Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Estimation of Treatment Effects in Extreme and Unobserved Data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Causal effects on rare disasters can now be estimated

desk verdict A genuinely new estimand for treatment effects on rare heavy-tailed outcomes, with a clean identification formula and honest limits; the missing alpha-estimator and a few experimental blemishes keep it from being fully convincing, but it deserves referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14051 v1 pith:L52O6VH7 submitted 2025-06-16 stat.ML cs.LGmath.STstat.MEstat.TH

Jiyuan Tan , Jose Blanchet , Vasilis Syrgkanis This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LGmath.STstat.MEstat.TH MSC 62G3262D2062G05
keywords causalinferenceextremevaluetheorymultivariateregularvariationtreatmenteffectsdoublyrobustestimationHillestimatorheavy-tailedoutcomesrareevents
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

This paper asks how to measure the effect of a treatment—an infrastructure policy, a drug, a financial hedge—on outcomes that matter only when they are extreme: hurricane losses, earthquake damage, tail financial losses. Standard causal inference targets average effects, and standard extreme-value theory does not handle interventions or covariates. The paper introduces the Normalized Extreme Treatment Effect, $\theta_{\mathrm{NETE}}=\lim_{t\to\infty}\mathbb{E}[(Y(1)-Y(0))/t^{\alpha}\mid \|U\|>t]$, and shows it decomposes into a spectral directional effect and a Pareto tail moment, so each piece can be estimated separately. Inverse-propensity and doubly robust estimators for the two factors are combined with an adaptive Hill estimator, with finite-sample non-asymptotic error bounds proved under multivariate regular variation and a Pareto-type model. If the framework is right, it provides a principled way to estimate how policies shift the extreme tail of an outcome from observational data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the asymptotic independence of radius and angle for multivariate regularly varying vectors: conditioned on $\|U\|>t$, the rescaled radius $\|U\|/t$ converges to a Pareto law while the direction $U/\|U\|$ converges to a spectral measure. This split rewrites the causal estimand as a spectral-mean treatment difference times the Pareto moment $1/(1-\alpha\gamma)$. The spectral factor is estimated by IPW or double machine learning with sample splitting, and the tail moment is estimated by an adaptive Hill estimator, a standard tail-index estimator whose data-driven threshold selection balances the bias and variance terms in the final bound. For the non-asymptotic analysis the noise is assumed to be a linear transformation of a near-Pareto vector, the class used by existing Wasserstein-distance bounds for spectral-measure estimation.

