Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Gaussian and Bootstrap Approximation for Matching-based Average Treatment Effect Estimators

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes explicit finite-sample Gaussian approximation bounds for bias-corrected matching ATE estimators and proves that a multiplier bootstrap achieves the same order.

desk verdict A genuine advance in non-asymptotic theory for matching ATE estimators with diverging M, but the headline rates rest on a density-ratio lemma whose proof imports unverified inequalities; treat the rates as conditional until that lemma is fully proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17181 v1 pith:BQN4GYY4 submitted 2024-12-22 math.ST econ.EMmath.PRstat.MLstat.TH

Zhaoyang Shi , Chinmoy Bhattacharjee , Krishnakumar Balasubramanian , Wolfgang Polonik This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STecon.EMmath.PRstat.MLstat.TH MSC 62G0562G0962G2060F0560G55
keywords nearest-neighbormatchingaveragetreatmenteffectGaussianapproximationBerry–EsseenboundmultiplierbootstrapstabilizationMalliavin–Steinmethodrank-based
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

Nearest-neighbor matching is a standard causal-inference tool, but until now its confidence intervals were justified only asymptotically, with no handle on how the number of matches or the balance between treatment groups affects when the normal approximation becomes accurate. This paper proves that, under standard distributional and regression assumptions, the bias-corrected matching ATE estimator, centered and scaled, is close to a Gaussian in Kolmogorov distance with an explicit error depending on sample size $n$, match count $M$, and the treatment-probability lower bound $\eta$. The main theorem gives $d_K(\sqrt{n}(\hat\tau_M^{bc}-\tau), N(0,\sigma^2)) \le C(B_1+B_2+B_3)$, with a simplified one-dimensional balanced-data rate $M^{40/(8+p)}n^{-1/2}+M^{-1/2}$. It also proves that a multiplier bootstrap approximates the same distribution at essentially the same rate, so data-driven non-asymptotic confidence intervals become possible. The rank-based matching variant that uses component-wise ranks is treated in parallel, with additional dependence on the error in estimating the transformation.

What carries the argument

Score-function localization combined with a Malliavin-Stein bound for stabilizing functionals. The estimator's main term $nE_n$ is re-expressed as a sum of score functions $\xi_n(\tilde{x}_j,\tilde{X}_n)$, and a score at $j$ is affected by other points only through its $M$ nearest neighbors in the opposite treatment arm, so the radius of stabilization is the $M$-NN distance. Lemma A.1 gives the exponential tail $P(R_n \ge r) \le e^2\exp(-V_m g_{\min}\eta/((2M)\vee 8)\, n r^m)$. Theorem 7.1, the paper's refinement of a known normal-approximation bound for stabilizing functionals of binomial point processes, tracks constants through $c(M,\eta,p) \asymp (M/(\zeta\eta))^5 \vee 1$ and converts the tail and a $4+p$ moment condition into the $S_1$-$S_5$ terms. Lemma A.4 supplies the fully non-asymptotic density-ratio bound on which the variance term $B_3$ rests, and Lemma 7.1 turns it into quantitative upper and lower bounds on $n\operatorname{Var}E_n$. The bias term $B_2$ is handled by a moment bound whose $\eta^{-k/m}$ factors come from the binomial counts of treated and control units.

What would settle it

Simulate the density-ratio setting of Lemma A.4 in one dimension with known densities satisfying Assumption A, for $n=10^2,10^3,10^4$ and $M=\lfloor n^\alpha\rfloor$ with $\alpha\in(0,1)$: compute the Monte Carlo MSE of the density-ratio estimator and divide it by the lemma's right-hand side $\eta^{-2}(M/(n\eta))^{1/m}+\delta_{H1}+(\delta_{H2}+1)/(\eta^2 M)+\delta_{H3}$. If this ratio grows without bound as $n$ increases, Lemma A.4 is false, and with it the stated $B_3$ rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the bias-corrected nearest-neighbor matching estimator of the average treatment effect has a Gaussian approximation whose error can be bounded explicitly in terms of $n$, the number of matches $M$, and the minimal treatment probability $\eta$. Writing $\hat\tau_M^{bc}=E_n+(B_M-\hat B_M)$, the main term $E_n$ is shown to be a stabilizing functional of the binomial point process of covariates, treatments, and errors, so a Malliavin-Stein bound for stabilizing functionals applies. Theorem 5.1 states $d_K(\sqrt{n}(\hat\tau_M^{bc}-\tau), N(0,\sigma^2)) \le C(B_1+B_2+B_3)$, where $B_1$ controls the Gaussian approximation of $E_n$, $B_2$ controls the regression-bias correction, and $B_3$ controls convergence of the sample variance to the limiting variance $\sigma^2$; the last term rests on a new fully non-asymptotic density-ratio bound. In the balanced one-dimensional case this yields $M^{40/(8+p)}n^{-1/2}+M^{-1/2}$. Theorem 6.1 then shows that the multiplier bootstrap statistic $\sqrt{n}(\hat\tau_M^{boot}-\hat\tau_M^{bc})$ approximates $\sqrt{n}(\hat\tau_M^{bc}-\tau)$ conditional on the data, with probability at least $1-16(B_3\wedge 1)$, at the same order, making data-driven intervals with non-asymptotic coverage possible.

