Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Longitudinal weighted and trimmed treatment effects with flip interventions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weighted average treatment effects are exactly the per-unit effects of stochastic flip interventions, and the same construction extends weighting and trimming to longitudinal data under arbitrary positivity violations.

desk verdict Single-timepoint WATEs get a clean policy interpretation and the longitudinal extension is the first principled trimming-on-non-baseline method with identifiability under positivity violations; the price is strong sequential randomization, and the paper owns that. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09188 v1 pith:TVEJGA6L submitted 2025-06-10 stat.ME

Alec McClean , Alexander W. Levis , Nicholas Williams , Ivan Diaz This is my paper
classification stat.ME MSC 62D2062G0562G20
keywords causalinferencelongitudinaldatapositivityviolationsweightedaveragetreatmenteffectsflipinterventionstrimmingstochasticefficientinfluencefunction
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 establishes that a large class of weighted and trimmed average treatment effects can be read as the per-unit effect of stochastic 'flip' policies: a subject whose observed treatment already matches the target is left alone, and everyone else is switched to the target with probability equal to the weight function. The same construction is then carried into longitudinal settings, where it provides a way to weight or trim on time-varying, non-baseline covariates while remaining identifiable even when standard positivity fails at every timepoint. The paper further derives efficient influence functions for smooth weights and builds multiply robust and sequentially doubly robust estimators that achieve root-n consistency and asymptotic normality under nonparametric conditions. The method is illustrated by estimating the effect of union membership on log wages.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the flip intervention $D_f(a)$, defined with an independent uniform variable $V$: at each timepoint the assigned treatment is the natural value of treatment if it already equals the target $a$, and otherwise is flipped to $a$ with probability $f(H)$. This single mechanism converts a weighting or trimming estimand into a contrast of two stochastic modified treatment policies. In the longitudinal version the intervention propensity score $Q_t(a \mid h) = P(A_t = a \mid h) + f_t(h)(1 - P(A_t = a \mid h))$ replaces the usual propensity score, giving g-formula and inverse-probability identification in Theorem 1; a debiased sequential pseudo-outcome based on the efficient influence function carries the estimation, yielding the multiply robust and sequentially doubly robust guarantees.

