Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Estimation of Conditional Average Treatment Effects with High-Dimensional Data

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 Both full-sample and cross-fitting versions of a machine-learning-based estimator for reduced-dimensional conditional average treatment effects admit a uniform linear representation, giving pointwise normality and asymptotically valid…

desk verdict High-level CATE theory is solid and useful, but the lasso primitive conditions fail for the paper's own example and the unbounded Gaussian dictionary isn't covered. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02399 v5 pith:OGYXJPO5 submitted 2019-08-06 econ.EM

Qingliang Fan , Yu-Chin Hsu , Robert P. Lieli , Yichong Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.EM MSC 62G0862G2062F4062J07
keywords conditionalaveragetreatmenteffectheterogeneouseffectshigh-dimensionaldatauniformconfidencebandmultiplierbootstrapNeymanorthogonalitylocallinearregressionlasso
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 proposes a two-step recipe for estimating a conditional average treatment effect (CATE) that depends on a low-dimensional covariate subset while the list of controls is high-dimensional, possibly larger than the sample size. The first step uses machine learning—lasso is the leading example—to estimate the propensity score and the two outcome regressions; the second step runs a local linear regression of a doubly robust score on the covariate(s) of interest. The central claim is that both a full-sample version and a K-fold cross-fitting version of the estimator have a uniform linear (Bahadur) representation whose remainder vanishes at the rate needed for inference, which yields pointwise normality at the usual nonparametric rate and asymptotically valid uniform confidence bands through the multiplier bootstrap. If the high-level convergence-rate conditions are met, applied researchers can test curve-wide hypotheses about treatment-effect heterogeneity without committing to parametric forms for the nuisance functions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a Neyman-orthogonal score $\psi(W;\eta)=\frac{D(Y-\mu(1,X))}{\pi(X)}+\mu(1,X)-\frac{(1-D)(Y-\mu(0,X))}{1-\pi(X)}-\mu(0,X)$. Its conditional expectation given $X_1=x_1$ identifies $\tau_0(x_1)$, and the Gateaux derivative with respect to the nuisance functions vanishes at the truth, so first-stage regularization bias does not contaminate the second stage. The second stage is a local linear regression of $\psi(W;\hat{\eta})$ onto $(1,X_1-x_1)$ with kernel weights $K_h(X_1-x_1)$, whose intercept estimates the CATE. The proofs hinge on high-level rate conditions for the nuisance estimation errors in kernel-weighted $L^2$ and $L^\infty$ norms, tied to the bandwidth, plus entropy control for the full-sample variant.

What would settle it

Construct a data-generating process satisfying unconfoundedness and overlap where the true propensity score and outcome means are deliberately chosen to require $s_\mu s_\pi \gg N h^d$ non-negligible dictionary coefficients; run the lasso-first-stage estimator and compute the uniform bands at the nominal 95% level. If the empirical coverage of the true $\tau_0$ across many replications stays below the nominal level and the discrepancy does not vanish as $N$ grows with $h$ chosen as the paper recommends, the approximate-sparsity route to the central theorem is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that under unconfoundedness, overlap, smoothness, and bandwidth conditions, both the full-sample estimator $\hat{\tau}(x_1)$ and the cross-fitting estimator $\check{\tau}(x_1)$ satisfy $\hat{\tau}(x_1)-\tau_0(x_1) = (P_N-P)[\frac{1}{h^d f(x_1)}(\psi(W,\eta_0)-\tau_0(X_1))K_h(X_1-x_1)] + R_\tau(x_1)$ uniformly over the target interval, with $\sup_{x_1} |R_\tau(x_1)|=o_p((\log N \cdot N h^d)^{-1/2})$, where $\psi$ is the Neyman-orthogonal doubly robust score. This implies $\sqrt{N h^d}(\hat{\tau}(x_1)-\tau_0(x_1))/\sigma_N(x_1)\to N(0,1)$ pointwise and, via the multiplier bootstrap, uniform confidence bands of the correct asymptotic level (Theorems 3.1 and 4.2). The paper also provides primitive conditions under which first-stage lasso satisfies the high-level rates, essentially requiring approximate sparsity of the nuisance functions in a growing dictionary.

