Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

A Pilot Design for Observational Studies: Using Abundant Data Thoughtfully

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pilot design that spends some observations before the analysis—fitting a prognostic model on a held-out set and then matching on both propensity and prognostic scores—reduces estimation error and roughly doubles the…

desk verdict A practical, well-simulated pilot-matching extension of prognostic-score design, with a small theorem bug and a genuine gap between Algorithm 1 and Theorem 2. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09077 v3 pith:LKYIXCEK submitted 2019-08-24 stat.ME

Rachael C. Aikens (1 , 2) , Dylan Greaves (2) , Michael Baiocchi (3) ((1) Stanford University Department of Biomedical Informatics , (2) Stanford University Department of Statistics , (3) Stanford University Department of Epidemiology , Population Health) This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62D20
keywords causalinferenceobservationalstudiespilotdesignprognosticscorepropensitymatchingsensitivityanalysisAssignment-Controlplots
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

The paper argues that in observational studies with many control units but limited high-quality controls, the best use of some observations is not estimation but design: hold out a pilot set, fit a prognostic model on it, and match treated units to remaining controls jointly on propensity and prognostic scores. In simulations this "prognostic pilot matching" reduced mean squared error by 12% to 36% relative to propensity-score matching and 8% to 34% relative to Mahalanobis distance matching at 1:1, and raised the median Gamma at which the effect would be explained away from about 2.5 to about 5. The reason is that matching on prognosis shrinks within-set heterogeneity in the control potential outcome, which improves precision and, uniquely for observational studies, strengthens sensitivity analyses. A reader should care because data-rich but control-poor studies are increasingly common, and this reframes sample size as a design resource rather than only an analysis resource.

What carries the argument

The central object is the prognostic score, defined as any function of the covariates such that the control potential outcome is independent of the covariates once that score is known; the paper's version models the expected outcome under no treatment. The proposed machine is Algorithm 1: fit a propensity model on the full data, construct a 1:2 Mahalanobis match of each treated unit to two controls, keep one control from each pair uniformly at random as the pilot set, fit a linear prognostic model on the pilot outcomes, then Mahalanobis-match the remaining analysis set on the estimated propensity and prognostic scores. Supporting this are two theorems: Theorem 1 writes the bias, variance, and mean squared error of any pair-matching estimator in terms of the mean and variance of within-pair prognostic-score differences, and Theorem 2 gives doubly robust consistency—estimation remains consistent as long as at least one of the two score models is correctly specified. The paper also introduces Assignment-Control (AC) plots, which display treated and control units in the two-dimensional space of propensity and prognostic scores to show what each matching strategy optimizes.

What would settle it

Re-run the main simulation (n=2000, rho=0.5) with the pilot set selected uniformly at random from the control pool instead of by 1:2 Mahalanobis matching: if the MSE reduction and the Gamma advantage over propensity matching persist, the benefit comes from joint-score matching itself; if they vanish, the pilot allocation scheme is the load-bearing component.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that deliberately removing a subset of controls before estimation—using them only to build a prognostic model, then matching the remaining treated and control units jointly on estimated propensity and prognostic scores—can produce a better study than using every observation in the analysis phase. In the paper's simulations, 1:1 pilot matching lowered mean squared error by 12% to 36% compared with propensity score matching and 8% to 34% compared with Mahalanobis distance matching, depending on the correlation between treatment-assignment and outcome variation. The same designs raised the median Gamma in a Rosenbaum-style sensitivity analysis from about 2.5 to about 5, meaning an unobserved confounder would need to be roughly twice as strong to explain away the result. The mechanism is that prognostic matching reduces within-pair differences in the control potential outcome, and lower unit heterogeneity in matched sets directly boosts design sensitivity.

