) treatment effect under the correct specification of the assignment model, even if the fixed effect model is misspecified. We show that our estimator is more robust than the conventional two-way estimator: it remains consistent if either the assignment mechanism or the two-way regression model is correctly specified. In addition, the proposed estimator performs better than the two-way-fixed-effect estimator if the outcome model and assignment mechanism are locally misspecified. This strong double robustness property underlines and quantifies the benefits of modeling the assignment process and motivates using our estimator in practice. We also discuss an extension of our estimator to handle dynamic treatment effects.

econ.EM↗

arXiv2023

Identification and Inference for Synthetic Controls with Confounding

This paper studies inference on treatment effects in panel data settings with unobserved confounding. We model outcome variables through a factor model with random factors and loadings. Such factors and loadings may act as unobserved confounders: when the treatment is implemented depends on time-varying factors, and who receives the treatment depends on unit-level confounders. We study the identification of treatment effects and illustrate the presence of a trade-off between time and unit-level confounding. We provide asymptotic results for inference for several Synthetic Control estimators and show that different sources of randomness should be considered for inference, depending on the nature of confounding. We conclude with a comparison of Synthetic Control estimators with alternatives for factor models.

econ.EM↗

arXiv2023

Semiparametric Estimation of Treatment Effects in Randomized Experiments

We develop new semiparametric methods for estimating treatment effects. We focus on settings where the outcome distributions may be thick tailed, where treatment effects may be small, where sample sizes are large and where assignment is completely random. This setting is of particular interest in recent online experimentation. We propose using parametric models for the treatment effects, leading to semiparametric models for the outcome distributions. We derive the semiparametric efficiency bound for the treatment effects for this setting, and propose efficient estimators. In the leading case with constant quantile treatment effects one of the proposed efficient estimators has an interesting interpretation as a weighted average of quantile treatment effects, with the weights proportional to minus the second derivative of the log of the density of the potential outcomes. Our analysis also suggests an extension of Huber's model and trimmed mean to include asymmetry.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2022

Doubly Robust Identification for Causal Panel Data Models

We study identification and estimation of causal effects in settings with panel data. Traditionally researchers follow model-based identification strategies relying on assumptions governing the relation between the potential outcomes and the observed and unobserved confounders. We focus on a different, complementary approach to identification where assumptions are made about the connection between the treatment assignment and the unobserved confounders. Such strategies are common in cross-section settings but rarely used with panel data. We introduce different sets of assumptions that follow the two paths to identification and develop a doubly robust approach. We propose estimation methods that build on these identification strategies.

econ.EM↗

arXiv2021

Synthetic Difference in Differences

We present a new estimator for causal effects with panel data that builds on insights behind the widely used difference in differences and synthetic control methods. Relative to these methods we find, both theoretically and empirically, that this "synthetic difference in differences" estimator has desirable robustness properties, and that it performs well in settings where the conventional estimators are commonly used in practice. We study the asymptotic behavior of the estimator when the systematic part of the outcome model includes latent unit factors interacted with latent time factors, and we present conditions for consistency and asymptotic normality.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2020

Potential Outcome and Directed Acyclic Graph Approaches to Causality: Relevance for Empirical Practice in Economics

In this essay I discuss potential outcome and graphical approaches to causality, and their relevance for empirical work in economics. I review some of the work on directed acyclic graphs, including the recent "The Book of Why," by Pearl and MacKenzie. I also discuss the potential outcome framework developed by Rubin and coauthors, building on work by Neyman. I then discuss the relative merits of these approaches for empirical work in economics, focusing on the questions each answer well, and why much of the the work in economics is closer in spirit to the potential outcome framework.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2019

Sampling-based vs. Design-based Uncertainty in Regression Analysis

Consider a researcher estimating the parameters of a regression function based on data for all 50 states in the United States or on data for all visits to a website. What is the interpretation of the estimated parameters and the standard errors? In practice, researchers typically assume that the sample is randomly drawn from a large population of interest and report standard errors that are designed to capture sampling variation. This is common even in applications where it is difficult to articulate what that population of interest is, and how it differs from the sample. In this article, we explore an alternative approach to inference, which is partly design-based. In a design-based setting, the values of some of the regressors can be manipulated, perhaps through a policy intervention. Design-based uncertainty emanates from lack of knowledge about the values that the regression outcome would have taken under alternative interventions. We derive standard errors that account for design-based uncertainty instead of, or in addition to, sampling-based uncertainty. We show that our standard errors in general are smaller than the usual infinite-population sampling-based standard errors and provide conditions under which they coincide.

math.ST↗

arXiv2018

Approximate Residual Balancing: De-Biased Inference of Average Treatment Effects in High Dimensions

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.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2017

Balancing, Regression, Difference-In-Differences and Synthetic Control Methods: A Synthesis

In a seminal paper Abadie, Diamond, and Hainmueller [2010] (ADH), see also Abadie and Gardeazabal [2003], Abadie et al. [2014], develop the synthetic control procedure for estimating the effect of a treatment, in the presence of a single treated unit and a number of control units, with pre-treatment outcomes observed for all units. The method constructs a set of weights such that selected covariates and pre-treatment outcomes of the treated unit are approximately matched by a weighted average of control units (the synthetic control). The weights are restricted to be nonnegative and sum to one, which is important because it allows the procedure to obtain unique weights even when the number of lagged outcomes is modest relative to the number of control units, a common setting in applications. In the current paper we propose a generalization that allows the weights to be negative, and their sum to differ from one, and that allows for a permanent additive difference between the treated unit and the controls, similar to difference-in-difference procedures. The weights directly minimize the distance between the lagged outcomes for the treated and the control units, using regularization methods to deal with a potentially large number of possible control units.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2015

Propensity Score Matching and Subclassification in Observational Studies with Multi-level Treatments

In this paper, we develop new methods for estimating average treatment effects in observational studies, focusing on settings with more than two treatment levels under unconfoundedness given pre-treatment variables. We emphasize subclassification and matching methods which have been found to be effective in the binary treatment literature and which are among the most popular methods in that setting. Whereas the literature has suggested that these particular propensity-based methods do not naturally extend to the multi-level treatment case, we show, using the concept of weak unconfoundedness, that adjusting for or matching on a scalar function of the pre-treatment variables removes all biases associated with observed pre-treatment variables. We apply the proposed methods to an analysis of the effect of treatments for fibromyalgia. We also carry out a simulation study to assess the finite sample performance of the methods relative to previously proposed methods.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2014

Instrumental Variables: An Econometrician's Perspective

I review recent work in the statistics literature on instrumental variables methods from an econometrics perspective. I discuss some of the older, economic, applications including supply and demand models and relate them to the recent applications in settings of randomized experiments with noncompliance. I discuss the assumptions underlying instrumental variables methods and in what settings these may be plausible. By providing context to the current applications, a better understanding of the applicability of these methods may arise.

stat.ME↗