Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Shiyao Liu

Publications and source records attributed to Shiyao Liu.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

When Listwise Deletion Works: Causal Diagrams and Complete-Case Regression

Listwise deletion (LWD) appears more common than imputation: our review of leading journals finds that about 50% of articles state or imply LWD, versus 7% describing an imputation model. Assuming oracle regression with all required values observed consistently estimates the population average treatment effect, we ask when complete-case regression remains consistent. With constant effects, we offer two checks: whether covariates and the missing indicator satisfy the adjustment criterion in an augmented causal diagram (DAG), and whether the estimator pools valid within-covariate comparisons appropriately, potentially using inverse treatment-propensity weighting (IPW). For heterogeneous effects, assuming conditional effects carry over to the population, we reweight comparisons to the population covariate distribution. Simulations and empirical illustrations from American politics, comparative politics, and international relations demonstrate the framework's use and show why a missing-at-random (MAR) classification, although useful for assessing imputation, does not by itself establish whether complete-case regression consistently estimates the target population ATE. Thus, we recommend adding the missing indicator and its causes to causal models, then checking adjustment and weighting for LWD.

stat.ME↗

Analyzing Within-Subject Experiments: Identification, Testing, and Sensitivity

Recent work encourages political scientists to move from post-only toward within-subject designs for improved precision from repeated measurements. We formalize a potential-outcomes framework for two-period within-subject designs that allows for unequal allocation and heterogeneous treatment and carryover effects. We characterize the pooled estimator and evaluate the carryover test used to justify pooling. We find: first, pooling identifies the average treatment effect only when the gap in the average carryover effects is zero across the two treatment sequences. The unit-clustered standard error for the pooled estimator is identical to its design-based counterpart. Second, under mild conditions, the carryover test has strictly less power than the average-treatment-effect test with post-only data. The resulting two-step procedure, which pools only after a nonrejected test, produces confidence intervals that typically undercover. When the gap is zero, undercoverage occurs if and only if pooling is more efficient than post-only analysis, precisely when the within-subject design is worthwhile. When the gap is nonzero, undercoverage is typical unless the gap or sample size is large. Third, we derive a sensitivity analysis and find published conclusions robust to plausible carryover gaps. We therefore endorse within-subject designs but recommend justifying a zero carryover gap substantively and reporting sensitivity to departures.

stat.ME↗