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if the first-stage machine-learning estimates of the propensity score and the outcome regressions do not converge to the truth fast enough in kernel-weighted average error and in uniform error—in lasso terms, if the true nuisance functions are not approximately sparse in the chosen dictionary with sparsity indices small relative to $N h^d$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can form pointwise approximate normal intervals for the CATE at a fixed covariate value without knowing the functional form of the propensity score or outcome regressions.
  • The multiplier bootstrap provides uniform confidence bands, so hypotheses about the whole CATE curve—for example, that it is constant or monotone—can be tested at the stated level.
  • Because cross-fitting drops the entropy condition, the split-sample variant tolerates a wider range of machine-learning first stages than the full-sample variant.
  • The rate $\sqrt{N h^d}$ is the usual nonparametric rate, so the dimension of the conditioning variable $X_1$ must stay small; the control dimension $p$ can be much larger than $N$.
  • For lasso first stages, the theory gives a sparsity-index condition ($s_\mu s_\pi \log^2(p\vee N)\log N/(N h^d)=o(1)$) that practitioners can consult when choosing the dictionary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not in the paper but a plausible extension: the same uniform-band machinery can test shape restrictions, such as monotonicity of CATE in age, directly against the nonparametric estimate.
  • Not in the paper: under cross-fitting, the first-stage estimator only needs its error rates, not its entropy, so other structured learners are admissible whenever their known $L^2$ and $L^\infty$ rates satisfy Assumption 3.3.
  • Not in the paper: the practical power of the bands is governed by the density of $X_1$; edge regions will dominate the sup-statistic, so reporting the band together with the density of $X_1$ is a natural empirical addition.
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 two estimators for a reduced-dimensional conditional average treatment effect (CATE) function under unconfoundedness when the covariate vector is high-dimensional. Both estimators combine a first-stage machine-learning estimate of the nuisance functions (outcome regressions and propensity score) with a second-stage local linear regression of an orthogonal score on the low-dimensional variable of interest. The first variant estimates all stages on the full sample; the second uses K-fold cross-fitting. The paper states high-level rate and complexity conditions under which both estimators admit a uniform linear representation, yielding pointwise normality and asymptotically valid uniform confidence bands based on the multiplier bootstrap. A lasso first stage is treated as a leading example with primitive conditions, and the method is illustrated with simulations and an empirical application to maternal smoking and birth weight.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper is a useful extension of AHL (2015) and LOW (2017) to settings where the nuisance functions are estimated by regularized or other machine-learning methods, and it provides a computationally feasible uniform-inference procedure. The supplement contains detailed proofs of Theorems 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, and 4.2, and the Monte Carlo evidence shows coverage close to nominal levels in both strictly and approximately sparse designs. These are real strengths. However, the paper's central claim that lasso is a verified leading example depends on Section 3.2, and that section currently contains an internal inconsistency and omits a required L-infinity condition. The significance of the paper would be fully established only after the lasso bridge is corrected.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, displays (17)-(18) and following paragraph] The claimed sufficient conditions for the lasso first stage are internally inconsistent with the paper's own example. With q=4, p=O(N^lambda), zeta=O(N^{1/4}) and max(s_mu,s_pi)=o(sqrt(N h^d)), the second condition in display (18) requires zeta^2(s_mu+s_pi)^2 log(p∨N) log(N)=o(N^{1/2}). Substituting h=N^{-H}, the left-hand side is of order o(N^{3/2-H}) up to log factors, which is not o(N^{1/2}) for any H<1/2. The third condition in (18) has the same obstruction: with zeta=N^{1/4} and s=o(sqrt(N h^d)), zeta^2 s^4 log^3/(N^{2-2/q}h^d) is not o(1) for q=4 and H<1/2. Since the paper recommends h proportional to N^{-2/7} (so H=2/7) for d=1, the example does not verify that lasso satisfies Assumption 3.2. This is load-bearing because Section 3.2 is the bridge from the high-level assumptions to the paper's 'leading example' lasso.
  2. [Section 3.2, paragraph on Assumption 3.3] The reduction of Assumption 3.3 to the product-sparsity condition sqrt(s_pi s_mu) log(p)/(N h^d)=o((log(N)N h^d)^{-1/2}) omits the L-infinity condition delta_{2n}=o((log n)^{-1}) contained in Assumption 3.3. Using the L-infinity rate in display (17), this condition requires zeta^2(s_mu^2+s_pi^2) log(p∨N)/N = o((log N)^{-2}), equivalently zeta^2(s_mu+s_pi)^2 log^3(p∨N)/N = o(1) up to log factors. This is stronger than the stated product condition unless zeta is bounded. The paper's claim that 'Assumption 3.3 holds under substantially weaker sparsity conditions' is therefore not established as written.
  3. [Section 3.2, Assumption 3.5(ii), and Supplement I.1] The lasso rate bounds in Section 3.2 rely on the dictionary bound zeta=max_j ||b_j(X)||_{P,infinity} being finite, but the simulation DGPs in the supplement generate X from N(0,I_p) or N(0,Sigma), for which zeta=infinity for dictionaries containing the raw regressors. No truncation or sub-Gaussian alternative is stated. Consequently the Monte Carlo results and the empirical application do not fall under the stated lasso conditions, and the paper's assertion that lasso satisfies Assumptions 3.2 and 3.3 in these designs is not substantiated. A random-sample or truncation-based treatment of the unbounded-regressor case would be needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The text reads 'Belloni at al. (2017)'; this should be 'Belloni et al. (2017)'.
  2. [Section 4, paragraph after Theorem 4.1] The sentence 'sqrt(Nh^d)(hat tau_b(x1)-hat tau_0(x1)) converges in distribution' appears to contain a typo: the centering should be the full-sample estimate hat tau(x1), not the true function tau_0(x1), to match the displayed theorem and the bootstrap procedure.
  3. [Section 5, Figures 1-3] The text refers to 'Figures 7, 8 and 9' when discussing the main-text estimates; the figures in Section 5 are numbered 1-3. The figure cross-references should be corrected.
  4. [Supplement, Section C] The local-constant supplement says 'Under the conditions for delta_1N, delta_2N, and delta_4N in Assumptions 3.2 and 3.3... we can derive the first-order linear expansions.' It would be helpful to state explicitly that the delta_3N condition is not needed for the local-constant version, as the text later indicates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central linear-representation theorem is proved from stated high-level rate assumptions, and the lasso bridge is a primitive sufficient-condition discussion rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The estimators are defined from a Neyman-orthogonal moment condition in Section 2, and Theorem 3.1 derives the linear representation of tau-hat and tau-check from the high-level rate Assumptions 3.2 and 3.3; the conclusion is not assumed as an input. Section 3.2 then supplies primitive lasso conditions, and whatever gap the skeptic identifies in those sufficient conditions is a correctness or verification concern, not a circularity: the lasso rates are not fitted parameters that are later relabeled as predictions. The citations to AHL and LOW are prior-art context and provide the reduced-dimensional CATE target, but the paper's proofs do not rely on those papers as evidence for its asymptotic claims. AHL includes two of the present authors, yet it is an externally published benchmark and the citation is not a uniqueness theorem or an unverified load-bearing premise. Simulations and the empirical application are illustrative checks against external data-generating designs, not circular confirmations. Overall, the central claim retains independent content and no step reduces, by definition or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or latent variables are introduced. The score function is inherited from LOW. The free parameter listed is the bandwidth, a standard smoothing choice. The axioms are the identification and regularity conditions standard for this class of estimators, plus the high-level first-stage rates that are then verified for lasso under approximate sparsity.