Load-bearing premise

Everything downstream depends on Lemma A.4's claim that certain inequalities taken from an earlier asymptotic proof of density-ratio convergence remain valid word-for-word when the asymptotic simplifications are stripped away; if one of those inherited inequalities silently relied on the asymptotic regime it came from, the variance term $B_3$ and hence the bootstrap comparison fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Theorem 5.1 turns directly into a coverage lower bound of $1-\alpha - C(B_1+B_2+B_3)$ for confidence intervals built from the limiting variance.
  • The multiplier bootstrap gives data-driven intervals whose approximation error is the same order as the Gaussian approximation, holding conditionally on the sample with probability at least $1-16(B_3\wedge 1)$.
  • The number of matches may diverge with $n$ at explicit rates under $M \le C_0 n\eta$ and $n\eta^2 \ge C_1$, with simplified conditions $M^{-1}\log n=o(1)$ and $n^{-1}M\log n=o(1)$; this contrasts with the fixed-$M$ failure of the naive bootstrap.
  • The bounds quantify treatment balance: when $\eta=o(M)$ the $B_1$ term blows up, so imbalanced designs require smaller $M$, and the same parameter controls the variance term $B_3$.
  • For the empirical-CDF rank-based estimator, the one-dimensional rate is $M^{40/(8+p)}n^{-1/2}+M^{-1/4}$, worse in the match-count term than the covariate-based $M^{-1/2}$, showing that the choice of metric affects the speed of Gaussian convergence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The stabilization route used here is generic: any estimator whose leading term is a sum of scores with exponentially decaying interaction radius can be fed through Theorem 7.1, so the same template should yield non-asymptotic CLTs for other nearest-neighbor statistics, random forests, and geometric functionals, as the paper itself suggests for K-fold versions.
  • Because Lemma A.4 is freestanding, it can be reused outside ATE estimation to make density-ratio-based semiparametric inference finite-sample, offering a testable check of whether the earlier asymptotic density-ratio rates were conservative.
  • Balancing the two leading terms of the simplified one-dimensional bound suggests an optimal match-count scaling of order $n^{(8+p)/(88+p)}$, roughly $n^{1/10}$ for $p=1$; this is a prediction about simulation-based tuning, not a result proven here.
  • The bootstrap construction, residuals multiplied by Gaussian variables plus a Gaussian centering term, provides a recipe that could be carried over to other causal estimators, since it only needs a Gaussian approximation theorem for the underlying estimator.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops non-asymptotic Gaussian approximation bounds for bias-corrected covariate- and rank-based matching estimators of the average treatment effect. The main covariate result, Theorem 5.1, bounds the Kolmogorov distance between sqrt(n)(tau_hat_M^bc - tau) and a centered normal with variance sigma^2 by an explicit sum B1+B2+B3 depending on the number of matches M, the balance parameter eta, the dimension m, and the moment parameter p. Theorem 5.2 extends the result to phi-transformed rank matching, and Theorem 6.1 gives analogous bounds for a multiplier bootstrap procedure, conditionally on the data with high probability. The proof strategy is a three-step decomposition: stabilization plus Malliavin-Stein for the main term, a quantitative variance approximation, and a bias bound; the technical core is the non-asymptotic density-ratio estimation bound in Lemma A.4.

