Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Mixing Samples to Address Weak Overlap in Causal Inference

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Mixing treated and control samples cuts variance in causal estimates

desk verdict Mixing is a clever idea with solid empirical promise, but the key equivalence behind the M-estimation implementation is asserted rather than shown, so the formal theory is not yet trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10801 v3 pith:66YKU4CO submitted 2024-11-16 stat.ME

Jaehyuk Jang , Suehyun Kim , Kwonsang Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62D2062F12
keywords causalinferenceoverlapassumptionpositivitypropensityscoreinverseprobabilityweightingentropybalancingM-estimationtreatmenteffectonthetreated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

In observational studies, the standard weighting estimator for the average treatment effect on the treated becomes unstable when control units have propensity scores—the estimated probability of receiving treatment—close to one. This paper proposes to mix a fraction of control units into the treated group before weighting, creating a synthetic treated group whose propensity scores are compressed toward the overall treatment rate. The resulting Mixed IPW (MIPW) estimator is claimed to stay unbiased for the original ATT while lowering finite-sample variance, because the compressed weights no longer blow up for extreme control units. Unlike trimming or switching to an overlap-population estimand, mixing does not discard observations or change the target population. The paper proves consistency and asymptotic normality of MIPW and demonstrates the variance reduction in simulations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the simple mixed distribution and its synthetic propensity score $e^*$. The identity in equation (7) makes the odds of $e^*$ equal to a convex combination of the original propensity odds and the baseline odds $\pi/(1-\pi)$; this is the mechanism that shrinks extreme weights. The asymptotic argument is carried by rewriting the augmented-sample M-estimating equation $\psi^*$ into an observed-data equation $\psi^{**}$ with the same root, and the sandwich variance of the resulting M-estimator provides inference for the ATT. For nonparametric weighting, the mixing algorithm—a resampling scheme that creates many mixed datasets and averages their weights—is the mechanism that extends the shrinkage to entropy balancing and related balancing methods.

What would settle it

Compute the expectation of the observed-data estimating equation at the true parameter under a correctly specified logistic model in weak overlap: if it is nonzero, MIPW does not estimate the ATT, and a closed-form variance comparison between MIPW and IPW would settle whether the simulated efficiency gains are universal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a shrinkage identity for the synthetic propensity score. In the simple mixed distribution, where a fraction $\delta$ of treated units is replaced by control units, the odds of the synthetic score satisfy $e^*/(1-e^*) = (1-\delta)e/(1-e) + \delta\pi/(1-\pi)$, so as $\delta$ moves from 0 to 1 the scores are pulled toward the marginal treatment rate $\pi$. The MIPW estimator replaces the original weights in the standard IPW formula with weights built from these shrunk scores, and the paper shows it is consistent for the original ATT and asymptotically normal, with asymptotic variance obtained from an observed-data M-estimating equation. The claimed gain is that the shrinkage compresses extreme weights and thereby reduces variance without introducing bias, with the largest gains under weak overlap; the same construction is carried over to balancing estimators such as entropy balancing through a resampling algorithm.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synthetic treated group follows the same propensity-score model as the original treated group, so mixed-sample weights identify the original ATT; the paper explicitly leaves the variance-reduction guarantee to simulations in Section 6.1.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Practitioners can improve IPW under weak overlap without dropping extreme observations or redefining the estimand to an overlap subpopulation.
  • MIPW inherits the consistency conditions of standard IPW: if the propensity-score model is correctly specified, the estimator still targets the original ATT.
  • The efficiency curve in $\delta$ is convex in simulations, so there is an interior mixing proportion at which variance is minimized rather than $\delta$ as large as possible.
  • The resampling version transfers the same shrinkage to balancing estimators, so entropy balancing and similar methods gain overlap robustness.
  • Because MIPW is an M-estimator, sandwich standard errors are available for large-sample confidence intervals.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is to treat the variance-versus-$\delta$ curve as a sensitivity diagnostic for overlap, reporting estimates across a grid of $\delta$ rather than a single tuned value.
  • The shrinkage identity connects mixing to the broader literature on stabilized and calibrated weights, suggesting a unified way to derive weight-stabilization schemes as mixtures of target and auxiliary populations.
  • Because $\delta$ is chosen after inspecting variance estimates, the reported standard errors do not account for this selection; post-selection or multiplicity-aware inference would be a follow-up.
  • The same observed-data estimating-equation strategy could be applied to other augmented-data constructions, such as synthetic controls or matched samples, whenever the augmented object is a designed mixture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes 'mixing' as a remedy for weak overlap in observational studies. It defines a synthetic mixed population (Definitions 1–2) and an estimator MIPW (Eq. 8) for the ATT, with consistency stated as Theorem 3 and asymptotic normality based on an observed-data estimating equation ψ** stated as Theorem 4. A resampling algorithm (Algorithm 1) is given to extend mixing to balancing weights such as entropy balancing. The manuscript reports simulations under strong/moderate/weak overlap and a re-analysis of the right heart catheterization data, claiming that mixing preserves unbiasedness while reducing variance without changing the target estimand.