free parameters (1)
  • Bandwidth h = 1.06 * sigma_hat_x1 * N^{-2/7} for d=1
    Smoothing parameter chosen by rule of thumb (Silverman) scaled for undersmoothing; not fitted to the CATE, but the estimator and its asymptotics depend on the bandwidth sequence satisfying Assumption 3.1(iv).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Unconfoundedness: (Y(1),Y(0)) ⊥ D | X (Assumption 2.1(i))
    Standard identification assumption for observational studies; if false, the CATE is not identified from the observed data.
  • domain assumption Overlap: 0 < C ≤ π0(X) ≤ 1-C < 1 almost surely (Assumption 2.1(iii))
    Needed for the inverse-probability terms and boundedness of the score; violations can destabilize the estimator.
  • domain assumption Moment condition: E|Y(j)|^q < ∞ for q ≥ 4 (Assumption 2.1(ii))
    Used for the CLT and Gaussian approximation; q=4 limits the dimension of X1 to at most 3.
  • domain assumption Smoothness and regularity of f, τ0, kernel, and bandwidth (Assumption 3.1)
    Standard nonparametric regression conditions, including undersmoothing; required for the linear representation.
  • domain assumption High-level first-stage rate conditions (Assumptions 3.2 and 3.3)
    Theorems 3.1 and 4.2 are proven under these assumptions; the paper verifies them for lasso under approximate sparsity but treats them as primitive in the main theorem statements.
  • standard math Multiplier bootstrap multipliers have sub-exponential tails with Eξ = Varξ = 1 (Assumption 4.1)
    Standard condition for the strong approximation used in the bootstrap proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimation of Conditional Average Treatment Effects with High-Dimensional Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OGYXJPO5