What would settle it

Estimate the Hill index or the distribution of $U/\|U\|$ separately for treated and control units above a high threshold: systematic differences mean the independence assumption fails and the identification formula loses its causal interpretation. Alternatively, compare the estimator using an independently known $\alpha$ with the heuristic regression-based $\hat{\alpha}_n$ on the same data; disagreement exposes the missing theoretical guarantee for the scaling exponent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, under exogeneity, overlap, polynomial growth of the outcome in the extreme noise, and multivariate regular variation, the extreme treatment effect $\theta_{\mathrm{NETE}}$ is consistently identifiable and estimable at finite sample sizes. Proposition 3.3 identifies it as the product of the spectral directional effect, $\lim_{t\to\infty}\mathbb{E}[g(X,1,U/\|U\|)-g(X,0,U/\|U\|)\mid \|U\|>t]$, and the tail moment $1/(1-\alpha\gamma)$, where $\gamma=1/\beta$ is the extreme value index. The paper proves that the doubly robust estimator achieves the error bound of Theorem 3.5, with bias terms $t^{-\min\{1,\beta\}}+t^{-\beta s/(1-2s)}+e(t)$ and a nuisance-error product; under polynomial learning rates, the rate is $n^{-s}$ or $n^{-1/(2+\max\{\beta,1\})}$ up to log factors, matching existing tail-dependence rates when $\alpha$ is known. In experiments, the estimator recovers the ground-truth NETE while naive thresholded IPW or DR estimators overshoot by an order of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the extreme driver $U$ is independent of treatment and covariates and that the growth exponent $\alpha$ is known, so conditioning on $\|U\|>t$ selects the same population in both treatment arms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Policymakers can now ask whether a policy reduces the expected damage in the tail of a heavy-tailed outcome, not just its average.
  • The DR estimator attains deviation bounds of order $n^{-s}$ in the fast-tail regime and $n^{-1/(2+\max\{\beta,1\})}$ in the slow-tail regime, matching the rate of tail-dependence estimation when $\alpha$ is known.
  • In synthetic and semi-synthetic experiments the new estimator outperforms naive IPW and DR estimators applied directly to thresholded extremes, which overshoot the true NETE by an order of magnitude.
  • When the extreme noise is one-dimensional, the spectral factor is trivial and the convergence rate improves to $O(e(t_n)+\log(1/\delta)n^{-1/(2+\beta)}+\log(1/\delta)n^{-c_\alpha})$.
  • Because the identification formula extrapolates from moderate threshold observations to arbitrarily large extremes, rare events can be studied without waiting for many extreme realizations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the theory requires $U\perp D$, a natural testable extension is to model $U$ as depending on $D$ through a shift or copula and re-derive the identification formula; a climate policy that reduces storm intensity would otherwise break the conditional interpretation.
  • The scaling exponent $\alpha$ is treated as known in the proofs but estimated by regression in the experiments; a joint estimator for $\alpha$ and the threshold would turn the method into a fully data-driven procedure.
  • The same radius–angle split could define extreme analogues of quantile treatment effects or expected shortfall differences by replacing the Pareto moment with the corresponding tail functional.
  • Applied users should estimate the extreme value index separately in the two treatment groups as a diagnostic; divergence signals violation of the independence assumption and invalidates the reported NETE.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a causal estimand for extreme events, NETE = lim_{t→∞} E[(Y(1)-Y(0))/t^α | ||U||>t], where U is a multivariate regularly varying 'extreme noise' vector independent of covariates and treatment. Under an asymptotic homogeneity condition on the outcome regression (Assumption 3.2), Proposition 3.3 identifies NETE as the product of the limiting spectral directional effect and the Pareto moment 1/(1-αγ). The authors propose sample-split IPW and DR estimators (Algorithm 1) and state finite-sample error bounds (Theorem 3.5 and Corollary 3.6) under a Pareto-type model class (Assumption 3.4). The empirical section compares these estimators with naive IPW/DR on a synthetic DGP and a wavesurge-based semi-synthetic DGP.