Significance. If the variance-reduction claim were supported, mixing would be a simple and potentially useful addition to the causal weighting literature. The paper has several strengths: it identifies a real practical problem, the shrinkage formula in Eq. (7) is a clean observation, the simulation design is reasonably thorough, and the algorithmic extension to entropy balancing is a constructive idea. However, the central contribution is currently overstated: algebraically, the MIPW weight is proportional to the standard IPW weight, so mixing does not by itself change the estimator unless the propensity score parameter is estimated differently. The efficiency gain is therefore an empirical property of a particular β-estimator, not a consequence of weight shrinkage, and the paper explicitly concedes in Section 6.1 that no theoretical guarantee of efficiency gain is available. The main theorems are stated without derivation in the main text, and the resampling algorithm appears inconsistent with the definition of the mixed distribution. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (7) and Eq. (8)] The MIPW estimator is algebraically identical to standard IPW whenever the same propensity score parameter β is used in e and e*. From Eq. (7), e*/(1−e*) − δπ/(1−π) = (1−δ)e/(1−e). Substituting this into Eq. (8), the factor (1−δ) cancels in the numerator and denominator of the control-mean term, while the treated-mean term is unchanged. Thus the 'shrinkage' of the propensity score does not alter the weights in the ratio estimator; any difference between MIPW and IPW in Table 2 or Figure 1 comes solely from estimating β with the synthetic-score estimating equation ψ** rather than with the usual IPW score. The paper nowhere acknowledges this reduction, and the abstract and Section 1 attribute the variance reduction to weight shrinkage. This needs to be stated explicitly and the contribution reframed, or an efficiency comparison for the alternative β estimator must be supplied.
  2. [§3.4, Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 does not sample the simple mixed distribution defined in Eq. (5). With I*_j ∼ Ber(δ) for treated units, the mixed treated group contains approximately δN_t original treated units and (1−δ)N_t control units, i.e., treated:control proportions of δ:(1−δ). Definition 2 and Eq. (5) instead require h*_1 = (1−δ)h1 + δh0, i.e., proportions (1−δ):δ, and the text preceding the algorithm also states a ratio of 1−δ:δ for treated:control. The algorithm therefore implements the opposite mixture. This is a substantive inconsistency because the resampling version (MIPW.M and MEB) is one of the two main implementation routes; the Bernoulli indicator or the sampling of controls must be changed to match the definition, or the definition must be changed to match the algorithm.
  3. [§3.3, Theorem 4] The equivalence between the observed-data estimating equation ψ** and the augmented-sample score ψ* is asserted but not derived in the manuscript; the proof is not in the main text and no supplementary material is available in the posted version. The displayed ψ** is not literally the conditional expectation of ψ* given the observed data: the μ(0) row differs from the augmented-score version by a factor (1−δ), and the first block requires careful accounting of the group-size ratio π/(1−π) and of the two ways a control unit can enter the mixed sample. I checked the algebra and the first block of ψ** can indeed be derived as the missing-data score under the simple mixing mechanism, so the specific concern that ψ** is plainly inconsistent with the mixing mechanism does not land. But Theorem 4 is the basis for consistency, asymptotic normality, and the variance sandwich; without a written derivation, the reader cannot verify that the β estimated by ψ** is the mixed-sample estimator or that the sandwich variance in Eq. (10) is correct. The authors should provide the full derivation.
  4. [§6.1 and Abstract] The headline claim of 'preserving unbiasedness while reducing variance' is not supported by any theorem. Section 6.1 states that 'researchers have not yet established a theoretical guarantee of its efficiency gain when applied to IPW estimators.' Given the algebraic reduction in Major Comment 1, the finite-sample variance reductions in Table 2 and Figures 1–3 are empirical properties of a specific M-estimator for the propensity score parameter, not a consequence of mixing per se. The paper should either prove a variance comparison (e.g., comparing the asymptotic variance of the ATT estimator under β̂_MIPW with that under β̂_IPW) or clearly label the efficiency gains as an empirical finding and soften the abstract accordingly. As it stands, the central claim goes beyond what the theory in the paper establishes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5, Table 3] The real-data analysis selects δ = 0.1 for MIPW and δ = 0.8 for MEB after inspecting the estimated standard errors in Table 3; the reported confidence intervals do not account for this data-dependent selection. The authors should either specify a pre-registered or cross-validated rule for choosing δ or describe the selected intervals as exploratory.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (9)] The notation in ψ* uses (Y*, Z*, X*) for the mixed observations, but the μ(1) row uses the original Z and Y; please clarify that the mixed treated group is only used for estimating the propensity score parameter, not for the outcome means, and that Y* equals the observed outcome for units drawn from the control pool.
  3. [Lemma 1] A quick algebraic check shows Lemma 1 is consistent with Eq. (7): substituting θ1 = 1−δ, θ0 = 0, and π* = π into the displayed formula gives Eq. (7) exactly. No extra factor is needed, but the notation could be simplified to help readers see this cancellation.
  4. [§4.1, Table 2] The caption says 'point estimates and the standard deviation estimates (filled in the parenthesis)', which is clear, but the text in Section 4.1 should state how the Monte Carlo bias and standard deviation are computed (e.g., across the 3000 replications) to make the table self-contained.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity in the theoretical derivation; the only circularity-adjacent element is the real-data δ selection, which is data-dependent and not load-bearing for the central claim.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Real Data Exercise (Table 3 and Figures 4-5)]
    "Even the overlap of the estimated propensity scores is sufficient, we can find, in Table 3, specific δ value for both IPW and EB such that standard error estimate reduces when mixing is applied. Regarding the guidelines of choosing the appropriate δ in Supplementary Material E, we take a closer examination in δ = 0.1 and δ = 0.8 for MIPW and MEB, respectively."