@misc{pith2026190802399,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimation of Conditional Average Treatment Effects with High-Dimensional Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OGYXJPO5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02399}
}
read the original abstract

Given the unconfoundedness assumption, we propose new nonparametric estimators for the reduced dimensional conditional average treatment effect (CATE) function. In the first stage, the nuisance functions necessary for identifying CATE are estimated by machine learning methods, allowing the number of covariates to be comparable to or larger than the sample size. The second stage consists of a low-dimensional local linear regression, reducing CATE to a function of the covariate(s) of interest. We consider two variants of the estimator depending on whether the nuisance functions are estimated over the full sample or over a hold-out sample. Building on Belloni at al. (2017) and Chernozhukov et al. (2018), we derive functional limit theory for the estimators and provide an easy-to-implement procedure for uniform inference based on the multiplier bootstrap. The empirical application revisits the effect of maternal smoking on a baby's birth weight as a function of the mother's age.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02399 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CATE for the effect of smoking on birth weights conditional on mother’s age, 99% confidence bands. Mother's Age 15 20 25 30 35 −300 −250 −200 −150 −100 HDCATE HDCATE CB PW CB LOW CB ATE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CATE for the effect of smoking on birth weights conditional on mother’s age, 90% confidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. CATE for the effect of smoking on birth weights conditional on mother’s age, 99% confidence bands. Mother's Age 15 20 25 30 35 −400 −300 −200 −100 0 100 HDCATE HDCATE CB PW CB LOW CB ATE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CATE for the effect of smoking on birth weights conditional on mother’s age, 90% confidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CATE for the effect of smoking on birth weights conditional on mother’s age, 99% confidence bands. Mother's Age 15 20 25 30 35 −300 −250 −200 −150 −100 HDCATE HDCATE CB PW CB LOW CB ATE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: CATE for the effect of smoking on birth weights conditional on mother’s age, 90% confidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Nonparametric estimation of causal heterogeneity under high-dimensional confounding

    econ.EM 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper derives coupled convergence conditions under which a two-step estimator with machine-learned nuisance parameters consistently estimates group average treatment effects in high-dimensional settings, and shows...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Hsu, and R

    Abrevaya, J., Y.-C. Hsu, and R. P. Lieli (2015). Estimating conditional average treatment effects. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics\/ 33\/ (4), 485--505

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Ai, C. and X. Chen (2003). Efficient estimation of models with conditional moment restrictions containing unknown functions . Econometrica\/ 71\/ (6), 1795--1843

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Almond, D. and J. Currie (2011). Killing me softly: The fetal origins hypothesis. Journal of Economic Perspectives\/ 25\/ (3), 153--172

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Begun, J. M., W. Hall, W.-M. Huang, and J. A. Wellner (1983). Information and asymptotic efficiency in parametric-nonparametric models. The Annals of Statistics\/ 11\/ (2), 432--452

    work page 1983

  5. [5]