Significance. The idea of separating the spectral directional effect from the marginal tail moment is natural and new in the causal inference literature, and if the required conditions can be met, the proposed method fills a genuine gap. The identification proof is broadly coherent, and the use of existing concentration and Wasserstein bounds for spectral measures is methodologically sound. The paper is also transparent in Section 5 about the heuristic estimation of α. However, the absent construction of an estimator for α with the rate required by the main theorem means the advertised finite-sample guarantee is not realized by the implemented algorithm; in addition, the synthetic DGP in Section 4.1 is dimensionally inconsistent and the semi-synthetic validation is partly circular. These issues affect the central claims, so the paper requires a major revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Algorithm 1] Theorem 3.5 and Corollary 3.6 condition on an estimator bα_n satisfying |bα_n - α| ≤ R_α(n,δ) with R_α = Θ(log(1/δ) n^{-c_α}), but no estimator with this rate is constructed in the paper. The only concrete proposal is the OLS regression of log|Y| on log||U|| in Section 4.1, and the authors state in Section 5 that this heuristic 'lacks a theoretical guarantee.' Since bμ_n = 1/(1-bα_n bγ_n) is a nonlinear function of bα_n, any bias in bα_n feeds directly into bθ, so the error bounds (3.8)-(3.9) do not cover the estimator actually implemented in the experiments. The manuscript should either restrict the consistency claim to the known-α case, or provide an estimator of α with the stated rate and use it in the experiments.
  2. [Section 4.1] The synthetic DGP equation Y = ||U||^α (D+U/||U||+ε) + ||U||^{α/2} is dimensionally inconsistent: U/||U|| is a vector in R^{du} with du ∈ {5,10} in the experiments, while Y is scalar, so the expression D+U/||U||+ε is not a well-defined scalar quantity. This makes the claimed ground truth θ_NETE = 1/(1-α/β) and the results in Figures 1-2 unverifiable as stated. The authors should rewrite the DGP in a dimensionally consistent way, for example by using an explicit inner product or a distinguished coordinate, and recompute the ground truth and numerical results under that definition.
  3. [Section 4.2] The 'surrogate ground truth' in the semi-synthetic experiment is not an independent validation: it is computed from the test set using the same identification formula of Proposition 3.3, the known exponents α1 and α2, and an estimated EVI. Table 1 therefore mainly checks internal consistency of the model class, not the ability of the estimators to recover a target defined independently of the method. Moreover, the training estimators must estimate α heuristically while the test-set benchmark uses the true α, so the comparison conflates model error with α-estimation error. An independent validation, for example a DGP with a closed-form NETE in which α is also estimated in the benchmark, is needed to support the claim in Section 5 that the theoretical guarantees are 'validated.'
  4. [Section 3.1, Assumption 3.1] The causal interpretation of θ_NETE relies on the same extreme noise U appearing in both potential outcomes and being independent of D. If the treatment changes the distribution of U, as in the example of a climate policy that reduces storm intensity, then conditioning on ||U||>t selects different subpopulations under D=1 and D=0, and Proposition 3.3 is no longer a causal contrast. The manuscript should state this limitation explicitly and either restrict the running examples to interventions that leave U invariant, or extend the estimand and identification conditions to settings where U is affected by treatment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A.1] The proof of Proposition 3.3 first states lim_{t→∞} E[(||U||/t)^α | ||U||>t] = α/(β-α), but the subsequent calculation yields β/(β-α); the latter is consistent with Equation (3.7), so the former appears to be a typo.
  2. [Section 4 and Appendix] The manuscript refers to 'Theorem 3.3' and 'Theorem 3.6' in the experiments; these should be Proposition 3.3 and Corollary 3.6, respectively.
  3. [Section 4.1] The statement that the Pareto mixture 'does not satisfy Theorem 3.4' should refer to Assumption 3.4 rather than a theorem.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Algorithm 1] The pseudo-outcome regression bg(x,d,s) on (X,D,U/||U||) is not fully specified; the manuscript should state the model class and loss function used for bg, since the assumed rate R_g in Theorem 3.5 depends on the chosen regression method.
  5. [Appendix A.1] In the proof, the notation E_{(r,θ)∼L}[(g(X,1,θ)-g(X,0,θ))r^α] places the random covariate X inside an expectation over the limiting distribution L; because X is independent of U, the notation should be clarified, for example by explicitly writing an outer expectation over X.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The identification and estimation derivation is not circular, but the semi-synthetic 'surrogate ground truth' is computed from the paper's own identification formula and Hill estimator, making that validation partly in-sample; the asymptotic exponent estimator required by the main theorem is never supplied.

  1. other [Section 4.2 (Semi-synthetic Dataset), second paragraph; Appendix B, 'test-set estimation' paragraph.]
    "Next, we apply the identification formula from Proposition 3.3 together with (4.1) to obtain a high-fidelity estimate of the NETE on the test set. Because the test-set estimate leverages additional data and the correct tail model, we treat it as a surrogate “ground truth” for comparison."

    The 'surrogate ground truth' is not an independent target. Appendix B computes it as E_n[W^{α1}S^{α2}/||U||^{α1+α2} | ||U||>t_n] · 1/(1−(α1+α2)bγ), i.e. exactly the Proposition 3.3 decomposition applied to the same model (4.1), with γ estimated by the same adaptive Hill estimator used by the proposed EVT-DR/EVT-IPW estimators. Any error in the identification formula, in the Pareto-tail approximation, or in the Hill-based EVI estimation therefore appears on both sides of the comparison. The experiment mainly establishes internal consistency of the estimating pipeline, not agreement with an external ground truth; the closeness is partly forced by construction.