Significance. If the stated theorems hold, the paper makes a substantial contribution: it provides the first finite-sample Gaussian and bootstrap approximation rates for matching ATE estimators with a diverging number of matches, makes the dependence on treatment balance explicit, and offers a data-driven bootstrap with quantifiable accuracy. The stabilization viewpoint and the explicit variance approximation are valuable technical innovations. However, the central rates in Theorems 5.1 and 6.1 rest on Lemma A.4, whose proof imports non-asymptotic inequalities from Lin et al. (2023a) without reproducing or fully verifying them. This is a load-bearing gap, not a presentation issue. The proof of the rank-based bootstrap assertion is also deferred rather than supplied. I therefore view the manuscript as promising but not yet fully verified in its current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Lemma A.4] Lemma A.4 is load-bearing: its density-ratio bound enters the B3 term of Theorem 5.1, the variance approximation in Lemma 7.1, and the probability statement 1 - min(16B3,1) in Theorem 6.1. The proof, however, is not self-contained. After equation (A.3), the text says it adapts Lin et al. (2023a, proofs of Theorems B.3 and B.4) by replacing asymptotic o(n^{-gamma}) simplifications with 'the first inequalities' from those proofs, referring to S3.30-S3.31 and S3.34-S3.37, but it does not reproduce those inequalities or verify that they hold under the present non-asymptotic settings, where M can diverge, eta may decay, and p0 is not assumed fixed. If any of the inherited inequalities implicitly uses an ordering such as n0 going to infinity before M diverges, or delta small relative to g_min, the resulting rate could acquire extra factors in eta or M log n/(n eta), changing B3 and hence the Corollary 5.1 rate and the bootstrap high-probability bound. The authors should either give a complete proof of the non-asymptotic density-ratio bound or state and prove the imported inequalities under the assumptions of Theorem 5.1.
  2. [Appendix C, Theorem 6.1, rank-based case] The rank-based assertion of Theorem 6.1 is dismissed at the end of Appendix C as following 'mutatis mutandis'. This is not a routine adaptation. The rank-based proof must handle the additional term Delta E_phi,n, the estimation error of phi-hat appearing in Lemmas B.1 and B.2, and the different variance lower bound L(mu, mu-hat, phi, phi-hat, n). In particular, the bound on sqrt(n) E|Delta E_phi,n| in equation (E.11) is obtained only after choosing epsilon, epsilon_1 and delta of the order (M/(n eta))^{1/m1}, and no verification is given that the Cattaneo et al. (2023) inequalities used for that choice remain valid in the non-asymptotic regime of Theorem 5.2. The omitted proof should be supplied or replaced with a detailed verification of the three bootstrap steps in the rank-based setting.
  3. [Appendix E, Lemma B.2 and equation (E.11)] The bound for sqrt(n) E|Delta E_phi,n| in Lemma B.2 and (E.11) contains factors (delta epsilon_1)^{-m} multiplying the estimation error of phi-hat, and the free parameters epsilon, epsilon_1, delta are subsequently collapsed into a single choice delta ~ (M/(n eta))^{1/m1}. This step needs an explicit infimum over delta and a demonstration that the constraints delta >= (M/(n eta))^{1/m1}, epsilon, epsilon_1 of order delta are compatible with the small-delta assumptions in the cited work. Without such a verification, the term reported in Theorem 5.2's B6 may be optimistic, and the rank-based Gaussian approximation rate would not follow as stated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, text near (5.4)] The discussion after Corollary 5.2 says that for m = 1 the last summand in B1_6 equals M^{-1/6}, but the displayed formula in Corollary 5.2 gives 1/M^{1/4} for m = 1; the displayed rate uses M^{-1/4}. Please reconcile the text with the theorem statement.
  2. [Appendix E, Lemma B.2] In the sup term of Lemma B.2, the expression appears as ||(phi-hat - phi)(x) - (phi-hat - phi)(x)||_8; the second evaluation should be at y to match the intended oscillation modulus.
  3. [Theorem 6.1] The phrase 'with probabilities at least 1 - 16B3 ^ 1' and its analogue for B6 should be written as 1 - min(16B3,1) and 1 - min(16B6,1) to match the proof and avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Section 4.2.1, Assumption C.4] Assumption C.4 writes P(D = 1 | phi_omega(X) = phi_omega(x)) = P(D = 1 | X = x), but the notation is ambiguous about whether the conditioning argument is the transformed variable or the original variable; please state the equality explicitly in terms of sigma-algebras or events.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Gaussian and bootstrap bounds are derived from external stabilization theorems and prior density-ratio estimates, not from the target result itself.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 5.1 assembles its bound from three independent ingredients: a Malliavin-Stein bound for stabilizing functionals refined from Lachièze-Rey et al. (2019) (Theorem 7.1), variance lower and upper bounds from Lemma 7.1, and a bias bound for B_M - Bhat_M following Lin et al. (2023b). The density-ratio estimation bound of Lemma A.4 is the main imported piece, but it comes from Lin et al. (2023a), an external published source with no author overlap; replacing asymptotic o(n^{-gamma}) simplifications by the 'first inequalities' of that proof may leave a verification gap, but it is not a circular reduction because those inequalities are not equivalent to Theorem 5.1 or Theorem 6.1. No parameter is fitted to the ATE approximation or to sigma^2, no prediction is renamed as an input, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' own prior work. The contextual self-citations to Shi et al. (2024a,b) in Remark 5.1 and Section 7 are illustrative mentions of the stabilization technique, not load-bearing premises. The bootstrap theorem uses Theorem 5.1 as a bridge, which is ordinary theorem composition rather than circularity. Any concern about the unstated details in Lemma A.4 is a completeness or correctness issue, not a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No hidden fitted constants appear in the derivation. The bounds track M, n, eta, and p explicitly; constants are named but not data-fitted. The main intellectual debts are to external stabilization theorems and to the density-ratio estimation framework of Lin et al., not to circular self-support.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Covariate distribution: X compact convex, density bounded gmin <= g <= gmax; propensity score bounded 0 < eta <= e(x) <= 1 - eta < 1 (Assumption A).
    Used in Lemma A.1 to obtain the exponential stabilization tail P(R_n >= r) <= C exp(-C eta M^{-1} n r^m); without it the local-dependence argument in Theorem 7.1 has no decay.
  • domain assumption Treatment assignment is unconfounded given X: D independent of (Y(0),Y(1)) conditional on X, with outcome regression functions mu_omega that are sufficiently smooth (Assumptions A.3, B.3).
    Identifies tau and gives the decomposition tau_hat_M^bc = E_n + (B_M - B_hat_M); also supplies bounds on the bias term B2 in Theorem 5.1.
  • domain assumption Regression estimators mu_hat_omega satisfy the derivative convergence rates in Assumption B.4, with gamma_l > 1/2 - l/m + epsilon_mu, and the outcome errors have finite 4+p moments with variance lower bound (Assumption B.2).
    The 4+p moment condition enters Lemma D.1 and the Malliavin-Stein bound; the gamma_l rates enter B2 and the bootstrap variance comparison in Theorem 6.1.
  • domain assumption For rank-based matching, the transformation phi is either known or estimated with the Donsker-type oscillation control and two-point insertion bounds in Assumption D.4 and Lemma B.2; for CDF ranks, the empirical CDF oscillation bound is used (Corollary 5.2).
    Theorem 5.2 splits off E*_phi,n and bounds Delta E_phi,n; without sup-norm and oscillation rates for phi_hat the rank-based bound is not closed.
  • domain assumption Geometric regularity: conditional supports S0 and S1 have bounded surface area, and their intersection with balls has measure at least a times the ball volume (Assumptions A.5, A.6).
    Used in adapting the density-ratio estimation bounds from Lin et al. to non-asymptotic form in Lemma A.4.
  • standard math External Malliavin-Stein and stabilization results are valid: Lachieze-Rey et al. (2019) Theorem 4.2, Lachieze-Rey and Peccati (2017) Theorem 5.1, and the add-one cost operator framework.
    Theorem 7.1 refines these bounds while tracking M, eta, and p; the refinement is not a derivation from first principles, so correctness inherits from these external theorems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaussian and Bootstrap Approximation for Matching-based Average Treatment Effect Estimators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQN4GYY4