    Chernozhukov, I

    Belloni, A., V. Chernozhukov, I. Fern \'a ndez-Val, and C. Hansen (2017). Program evaluation with high-dimensional data. Econometrica\/ 85\/ (1), 233--298

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Chernozhukov, and C

    Belloni, A., V. Chernozhukov, and C. Hansen (2014a). High-dimensional methods and inference on structural and treatment effects. Journal of Economic Perspectives\/ 28\/ (2), 29--50

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Chernozhukov, and C

    Belloni, A., V. Chernozhukov, and C. Hansen (2014b). Inference on treatment effects after selection among high-dimensional controls. The Review of Economic Studies\/ 81\/ (2), 608--650

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Klaassen, Y

    Bickel, P., C. Klaassen, Y. Ritov, and J. Wellner (1993). Efficient and Adaptive Estimation for Semiparametric Models . Springer-Verlag New York

    work page 1993

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Devereux, and K

    Black, S., P. Devereux, and K. Salvanes (2007). From the cradle to the labor market? the effect of birth weight on adult outcomes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 122\/ (1), 409--439

    2007

  2. [10]

    Calonico, S., M. D. Cattaneo, and M. H. Farrell (2018). On the effect of bias estimation on coverage accuracy in nonparametric inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 113\/ (522), 767--779

    2018

  3. [11]

    Chetverikov, M

    Chernozhukov, V., D. Chetverikov, M. Demirer, E. Duflo, C. Hansen, and W. Newey (2017). Double/debiased/neyman machine learning of treatment effects. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings\/ 107\/ (5), 261--65

    2017

  4. [12]

    Chetverikov, M

    Chernozhukov, V., D. Chetverikov, M. Demirer, E. Duflo, C. Hansen, W. Newey, and J. Robins (2018). Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. The Econometrics Journal\/ 21\/ (1), C1--C68

    2018

  5. [13]

    Chetverikov, and K

    Chernozhukov, V., D. Chetverikov, and K. Kato (2014a). Anti-concentration and honest, adaptive confidence bands. The Annals of Statistics\/ 42\/ (5), 1787--1818

    2014

  6. [14]

    Chetverikov, and K

    Chernozhukov, V., D. Chetverikov, and K. Kato (2014b). Gaussian approximation of suprema of empirical processes. The Annals of Statistics\/ 42\/ (4), 1564--1597

    2014

  7. [15]

    Chernozhukov, V. and V. Semenova (2019). Simultaneous inference for best linear predictor of the conditional average treatment effect and other structural functions. Working paper, Department of Economics, MIT\/

    2019

  8. [16]

    Fan, J. (1992). Design-adaptive nonparametric regression. Journal of the American statistical Association\/ 87\/ (420), 998--1004

    1992

  9. [17]

    Fan, J. (1993). Local linear regression smoothers and their minimax efficiencies. The Annals of Statistics\/ 21\/ (1), 196--216

    1993

  10. [18]

    Fan, J. and I. Gijbels (1992). Variable bandwidth and local linear regression smoothers. The Annals of Statistics\/ 20\/ (4), 2008--2036

    1992

  11. [19]

    Farrell, M. H. (2015). Robust inference on average treatment effects with possibly more covariates than observations. Journal of Econometrics\/ 189\/ (1), 1--23

    2015

  12. [20]

    Farrell, M. H., T. Liang, and S. Misra (2018). Deep neural networks for estimation and inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.09953\/

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Firpo, S. (2007). Efficient semiparametric estimation of quantile treatment effects. Econometrica\/ 75\/ (1), 259--276

    2007

  14. [22]

    Hahn, J. (1998). On the role of the propensity score in efficient semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects. Econometrica\/ 66\/ (2), 315--331

    1998

  15. [23]

    Hirano, K., G. W. Imbens, and G. Ridder (2003). Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica\/ 71\/ (4), 1161--1189

    2003

  16. [24]

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

    2009

  17. [25]

    Kennedy, E. H., Z. Ma, M. D. McHugh, and D. S. Small (2017). Non-parametric methods for doubly robust estimation of continuous treatment effects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)\/ 79\/ (4), 1229--1245

    2017

  18. [26]