    The δ values showcased as the real-data improvement are selected by inspecting the standard-error estimates on the same RHC data (Table 3), and then the confidence intervals at those δ values are displayed as evidence that mixing improves inference. The reported reduction in standard error at the chosen δ is therefore an in-sample minimum of the criterion being demonstrated rather than an independent evaluation. This is a limited, localized statistical circularity: it does not affect the simulation study, where the full δ grid is reported, nor the theoretical derivation of MIPW.

full rationale

The derivation chain itself is not circular: MIPW is defined from an explicit synthetic distribution (Definition 2), the synthetic propensity score is obtained by algebra from that definition (Lemma 1 and Eq. 7), and the consistency claim rests on the paper's stated strong ignorability assumptions (Theorem 3), not on the conclusion being assumed. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited results (Li et al. 2018; Hainmueller 2012; Ben-Michael et al. 2021) are external benchmarks, and no uniqueness theorem by the present authors is invoked. The one circularity-adjacent element is confined to the real-data illustration, where δ is chosen on the same data by inspecting the standard errors it produces, so the reported improvement at the chosen δ is partly an in-sample artifact. Separately, Theorem 4's equivalence between ψ** and ψ* is asserted without a shown derivation, and the displayed ψ** fourth block appears to use the original e/(1-e) rather than the MIPW weight e*/(1-e*) - δπ/(1-π); this is an omitted proof or correctness risk, not a circularity. Because the central simulation and theoretical claims are evaluated over the full δ grid and do not depend on the post-hoc real-data choice, the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard causal inference assumptions (strong ignorability and correct propensity score specification) plus the validity of the M-estimating equation and the resampling approximation. The only user-chosen free parameter is delta, which is selected in a data-driven way in the real-data application. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • delta (mixing proportion) = user-chosen; delta=0.8 used in RHC analysis
    Tuning parameter controlling the fraction of treated units replaced by controls. In real-data analysis, delta is selected based on estimated standard errors, which is data-driven and not accounted for in inference.
  • beta (propensity score coefficients) = estimated via M-estimating equation
    The propensity score model coefficients are estimated from data; consistency of MIPW relies on correct specification of e(X;beta). This is a standard fitted parameter, not an ad hoc one.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Strong ignorability: unconfoundedness and 0 < e(x) < 1
    Section 2.1, Assumptions (1) and (2); required for identification of ATT and for the M-estimation theory.
  • domain assumption Correct parametric specification of the propensity score e(X;beta)
    Section 3.3 states 'Assume that the true propensity score is a parametric model...'; Theorem 3 and Theorem 4 rely on this for consistency and asymptotic normality.
  • standard math Existence, uniqueness, and regularity of theta0 for the M-estimator
    Section 3.3 invokes M-estimation theory (Stefanski and Boos 2002); regularity conditions are only described loosely as 'generally smooth under strong ignorability assumptions'.
  • domain assumption Resampled mixed datasets approximate the mixed distribution
    Section 3.4, Algorithm 1: averaging weights over M resamples is assumed to recover the mixed-distribution weights; no theory is provided for this approximation.
invented entities (1)
  • Mixed distribution and synthetic treated group
    purpose: Provides shrunken propensity scores e* for stabilizing weights in ATT estimation
    A synthetic construct defined in Definition 1; it is not an empirical quantity and makes no testable prediction outside the method itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mixing Samples to Address Weak Overlap in Causal Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/66YKU4CO