Load-bearing premise

The whole procedure assumes the pilot set is representative enough that the prognostic model fitted on it remains accurate for the controls left in the analysis set; if the pilot controls are atypical or the model is misspecified, the computed scores are off and the claimed gains in error and robustness can shrink or reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In data-rich settings, moving a fraction of controls from the analysis set into a pilot set can lower estimator mean squared error even though the analysis sample shrinks.
  • The gains are largest when propensity and prognosis are weakly correlated, because then propensity matching alone leaves within-pair prognostic differences large.
  • Matching on the prognostic score raises the Gamma value in sensitivity analyses, so an unobserved confounder must be roughly twice as strong to explain away the pilot-matching result.
  • The estimator is doubly robust: misspecifying one of the two score models does not by itself destroy consistency as long as the other is correctly specified.
  • Full matching on both scores uses every control in the analysis set exactly once and still slightly outperforms propensity-based full matching in the simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The pilot-design principle should generalize beyond matching—the same held-out-split logic could inform outcome selection, instrumental-variable characterization, or analysis-plan prespecification—but the paper demonstrates quantitative gains only for matching.
  • A testable extension: in settings with a large control reserve, a cross-validated or repeated-split version of the pilot design could estimate the population average treatment effect rather than the sample average treatment effect among the treated, and might recover some of the sample-size cost the authors document.
  • The Gamma gain is a statement about design sensitivity, not bias: as the paper's own Figure 4 shows, all methods remain biased when a confounder is actually present, so the result should be read as robustness to explaining-away rather than protection from confounding.
  • If treatment assignment is hard to model but the control outcome is comparatively easy to model, the paper's framework suggests the prognostic score will carry most of the adjustment burden; the converse should hold when prognosis is the harder model.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'pilot design' for observational studies: before the analysis phase, a subset of observations is set aside as a pilot set, outcomes in the pilot set are used to fit a prognostic model, and the estimated propensity and prognostic scores are then used jointly to match units in the remaining analysis set. The authors introduce Assignment-Control (AC) plots as a diagnostic, state two theorems about the behavior of matching estimators in this setting, and present simulations comparing prognostic pilot matching with propensity score matching and Mahalanobis distance matching. The central empirical claim is that pilot matching reduces mean squared error of the estimated treatment effect and substantially increases the median Gamma value in Rosenbaum sensitivity analyses relative to standard matching. The paper also argues that pilot designs are broadly useful for design-phase decisions beyond prognostic score construction.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful practical contribution to the growing literature on design-phase decisions in observational studies. The simulation study is extensive, covers several important robustness scenarios, and the authors provide publicly available code, which is a strength. The AC plot is a genuinely useful visualization concept. However, the theoretical support is not fully solid: Theorem 1 contains an incorrect variance formula, and Theorem 2 relies on an unverified condition about the pilot set. The empirical claims are also confined to correctly specified or over-specified linear models, so the key regime of functional-form misspecification is not tested. These issues are fixable but need attention before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4.1, Eq. (3)] The variance formula in Eq. (3) is incorrect by a factor of 2. Under the stated assumptions, each pair difference is D_i = tau + (Psi(X_i) - Psi(X_{j(i)})) + (epsilon_i - epsilon_{j(i)}), so conditional on the matched pair, Var(D_i) = Var(Psi(X_i)-Psi(X_{j(i)})) + 2 sigma^2, not + 4 sigma^2. Equation (3) should therefore read Var(tau_hat) = [Var(Psi(X_i)-Psi(X_{j(i)})) + 2 sigma^2] / n_T, and Eqs. (5) and (6) should be adjusted accordingly. The qualitative