REVIEW 1 cited by
On regression-adjusted imputation estimators of the average treatment effect
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Imputing missing potential outcomes using an estimated regression function is a natural idea for estimating causal effects. In the literature, estimators that combine imputation and regression adjustments are believed to be comparable to augmented inverse probability weighting. Accordingly, people for a long time conjectured that such estimators, while avoiding directly constructing the weights, are also doubly robust (Imbens, 2004; Stuart, 2010). Generalizing an earlier result of the authors (Lin et al., 2021), this paper formalizes this conjecture, showing that a large class of regression-adjusted imputation methods are indeed doubly robust for estimating the average treatment effect. In addition, they are provably semiparametrically efficient as long as both the density and regression models are correctly specified. Notable examples of imputation methods covered by our theory include kernel matching, (weighted) nearest neighbor matching, local linear matching, and (honest) random forests.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Treatment Effect Estimators as Weighted Outcomes
A general framework derives exact outcome weights for double machine learning and generalized random forest estimators, showing that standard implementations are only scale-normalized rather than fully-normalized.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.