@misc{pith2026241110801,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mixing Samples to Address Weak Overlap in Causal Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/66YKU4CO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10801}
}
read the original abstract

In observational studies, the assumption of sufficient overlap (positivity) is fundamental for the identification and estimation of causal effects. Failing to account for this assumption yields inaccurate and potentially infeasible estimators. To address this issue, we introduce a simple yet novel approach, \textit{mixing}, which mitigates overlap violations by constructing a synthetic treated group that combines treated and control units. Our strategy offers three key advantages. First, it improves the accuracy of the estimator by preserving unbiasedness while reducing variance. The benefit is particularly significant in settings with weak overlap, though the method remains effective regardless of the overlap level. This phenomenon results from the shrinkage of propensity scores in the mixed sample, which enhances robustness to poor overlap. Second, it enables direct estimation of the target estimand without discarding extreme observations or modifying the target population, thus facilitating a straightforward interpretation of the results. Third, the mixing approach is highly adaptable to various weighting schemes, including contemporary methods such as entropy balancing. The estimation of the Mixed IPW (MIPW) estimator is done via M-estimation, and the method extends to a broader class of weighting estimators through a resampling algorithm. We illustrate the mixing approach through extensive simulation studies and provide practical guidance with a real-data analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10801 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Monte Carlo simulated result of the efficiency of the estimators: (solid lines) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The standard deviation estimates of the estimators EB, Mixing + EB (MEB), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The finite-sample bias of the estimators EB, MEB, OW in weak overlap in case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Confidence Interval constructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., and Zubizarreta, J

    Ben-Michael, E., Feller, A., Hirshberg, D. A., and Zubizarreta, J. R. (2021). The balancing act in causal inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14831

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Breiman, L. (1996). Bagging predictors. Machine learning , 24:123--140

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Busso, M., DiNardo, J., and McCrary, J. (2014). New evidence on the finite sample properties of propensity score reweighting and matching estimators. Review of Economics and Statistics , 96(5):885--897

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Cochran, W. G. and Chambers, S. P. (1965). The planning of observational studies of human populations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) , 128(2):234--266

    work page 1965

  5. [5]

    F., Speroff, T., Dawson, N

    Connors, A. F., Speroff, T., Dawson, N. V., Thomas, C., Harrell, F. E., Wagner, D., Desbiens, N., Goldman, L., Wu, A. W., Califf, R. M., et al. (1996). The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically iii patients. Jama , 276(11):889--897

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    K., Hotz, V

    Crump, R. K., Hotz, V. J., Imbens, G. W., and Mitnik, O. A. (2009). Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrika , 96(1):187--199

    2009

  7. [7]

    D’Amour, A., Ding, P., Feller, A., Lei, L., and Sekhon, J. (2021). Overlap in observational studies with high-dimensional covariates. Journal of Econometrics , 221(2):644--654

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Firth, D. (1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika , 80(1):27--38