message that variance and MSE depend on the mean and variance of prognostic score differences remains, but the theorem as printed is mathematically wrong and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.4.2, Theorem 2] Theorem 2 conditions on the pilot selection being 'appropriate for consistent estimation of theta-tilde', but the paper does not prove that Algorithm 1 satisfies this condition, nor does it give a verifiable sufficient condition. Algorithm 1 selects pilot controls by 1:2 Mahalanobis matching to treated units, so the pilot covariate distribution is a function of the treated distribution and the Mahalanobis metric, rather than a random sample from the analysis-set control distribution. If the prognostic model is misspecified, the fitted coefficients converge to a selection-weighted pseudo-true parameter that need not provide accurate prognostic scores for analysis-set units. This is precisely the regime in which the paper's double-robustness claim is invoked. Please either prove the condition for Algorithm 1 under the theorem's maintained assumptions, or state a weaker theorem with an explicit assumption that can be checked, and qualify the repeated 'doubly robust' language in Sections 5 and 6 accordingly.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Section 5.3.4] The simulation study does not exercise a misspecified functional form for the prognostic or propensity model. The main simulations and all robustness checks use linear generating models with linear or lasso fits, so the fits are either correctly specified or over-specified. Since the pilot-set selection concern is fundamentally a misspecification phenomenon, the central claims that pilot matching reduces MSE and increases median Gamma are untested in the regime where the fitted prognostic model is not a correct parametric description of the analysis-set outcomes. Please add simulations with a nonlinear prognostic score (for example, including a quadratic or interaction term that the pilot model omits), or explicitly temper the conclusions in Sections 5 and 6 to the correctly specified or over-specified case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 says 'Fit a linear propensity model' and 'Fit a linear prognostic model', but the simulations and Supplementary Figure 1 also use lasso fits; please clarify that the algorithm is a template and that the model family is a design choice made separately in each application.
  2. [Section 3.4.2, Eq. (9)] The displayed rate expression in Eq. (9) is garbled in the current text; it should be written with explicit parentheses, for example tau_hat - tau_hat(theta_hat) = O_p(n_analysis^{-1/2}) + o_p(R(n_pilot)), and the notation tau vs. tau_hat should be defined consistently.
  3. [Section 5.1, Figure 3B] The text reports median Gamma values of approximately 5 for pilot matching and 2.5 for propensity score matching without specifying the exact value of k and rho at which these numbers are read; please state the simulation cell used for this comparison.
  4. [Throughout] There are several small typographical issues: 'King and Nielson' should be 'King and Nielsen', the R package names 'sensitivtymv' and 'sensitivtyfull' appear to be misspelled, and the square-root symbol in '1√n' is not rendered properly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; simulations and a conditioned external generalization carry the claims.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. Theorem 1 (Section 3.4.1) is an exact moment decomposition under the stated model Y(0)=Psi(X)+epsilon; bias, variance, and MSE are expressed as functions of true prognostic-score differences rather than fitted pilot quantities, and it is used only as motivation. Theorem 2 (Section 3.4.2) is explicitly labeled a generalization of Antonelli et al., an independent non-overlapping author team, with the pilot-selection requirement stated as an explicit condition ('provided the selection of the pilot set is appropriate for consistent estimation of theta tilde') rather than silently assumed. The central MSE and Gamma claims are simulation outputs in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, generated from an independent data-generating process and not obtained by plugging fitted values back into the same equations. The only self-citation is reference 38, to the authors' stratamatch package, offered as implementation guidance in Section 6; it is not load-bearing for the theorems or the simulation findings. Possible concerns about whether Algorithm 1 satisfies the Theorem 2 pilot condition under misspecification are correctness or robustness issues, not circular reductions.