full rationale

The central identification chain — Assumptions 2.1/3.1/3.2 leading to Proposition 3.3, and the subsequent non-asymptotic analysis in Theorem 3.5 — is not circular: θ_NETE is defined as a limit, and the factorization into a spectral-direction term and a Pareto-moment term is derived from multivariate regular variation and asymptotic homogeneity, not assumed as the estimand. The citation to Zhang et al. (2023) is self-citational because of a shared author, but it is an external, published, testable result with its own assumptions, and it is not used to define the present estimand; it therefore does not constitute circularity under the stated rules. Two caveats prevent a 0–2 score. First, the semi-synthetic validation in Section 4.2 uses a 'surrogate ground truth' generated from Proposition 3.3 and the same Hill estimator as the proposed method, so that comparison is partly in-sample and cannot serve as an external falsification of the identification formula. Second, Theorem 3.5 and Corollary 3.6 assume an estimator bα_n with rate R_α(n,δ), but no such estimator is constructed; the paper's own conclusion explicitly says the heuristic α-estimation 'lacks a theoretical guarantee,' so the finite-sample bound is conditional on an input the implemented procedure does not provably deliver. This is a correctness gap rather than a circular reduction. The synthetic experiments with known α and β do provide an external check on the algorithm, which is why the circularity score is 3 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard causal assumptions (exogeneity, overlap, i.i.d.) and on EVT modeling assumptions: multivariate regular variation, a Pareto-type model class, and an asymptotic homogeneity condition with a known exponent alpha. The scaling exponent alpha is a free parameter in practice, estimated by regression without a theoretical guarantee as the paper's conclusion states. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (scaling exponent) = estimated per dataset via linear regression of log|Y| on log||U||
    Assumed known in the theory (Assumption 3.2) but estimated heuristically in Section 4.1 and Appendix B; the estimand and estimator both depend on it.
  • gamma (extreme value index) = estimated via adaptive Hill estimator in Algorithm 1
    The tail index of ||U|| is unknown and estimated from data; it enters the Pareto moment factor 1/(1-alpha*gamma).
  • Threshold t = chosen data-dependently as t = 0.25 n^(bgamma/(1+2 min{1,bgamma})) in experiments
    The threshold defining extreme events is a tuning parameter selected using the estimated EVI; the theoretical bounds depend on it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Consistency, exogeneity (Y(1),Y(0)) independent of D given X, and overlap 0<c<=p(x)<=1-c (Assumptions 2.1 and 2.2)
    Standard causal identification assumptions for the ATE-style estimand, invoked throughout the estimation.
  • domain assumption U is independent of X and D and is multivariate regularly varying (Assumption 3.1)
    Identifies the tail probability and the asymptotic independence of ||U|| and U/||U|| used in the identification formula.
  • ad hoc to paper The conditional outcome f(x,d,u)=E[Y|X,D,U] is asymptotically homogeneous with known index alpha and Lipschitz limit g, with error e(t) -> 0 (Assumption 3.2)
    This polynomial-growth assumption defines the normalization in NETE and is a modeling assumption tailored to the paper's setup.
  • ad hoc to paper U belongs to a Pareto-type model class M_k with density bound and linear transformation (Assumption 3.4)
    Needed for the non-asymptotic concentration and Wasserstein-distance bounds; the paper admits it is stronger than second-order regular variation.
  • domain assumption Nuisance estimators satisfy rate assumptions R_p, R_g, R_alpha = Theta(n^{-1/2}) or Theta(n^{-c_alpha}) (Corollary 3.6)
    Standard DML rate conditions for propensity and outcome regressions, used to obtain the final convergence rates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimation of Treatment Effects in Extreme and Unobserved Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L52O6VH7

@misc{pith2026250614051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimation of Treatment Effects in Extreme and Unobserved Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L52O6VH7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14051}
}
read the original abstract