    1993

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Hainmueller, J. (2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political analysis , 20(1):25--46

    2012

  2. [10]

    and Schemper, M

    Heinze, G. and Schemper, M. (2002). A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Statistics in medicine , 21(16):2409--2419

    2002

  3. [11]

    and Robins, J

    Hernan, M. and Robins, J. (2024). Causal Inference: What If . Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics & Applied Probab. CRC Press

    2024

  4. [12]

    and Imbens, G

    Hirano, K. and Imbens, G. W. (2001). Estimation of causal effects using propensity score weighting: An application to data on right heart catheterization. Health Services and Outcomes research methodology , 2:259--278

    2001

  5. [13]

    Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American statistical Association , 81(396):945--960

    1986

  6. [14]

    P., and Li, J

    Hong, H., Leung, M. P., and Li, J. (2020). Inference on finite-population treatment effects under limited overlap. The Econometrics Journal , 23(1):32--47

    2020

  7. [15]

    Imai, K., King, G., and Stuart, E. A. (2008). Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society , 171(2):481--502

    2008

  8. [16]

    and Ratkovic, M

    Imai, K. and Ratkovic, M. (2014). Covariate balancing propensity score. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 76(1):243--263

    2014

  9. [17]

    Kang, J. D. Y. and Schafer, J. L. (2007). Demystifying Double Robustness: A Comparison of Alternative Strategies for Estimating a Population Mean from Incomplete Data . Statistical Science , 22(4):523 -- 539

    2007

  10. [18]

    Kennedy, E. H. (2019). Nonparametric causal effects based on incremental propensity score interventions. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 114(526):645--656

    2019

  11. [19]

    and Tamer, E

    Khan, S. and Tamer, E. (2010). Irregular identification, support conditions, and inverse weight estimation. Econometrica , 78(6):2021--2042

    2010

  12. [20]

    K., Lessler, J., and Stuart, E

    Lee, B. K., Lessler, J., and Stuart, E. A. (2011). Weight trimming and propensity score weighting. PloS one , 6(3):e18174

    2011

  13. [21]

    L., and Zaslavsky, A

    Li, F., Morgan, K. L., and Zaslavsky, A. M. (2018). Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 113(521):390--400

    2018

  14. [22]

    Lunceford, J. K. and Davidian, M. (2004). Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Statistics in medicine , 23(19):2937--2960

    2004

  15. [23]

    Matsouaka, R. A. and Zhou, Y. (2024). Causal inference in the absence of positivity: The role of overlap weights. Biometrical Journal , 66(4):2300156

    2024

  16. [24]

    and Cluff, L

    Murphy, D. and Cluff, L. (1990). Support: Study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments: study design. J Clin Epidemiol , 43

    1990

  17. [25]

    M., Rotnitzky, A., and Zhao, L

    Robins, J. M., Rotnitzky, A., and Zhao, L. P. (1994). Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed. Journal of the American statistical Association , 89(427):846--866

    1994

  18. [26]

    Rosenbaum, P. R. (1989). Optimal matching for observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 84(408):1024--1032

    1989

  19. [27]

    Rosenbaum, P. R. (2004). Design sensitivity in observational studies. Biometrika , 91(1):153--164

    2004

  20. [28]

    Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Overt bias in observational studies . Springer

    2002

  21. [29]

    Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika , 70(1):41--55

    1983

  22. [30]

    Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American statistical Association , 79(387):516--524

    1984

  23. [31]

    Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology , 66(5):688--701

    1974

  24. [32]

    Rubin, D. B. (2007). The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Statistics in medicine , 26(1):20--36

    2007

  25. [33]

    Schaefer, R. L. (1983). Bias correction in maximum likelihood logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine , 2(1):71--78

    1983

  26. [34]

    Stefanski, L. A. and Boos, D. D. (2002). The calculus of m-estimation. The American Statistician , 56(1):29--38

    2002

  27. [35]

    Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics , 25(1):1

    2010

  28. [36]

    and Zubizarreta, J

    Visconti, G. and Zubizarreta, J. R. (2018). Handling limited overlap in observational studies with cardinality matching. Observational Studies , 4(1):217--249

    2018

  29. [37]

    Zubizarreta, J. R. (2015). Stable weights that balance covariates for estimation with incomplete outcome data. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 110(511):910--922

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.