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

The method does not introduce free parameters fitted to real data; simulation constants are part of the evaluation design. The main axioms are standard causal inference assumptions (ignorability, overlap, SUTVA) plus the specific outcome model for Theorem 1 and the correct-specification assumption for double robustness. The most fragile assumption is that the pilot set selection yields a consistently estimable score model.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Strong ignorability: treatment assignment is independent of potential outcomes given observed covariates, for unbiased effect estimation.
    Section 2 states matching methods assume all relevant covariates observed; without this, estimates may be biased.
  • domain assumption Overlap/positivity: no covariate value has treatment probability 0 or 1.
    Section 2: subclassification on propensity/prognostic scores requires overlap.
  • domain assumption Outcome model for Theorem 1: Y(0) = Psi(X) + epsilon with epsilon iid N(0, sigma^2) independent of X.
    Section 3.4.1 assumptions 1-3 for the variance/bias decomposition.
  • domain assumption At least one of the propensity or prognostic models is correctly specified (for double robustness).
    Theorem 2 (Section 3.4.2) assumes this; paper notes it as a substantial implicit assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Pilot set selection is appropriate for consistent estimation of the score model parameters.
    Section 3.4.2: consistency of pilot matching requires the pilot selection to be suitable; no formal guidance given.
  • standard math SUTVA/consistency and no interference between units.
    Neyman-Rubin potential outcomes framework in Section 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Pilot Design for Observational Studies: Using Abundant Data Thoughtfully." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LKYIXCEK

@misc{pith2026190809077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Pilot Design for Observational Studies: Using Abundant Data Thoughtfully},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LKYIXCEK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09077}
}
read the original abstract

Observational studies often benefit from an abundance of observational units. This can lead to studies that -- while challenged by issues of internal validity -- have inferences derived from sample sizes substantially larger than randomized controlled trials. But is the information provided by an observational unit best used in the analysis phase? We propose the use of `pilot design,' in which observations are expended in the design phase of the study, and the post-treatment information from these observations is used to improve study design. In modern observational studies, which are data rich but control poor, pilot designs can be used to gain information about the structure of post-treatment variation. This information can then be used to improve instrumental variable designs, propensity score matching, doubly-robust estimation, and other observational study designs. We illustrate one version of a pilot design, which aims to reduce within-set heterogeneity and improve performance in sensitivity analyses. This version of a pilot design expends observational units during the design phase to fit a prognostic model, avoiding concerns of overfitting. Additionally, it enables the construction of `Assignment-Control (AC) plots,' which visualize the relationship between propensity and prognostic scores. We first show some examples of these plots, then we demonstrate in a simulation setting how this alternative use of the observations can lead to gains in terms of both treatment effect estimation and sensitivity analyses of unobserved confounding.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Statisticalscience:areviewjournalofthe Institute of Mathematical Statistics2010; 25(1): 1

    StuartEA.Matchingmethodsforcausalinference:Areviewandalookforward. Statisticalscience:areviewjournalofthe Institute of Mathematical Statistics2010; 25(1): 1

    work page

  2. [2]

    Sensitivity analysis in observational studies.Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science2005; 4: 1809–1814

    Rosenbaum PR. Sensitivity analysis in observational studies.Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science2005; 4: 1809–1814

    work page

  3. [3]

    Rosenbaum PR, others .Design of observational studies. 10. Springer . 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Copyathttp://j.mp/1sexgVwDownloadCitation BibTex Tagged XML Download Paper2016; 378

    KingG,NielsenR.Whypropensityscoresshouldnotbeusedformatching. Copyathttp://j.mp/1sexgVwDownloadCitation BibTex Tagged XML Download Paper2016; 378

    work page

  5. [5]

    Statistics for experimenters

    Box GE, Hunter JS, Hunter WG. Statistics for experimenters. In: Wiley Hoboken, NJ, USA. 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Heterogeneity and causality: Unit heterogeneity and design sensitivity in observational studies.The American Statistician2005; 59(2): 147–152

    Rosenbaum PR. Heterogeneity and causality: Unit heterogeneity and design sensitivity in observational studies.The American Statistician2005; 59(2): 147–152

    work page

  7. [7]

    Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects.econometrica 2006; 74(1): 235–267

    Abadie A, Imbens GW. Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects.econometrica 2006; 74(1): 235–267

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    The prognostic analogue of the propensity score.Biometrika 2008; 95(2): 481–488

    Hansen BB. The prognostic analogue of the propensity score.Biometrika 2008; 95(2): 481–488

    work page 2008

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    On the joint use of propensity and prognostic scores in estimation of the average treatment effect on the treated: a simulation study.Statistics in medicine2014; 33(20): 3488–3508