    Kramer, M. S. (1987). Intrauterine growth and gestational duration determinants. Pediatrics\/ 80\/ (4), 502--511

    1987

  19. [27]

    Lechner, M. (2019). Modified causal forests for estimating heterogeneous causal effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.09487\/

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Okui, and Y.-J

    Lee, S., R. Okui, and Y.-J. Whang (2017). Doubly robust uniform confidence band for the conditional average treatment effect function. Journal of Applied Econometrics\/ 32\/ (7), 1207--1225

    2017

  21. [29]

    Lee, Y.-Y. (2018). Partial mean processes with generated regressors: Continuous treatment effects and nonseparable models. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1811.00157\/

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Li, Q. and J. S. Racine (2007). Nonparametric Econometrics: Theory and Practice . Princeton University Press

    2007

  23. [31]

    Luedtke, A. R. and M. J. van der Laan ( 2016 a). Statistical inference for the mean outcome under a possibly non-unique optimal treatment strategy. The Annals of Statistics\/ 44\/ (2), 713

    2016

  24. [32]

    Luedtke, A. R. and M. J. van der Laan ( 2016 b). Super-learning of an optimal dynamic treatment rule. The International Journal of Biostatistics\/ 12\/ (1), 305--332

    2016

  25. [33]

    Newey, W. K. (1994a). The asymptotic variance of semiparametric estimators. Econometrica\/ 62\/ (6), 1349--1382

    1994

  26. [34]

    Newey, W. K. (1994b). Kernel estimation of partial means and a general variance estimator. Econometric Theory\/ 10\/ (2), 1--21

    1994

  27. [35]

    Nie, X. and S. Wager (2017). Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1712.04912\/

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Pfanzagl, J. (1990). Estimation in Semiparametric Models . Springer

    1990

  29. [37]

    Robins, J. M. (2004). Optimal structural nested models for optimal sequential decisions. In Proceedings of the second Seattle Symposium in Biostatistics , pp.\ 189--326. Springer

    2004

  30. [38]

    Robins, J. M., L. Li, R. Mukherjee, E. T. Tchetgen, and A. van der Vaart (2017). Minimax estimation of a functional on a structured high-dimensional model. The Annals of Statistics\/ 45\/ (5), 1951--1987

    2017

  31. [39]

    Robins, J. M. and A. Rotnitzky (1995). Semiparametric efficiency in multivariate regression models with missing data. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 90\/ (429), 122--129

    1995

  32. [40]

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

    1983

  33. [41]

    Silverman, B. W. (1986). Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis . Chapman and Hall

    1986

  34. [42]

    Ura, and Y

    Su, L., T. Ura, and Y. Zhang (2019). Non-separable models with high-dimensional data. Journal of Econometrics\/ 212\/ (2), 646--677

    2019

  35. [43]

    Tsiatis, A. (2007). Semiparametric Theory and Missing Data . Springer Science & Business Media

    2007

  36. [44]

    van der Laan , M. and J. M. Robins (2003). Unified Methods for Censored Longitudinal Data and Causality . Springer Science & Business Media

    2003

  37. [45]

    van der Laan , M. and S. Rose (2011). Targeted learning: causal inference for observational and experimental data . Springer Science & Business Media

    2011

  38. [46]

    van der Laan , M. and D. Rubin (2006). Targeted maximum likelihood learning. The International Journal of Biostatistics\/ 2\/ (1)

    2006

  39. [47]

    van der Laan, M. J. (2013). Targeted learning of an optimal dynamic treatment, and statistical inference for its mean outcome. U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series. Working Paper 317.\/

    2013

  40. [48]

    van der Vaart, A. W. (2000). Asymptotic Statistics , Volume 3. Cambridge University Press

    2000

  41. [49]

    van der Vaart, A. W. and J. A. Wellner (1996). Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: With Applications to Statistics . Springer

    1996

  42. [50]

    Wager, S. and S. Athey (2018). Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 113\/ (523), 1228--1242

    2018

  43. [51]

    Zimmert, M. and M. Lechner (2019). Nonparametric estimation of causal heterogeneity under high-dimensional confounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08779\/

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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