Causal effect estimation seeks to determine the impact of an intervention from observational data. However, the existing causal inference literature primarily addresses treatment effects on frequently occurring events. But what if we are interested in estimating the effects of a policy intervention whose benefits, while potentially important, can only be observed and measured in rare yet impactful events, such as extreme climate events? The standard causal inference methodology is not designed for this type of inference since the events of interest may be scarce in the observed data and some degree of extrapolation is necessary. Extreme Value Theory (EVT) provides methodologies for analyzing statistical phenomena in such extreme regimes. We introduce a novel framework for assessing treatment effects in extreme data to capture the causal effect at the occurrence of rare events of interest. In particular, we employ the theory of multivariate regular variation to model extremities. We develop a consistent estimator for extreme treatment effects and present a rigorous non-asymptotic analysis of its performance. We illustrate the performance of our estimator using both synthetic and semi-synthetic data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14051 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experiment results of four different configurations when the extreme noise is a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experiment results of four different configurations when the extreme noise is a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The scatter plot of wavesurge data. generation process, θ NETE = lim t→∞ E[ Wα1 S α2 t α1+α2 | ∥U∥ > t] = lim t→∞ E[ Wα1 S α2 ∥U∥ α1+α2 | ∥U∥ > t] · 1 1 − (α1 + α2)γ , where we use Theorem 3.3 in the second equality. We know the ground-truth α1, α2 and we can estimate the EVI γ using the test set. Suppose the estimated EVI is γb, we set the threshold to tn = 0.25n (γ/b (1+2 min{1,γb}) and get estimation θbNETE test … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kernel pca for multivariate extremes

    Marco Avella-Medina, Richard A Davis, and Gennady Samorodnitsky. Kernel pca for multivariate extremes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13172, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Heejung Bang and James M. Robins. Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics, 61 0 (4): 0 962--973, 2005. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00377.x

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Regular variation, volume 27

    Nicholas H Bingham, Charles M Goldie, and Jef L Teugels. Regular variation, volume 27. Cambridge university press, 1989

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    Causality in extremes of time series, August 2023

    Juraj Bodik, Zbyn e k Pawlas, and Milan Palu s . Causality in extremes of time series, August 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Tail index estimation, concentration and adaptivity

    St \'e phane Boucheron and Maud Thomas. Tail index estimation, concentration and adaptivity. 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Extremal Quantiles and Value-at-Risk , May 2006

    Victor Chernozhukov and Songzi Du. Extremal Quantiles and Value-at-Risk , May 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Inference for extremal conditional quantile models, with an application to market and birthweight risks

    Victor Chernozhukov and Iv \'a n Fern \'a ndez-Val. Inference for extremal conditional quantile models, with an application to market and birthweight risks. The Review of Economic Studies, 78 0 (2): 0 559--589, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and causal parameters

    Victor Chernozhukov, Denis Chetverikov, Mert Demirer, Esther Duflo, Christian Hansen, Whitney Newey, and James Robins. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and causal parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.00060, 2016

    arXiv 2016

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters

    Victor Chernozhukov, Denis Chetverikov, Mert Demirer, Esther Duflo, Christian Hansen, Whitney Newey, and James Robins. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. Technical Report 23564, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters

    Victor Chernozhukov, Denis Chetverikov, Mert Demirer, Esther Duflo, Christian Hansen, Whitney Newey, and James Robins. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. Econometrics Journal, 21 0 (1): 0 C1--C68, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    An introduction to statistical modeling of extreme values, volume 208

    Stuart Coles, Joanna Bawa, Lesley Trenner, and Pat Dorazio. An introduction to statistical modeling of extreme values, volume 208. Springer, 2001

    2001

  4. [12]

    Davison and Richard L

    Anthony C. Davison and Richard L. Smith. Models for exceedances over high thresholds. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 52 0 (3): 0 393--425, 1990

    1990

  5. [13]

    Maathuis

    David Deuber, Jinzhou Li, Sebastian Engelke, and Marloes H. Maathuis. Estimation and Inference of Extremal Quantile Treatment Effects for Heavy-Tailed Distributions . Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119 0 (547): 0 2206--2216, July 2024. ISSN 0162-1459. doi:10....