    Leacy FP, Stuart EA. On the joint use of propensity and prognostic scores in estimation of the average treatment effect on the treated: a simulation study.Statistics in medicine2014; 33(20): 3488–3508

  2. [10]

    Doubly robust matching estimators for high dimensional confounding adjustment.Biometrics2018; 74(4): 1171–1179

    Antonelli J, Cefalu M, Palmer N, Agniel D. Doubly robust matching estimators for high dimensional confounding adjustment.Biometrics2018; 74(4): 1171–1179

  3. [11]

    Bias reduction in observational studies via prognosis scores

    Hansen BB. Bias reduction in observational studies via prognosis scores. tech. rep., Technical Report 441, University of Michigan, Statistics Department; 439 West Hall, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109: 2006

    2006

  4. [12]

    Endogenous stratification in randomized experiments.Review of Economics and Statistics2018; 100(4): 567–580

    Abadie A, Chingos MM, West MR. Endogenous stratification in randomized experiments.Review of Economics and Statistics2018; 100(4): 567–580

  5. [13]

    JournaloftheAmerican Statistical Association2009; 104(487): 1090–1101

    HellerR,RosenbaumPR,SmallDS.Splitsamplesanddesignsensitivityinobservationalstudies. JournaloftheAmerican Statistical Association2009; 104(487): 1090–1101

  6. [14]

    AngristJD,KruegerAB.Theeffectofageatschoolentryoneducationalattainment:anapplicationofinstrumentalvariables with moments from two samples.Journal of the American statistical Association1992; 87(418): 328–336

  7. [15]

    Two-sample instrumental variables estimators.The Review of Economics and Statistics2010; 92(3): 557–561

    Inoue A, Solon G. Two-sample instrumental variables estimators.The Review of Economics and Statistics2010; 92(3): 557–561

  8. [16]

    Two-sample instrumental variable analyses using heterogeneous samples.Statistical Science2019; 34(2): 317–333

    Zhao Q, Wang J, Spiller W, Bowden J, Small DS, others . Two-sample instrumental variable analyses using heterogeneous samples.Statistical Science2019; 34(2): 317–333

  9. [17]

    Using split samples to improve inference on causal effects.Political Analysis2017; 25(4): 465– 482

    Fafchamps M, Labonne J. Using split samples to improve inference on causal effects.Political Analysis2017; 25(4): 465– 482

  10. [18]

    Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests.Journal of the American Statistical Association2018; 113(523): 1228–1242

    Wager S, Athey S. Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests.Journal of the American Statistical Association2018; 113(523): 1228–1242. 20 Aikens ET AL

  11. [19]

    Confidence intervals for causal parameters.Statistics in Medicine1988; 7(7): 773–785

    Robins JM. Confidence intervals for causal parameters.Statistics in Medicine1988; 7(7): 773–785

  12. [20]

    BalzerLB,PetersenML,Laanv.dMJ,CollaborationS.Targetedestimationandinferenceforthesampleaveragetreatment effect in trials with and without pair-matching.Statistics in medicine2016; 35(21): 3717–3732

  13. [21]

    Inference on a new class of sample average treatment effects.Journal of the American Statistical Association 2020(just-accepted): 1–18

    Sekhon JS, Shem-Tov Y. Inference on a new class of sample average treatment effects.Journal of the American Statistical Association 2020(just-accepted): 1–18

    2020

  14. [22]

    How generalizable is your experiment? An index for comparing experimental samples and populations.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics2014; 39(6): 478–501

    Tipton E. How generalizable is your experiment? An index for comparing experimental samples and populations.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics2014; 39(6): 478–501

  15. [23]

    The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects.Biometrika 1983; 70(1): 41–55

    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects.Biometrika 1983; 70(1): 41–55

    1983

  16. [24]