@misc{pith2026241217181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaussian and Bootstrap Approximation for Matching-based Average Treatment Effect Estimators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQN4GYY4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17181}
}
read the original abstract

We establish Gaussian approximation bounds for covariate and rank-matching-based Average Treatment Effect (ATE) estimators. By analyzing these estimators through the lens of stabilization theory, we employ the Malliavin-Stein method to derive our results. Our bounds precisely quantify the impact of key problem parameters, including the number of matches and treatment balance, on the accuracy of the Gaussian approximation. Additionally, we develop multiplier bootstrap procedures to estimate the limiting distribution in a fully data-driven manner, and we leverage the derived Gaussian approximation results to further obtain bootstrap approximation bounds. Our work not only introduces a novel theoretical framework for commonly used ATE estimators, but also provides data-driven methods for constructing non-asymptotically valid confidence intervals.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abadie and G

    A. Abadie and G. W. Imbens. Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica, 74 0 (1): 0 235--267, 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Abadie and G

    A. Abadie and G. W. Imbens. On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Econometrica, 76 0 (6): 0 1537--1557, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Abadie and G

    A. Abadie and G. W. Imbens. Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 29 0 (1): 0 1--11, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Abadie and J

    A. Abadie and J. Spiess. Robust post-matching inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 117 0 (538): 0 983--995, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Bang and J

    H. Bang and J. M. Robins. Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics, 61 0 (4): 0 962--973, 2005

    2005

  6. [6]