    2024

  6. [14]

    Orthogonal statistical learning

    Dylan J Foster and Vasilis Syrgkanis. Orthogonal statistical learning. The Annals of Statistics, 51 0 (3): 0 879--908, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Max-linear models on directed acyclic graphs

    Nadine Gissibl and Claudia Kl \"u ppelberg. Max-linear models on directed acyclic graphs . Bernoulli, 24 0 (4A): 0 2693 -- 2720, 2018. doi:10.3150/17-BEJ941. URL https://doi.org/10.3150/17-BEJ941

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Causal discovery in heavy-tailed models

    Nicola Gnecco, Nicolai Meinshausen, Jonas Peters, and Sebastian Engelke. Causal discovery in heavy-tailed models. The Annals of Statistics, 49 0 (3): 0 1755--1778, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Kang and Joseph L

    Joseph D.Y. Kang and Joseph L. Schafer. Demystifying double robustness: A comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Statistical Science, 22 0 (4): 0 523--539, 2007. doi:10.1214/07-STS227

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    M. R. Leadbetter. On a basis for ` Peaks over Threshold ' modeling. Statistics & Probability Letters, 12 0 (4): 0 357--362, October 1991. ISSN 0167-7152. doi:10.1016/0167-7152(91)90107-3

    1991 doi

  11. [19]

    Causal mechanism of extreme river discharges in the upper danube basin network

    Linda Mhalla, Val \'e rie Chavez-Demoulin, and Debbie J Dupuis. Causal mechanism of extreme river discharges in the upper danube basin network. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, 69 0 (4): 0 741--764, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Tail distribution of the sums of regularly varying random variables, computations and simulations

    Quang Huy Nguyen. Tail distribution of the sums of regularly varying random variables, computations and simulations. PhD thesis, Lyon 1, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Statistical inference using extreme order statistics

    James Pickands III. Statistical inference using extreme order statistics. the Annals of Statistics, pages 119--131, 1975

    1975

  14. [22]

    Rosenbaum and Donald B

    Paul R. Rosenbaum and Donald B. Rubin. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70 0 (1): 0 41--55, 1983. doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41

    1983 doi

  15. [23]

    Donald B. Rubin. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66 0 (5): 0 688--701, 1974. doi:10.1037/h0037350

    1974 doi

  16. [24]

    Richard L. Smith. Extreme value analysis of environmental time series: An application to trend detection in ground-level ozone. Statistical Science, pages 367--377, 1989

    1989

  17. [25]

    When is the estimated propensity score better? high-dimensional analysis and bias correction

    Fangzhou Su, Wenlong Mou, Peng Ding, and Martin J Wainwright. When is the estimated propensity score better? high-dimensional analysis and bias correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17102, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Prediction of volume of shallow landslides due to rainfall using data-driven models

    J \'e r \'e mie Tuganishuri, Chan-Young Yune, Manik Das Adhikari, Seung Woo Lee, Gihong Kim, and Sang-Guk Yum. Prediction of volume of shallow landslides due to rainfall using data-driven models. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 2024: 0 1--26, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    van der Laan and Daniel Rubin

    Mark J. van der Laan and Daniel Rubin. Targeted maximum likelihood learning. International Journal of Biostatistics, 2 0 (1), 2006. doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1043

    2006

  20. [28]

    Dependence of us hurricane economic loss on maximum wind speed and storm size

    Alice R Zhai and Jonathan H Jiang. Dependence of us hurricane economic loss on maximum wind speed and storm size. Environmental Research Letters, 9 0 (6): 0 064019, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Wasserstein-based minimax estimation of dependence in multivariate regularly varying extremes

    Xuhui Zhang, Jose Blanchet, Youssef Marzouk, Viet Anh Nguyen, and Sven Wang. Wasserstein-based minimax estimation of dependence in multivariate regularly varying extremes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09862, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Extremal quantile treatment effects

    Yichong Zhang. Extremal quantile treatment effects. The Annals of Statistics, 46 0 (6B): 0 3707--3740, December 2018. ISSN 0090-5364, 2168-8966. doi:10.1214/17-AOS1673

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.senten...

  24. [32]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  25. [33]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  26. [34]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  27. [35]

    AX 3 Ɇ MU Λ3J M a ( º6 HldCmH_ ,

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

    1975 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.