    For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis.The Annals of Applied Statistics2008; 2(3): 808–840

    Rubin DB, others . For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis.The Annals of Applied Statistics2008; 2(3): 808–840

  17. [25]

    Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models.Biometrics 2005; 61(4): 962– 973

    Bang H, Robins JM. Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models.Biometrics 2005; 61(4): 962– 973

    2005

  18. [26]

    dAW.Asymptotic statistics

    Vaart V. dAW.Asymptotic statistics. 3. Cambridge university press . 2000

    2000

  19. [27]

    Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent.Journal of Statistical Software2010; 33(1): 1–22

    Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent.Journal of Statistical Software2010; 33(1): 1–22

  20. [28]

    Two R packages for sensitivity analysis in observational studies.Observational Studies2015; 1(1): 1–17

    Rosenbaum PR. Two R packages for sensitivity analysis in observational studies.Observational Studies2015; 1(1): 1–17

  21. [29]

    Sensitivity Analysis for m-Estimates, Tests, and Confidence Intervals in Matched Observational Studies

    Rosenbaum PR. Sensitivity Analysis for m-Estimates, Tests, and Confidence Intervals in Matched Observational Studies. Biometrics2007; 63(2): 456–464

  22. [30]

    Optimal full matching and related designs via network flows.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics2006; 15(3): 609–627

    Hansen BB, Klopfer SO. Optimal full matching and related designs via network flows.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics2006; 15(3): 609–627

  23. [31]

    Operations Research1988; 36(1): 93–114

    BertsekasDP,TsengP.Relaxationmethodsforminimumcostordinaryandgeneralizednetworkflowproblems. Operations Research1988; 36(1): 93–114

  24. [32]

    A characterization of optimal designs for observational studies.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)1991; 53(3): 597–610

    Rosenbaum PR. A characterization of optimal designs for observational studies.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)1991; 53(3): 597–610

    1991

  25. [33]

    JournaloftheAmericanStatisticalAssociation 2004; 99(467): 609–618

    HansenBB.FullmatchinginanobservationalstudyofcoachingfortheSAT. JournaloftheAmericanStatisticalAssociation 2004; 99(467): 609–618

    2004

  26. [34]

    Statistics in medicine2015; 34(30): 4070–4082

    PimentelSD,YoonF,KeeleL.Variable-ratiomatchingwithfinebalanceinastudyofthePeerHealthExchange. Statistics in medicine2015; 34(30): 4070–4082

  27. [35]

    StuartEA,GreenKM.Usingfullmatchingtoestimatecausaleffectsinnonexperimentalstudies:examiningtherelationship between adolescent marijuana use and adult outcomes..Developmental psychology2008; 44(2): 395

  28. [36]

    BhattacharyaJ,VogtWB.Doinstrumentalvariablesbelonginpropensityscores?.tech.rep.,NationalBureauofEconomic Research; 1050 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138: 2007

    2007

  29. [37]

    Stuart EA, Lee BK, Leacy FP. Prognostic score–based balance measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research.Journal of clinical epidemiology2013; 66(8): S84–S90

  30. [38]

    Stratified Pilot Matching in R: The stratamatch Package.Statistics arXiv2020

    Aikens RC, Rigdon J, Lee J, et al. Stratified Pilot Matching in R: The stratamatch Package.Statistics arXiv2020

  31. [39]

    Probabilistic Analysis of Balancing Scores for Causal Inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.079192018

    Wijayatunga P. Probabilistic Analysis of Balancing Scores for Causal Inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.079192018

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Multiply robust matching estimators of average and quantile treatment effects

    Yang S, Zhang Y. Multiply robust matching estimators of average and quantile treatment effects. arXiv:2001.06049; 2020. Aikens ET AL 21 How to cite this article:R. Aikens, D. Greaves, and M. Baiocchi (2019), A Pilot Design for Observational Studies: Using Abundant Data Thoughtf...

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.