    Bhattacharjee and I

    C. Bhattacharjee and I. Molchanov. Gaussian approximation for sums of region-stabilizing scores. Electronic Journal of Probability, 27: 0 1--27, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    M. D. Cattaneo, F. Han, and Z. Lin. On R osenbaum's rank-based matching estimator. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07683, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    G. W. Imbens. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review . Review of Economics and Statistics, 86 0 (1): 0 4--29, 2004

    work page 2004

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    G. W. Imbens and J. M. Wooldridge. Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of economic literature, 47 0 (1): 0 5--86, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    Kosko, L

    M. Kosko, L. Wang, and M. Santacatterina. A fast bootstrap algorithm for causal inference with large data. Statistics in Medicine, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Lachi \`e ze-Rey and G

    R. Lachi \`e ze-Rey and G. Peccati. New B erry-- E sseen bounds for functionals of binomial point processes. The Annals of Applied Probability, 27: 0 1992–2031, 2017

    1992

  4. [12]

    Lachi \`e ze-Rey, M

    R. Lachi \`e ze-Rey, M. Schulte, and J. E. Yukich. Normal approximation for stabilizing functionals. The Annals of Applied Probability, 29 0 (2): 0 931--993, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Lachi \`e ze-Rey, G

    R. Lachi \`e ze-Rey, G. Peccati, and X. Yang. Quantitative two-scale stabilization on the P oisson space . The Annals of Applied Probability, 32 0 (4): 0 3085--3145, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Lin and F

    Z. Lin and F. Han. On the consistency of bootstrap for matching estimators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23525, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Z. Lin, P. Ding, and F. Han. Estimation based on nearest neighbor matching: From density ratio to average treatment effect . Econometrica, 91 0 (6): 0 2187--2217, 2023 a

    2023

  8. [16]

    Z. Lin, P. Ding, and F. Han. Supplement to ` Estimation based on nearest neighbor matching: from density ratio to average treatment effect '. Econometrica Supplemental Material, 91, 2023 b

    2023

  9. [17]

    S. L. Morgan and D. J. Harding. Matching estimators of causal effects: Prospects and pitfalls in theory and practice . Sociological Methods & Research, 35 0 (1): 0 3--60, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    Otsu and Y

    T. Otsu and Y. Rai. Bootstrap inference of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112 0 (520): 0 1720--1732, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    M. Penrose. Random geometric graphs, volume 5 of Oxford Studies in Probability. Oxford University Press, 2003

    2003

  12. [20]

    M. D. Penrose and J. E. Yukich. Normal approximation in geometric probability. Stein’s method and applications, 5: 0 37--58, 2005

    2005

  13. [21]

    M. D. Penrose and J. E. Yukich. Limit theory for point processes in manifolds. The Annals of Applied Probability, 23: 0 2161--2211, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    P. R. Rosenbaum. Observational Studies. Springer, 1995

    1995

  15. [23]

    P. R. Rosenbaum. An exact distribution-free test comparing two multivariate distributions based on adjacency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 67 0 (4): 0 515--530, 2005

    2005

  16. [24]

    P. R. Rosenbaum. Design of observational studies, volume 10. Springer, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    D. B. Rubin. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66 0 (5): 0 688, 1974

    1974

  18. [26]

    D. O. Scharfstein, A. Rotnitzky, and J. M. Robins. Adjusting for nonignorable drop-out using semiparametric nonresponse models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94 0 (448): 0 1096--1120, 1999

    1999

  19. [27]

    Shi and P

    L. Shi and P. Ding. Berry-esseen bounds for design-based causal inference with possibly diverging treatment levels and varying group sizes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12345, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Z. Shi, K. Balasubramanian, and W. Polonik. A flexible approach for normal approximation of geometric and topological statistics. Bernoulli, 30 0 (4): 0 3029--3058, 2024 a

    2024

  21. [29]

    Z. Shi, C. Bhattacharjee, K. Balasubramanian, and W. Polonik. Multivariate Gaussian Approximation for Random Forest via Region-based Stabilization . arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09960, 2024 b

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    E. A. Stuart. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward . Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25 0 (1): 0 1, 2010

    2010

  23. [31]

    Trauthwein

    T. Trauthwein. Quantitative CLTs on the Poisson space via Skorohod estimates and p -Poincar\' e inequalities . arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03782, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. J. Wainwright. High-dimensional statistics: A non-asymptotic viewpoint, volume 48. Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Walsh and C

    C. Walsh and C. Jentsch. Nearest neighbor matching: M-out-of-n bootstrapping without bias correction vs. the naive bootstrap. Econometrics and Statistics, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.