What would settle it

A simulation with two timepoints in which an unmeasured baseline variable affects both the first treatment and the final outcome would settle the role of the key assumption: if the flip-effect estimator, using only measured histories, converges to the true zero effect despite the confounder, then strong sequential randomization is stronger than needed; if it shows bias away from zero, the assumption is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that flip interventions exactly represent weighted average treatment effects: Proposition 1 shows $\psi_f = E[E(Y(1)-Y(0)\mid X) f(X)] / E[f(X)]$, so every weighted average treatment effect with weights in $[0,1]$ is the per-unit treatment effect of two implementable stochastic policies. In longitudinal data, a time-indexed version of these interventions targets a full treatment regime, flips only subjects who would not have taken the target treatment, and uses weights built from time-varying natural propensity scores; Theorem 1 identifies the resulting causal effects under strong sequential randomization whenever the weight vanishes where the target propensity is zero, or positivity holds otherwise. The paper argues that these longitudinal flip effects are single-world, hence practically implementable, while direct extensions of trimming that condition on both regimes are cross-world and cannot be implemented. For smooth weights it gives the efficient influence function, plus estimators whose bias is bounded by products of nuisance errors and that are asymptotically normal under rate conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's primary identification result requires strong sequential randomization: at every timepoint, the observed treatment must be independent of future covariates, future treatments, and the final outcome once the measured past is conditioned on, so unmeasured common causes of treatment and later variables would break the effect estimates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every weighted average treatment effect with weights in $[0,1]$ gets a policy interpretation as the per-unit effect of two flip interventions, so covariate-balancing weights can be described as an implementable policy contrast.
  • Longitudinal weighting and trimming can be applied to non-baseline covariates and remain identifiable under arbitrary positivity violations, removing the need to restrict trimming to baseline covariates.
  • Direct longitudinal trimmed estimands that condition on propensity scores under both regimes are cross-world and cannot be implemented, making the flip-intervention version the practical alternative.
  • For smooth weights, the multiply robust and sequentially doubly robust estimators reach root-n consistency and asymptotic normality when products of nuisance errors vanish at rate $n^{-1/2}$, with the sequentially doubly robust guarantee being new for stochastic longitudinal modified treatment policies.
  • The illustrative analysis estimates that union membership raised 1983 log wages by about 6% per worker shifted into union membership per timepoint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit: because flip interventions are single-world and implementable, the same identification and estimator machinery could target data-adaptive weights such as a chosen trimming threshold and still be understood as a well-defined policy effect.
  • The link the paper notes to maximally coupled policies suggests a sensitivity-analysis route: bounding the flip probability under unmeasured confounding would turn each flip effect into an interval, directly addressing the assumption flagged as weakest.
  • The per-timepoint absolute-difference denominator in the longitudinal effect could be replaced by other treatment-distribution distances, such as average switching probability or an $f$-divergence, changing the interpretation and offering testable alternatives on the same estimands.
  • A natural testable extension is categorical treatment: flipping to a target category with probability proportional to the weight would preserve the single-world property, though the per-unit treatment interpretation would need a generalized denominator.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes 'flip' interventions, stochastic treatment policies that keep treatment as observed for subjects already taking the target value and otherwise flip the subject to the target with probability given by a weight function, and shows that in single-timepoint data the resulting interventional effect equals a weighted average treatment effect (Proposition 1). It then extends the construction to longitudinal data, defining flip interventions at each time based on the natural value of treatment, and claims identification under arbitrary positivity violations when the weight vanishes at propensity scores equal to zero (Theorem 1). The paper derives an efficient influence function for smooth weights (Proposition 4), constructs multiply robust and sequentially doubly robust estimators (Algorithms 1 and 2) with bias bounds (Theorems 2 and 3) and weak-convergence corollaries, and illustrates the methods with a wage-panel analysis of union membership. The appendix contains proofs, additional estimation results for the average treatment value, and a simulation study.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution by giving a policy interpretation to a broad class of weighted average treatment effects and by proposing a longitudinal generalization of weighting and trimming that remains well defined under positivity violations. The single-timepoint equivalence in Proposition 1 is simple but likely new and of independent interest, and the proposed estimators extend existing LMTP theory to stochastic interventions whose intervention propensity scores are estimated. The paper also ships reproducible code and a data analysis, which strengthens the contribution. The main caveat is that the intuitive longitudinal flip intervention requires the stronger of the two sequential randomization assumptions, and the identification claim in the abstract should be read with this caveat.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Definition 3, Theorem 1, Remark 3] The longitudinal flip intervention in Definition 3 depends on the natural value of treatment At(Dt-1). Consequently, Theorem 1's identification proof relies on Lemma 3, which requires Assumption 2 (strong sequential randomization), not the standard Assumption 1. The paper acknowledges in Remark 3 that under Assumption 1 one can use a modified intervention that does not depend on the natural treatment value, but that modified intervention is a different stochastic policy and loses the 'flip if you would not have taken the target' interpretation. As written, the paper's headline longitudinal claim--that flip interventions are identifiable under standard conditions--is therefore conditional on the stronger, unverifiable Assumption 2. The manuscript should either reframe the central longitudinal estimand as requiring Assumption 2 and present the Assumption 1 variant as a separate intervention with its own interpretation, or develop identification and estimation results for the Assumption 1 variant and state explicitly how its estimand relates to the flip effect.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4.1, Theorem 1] The abstract states that flip interventions 'yield effects that are identifiable under arbitrary positivity violations,' but Theorem 1 requires either that the weight function is zero whenever the target propensity score is zero (condition 1) or that positivity holds for the target treatment (condition 2). This is a real limitation, not a presentation nuance: for weights such as 'no weighting' or weights targeting the non-target treatment, the effect is not identified without a positivity assumption. The paper should state this condition more prominently, including in the abstract, so that readers do not overgeneralize the robustness claim.
  3. [Section 5.3, Theorem 2] The two bias bounds in Theorem 2 are stated as holding simultaneously, and the proof derives them by two different decompositions, one 'backwards-in-time' and one 'forwards-in-time.' However, the statement of the theorem uses the same notation emt(At,Ht) in both bounds, while the proof distinguishes the backwards and forwards definitions of the sequential regression error. This makes it difficult for the reader to verify the claimed minimum. The authors should separate the two bounds into clearly labeled lemmas or state the two decompositions with distinct notation for the two versions of emt, so the claim that the bias is bounded by the minimum of the two expressions is directly checkable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Definition 2] The denominator in (3) is written as E{Df(1) - Df(0)}; since this equals E[f(X)], the notation is correct, but it would help to state explicitly that the denominator is assumed nonzero, as is standard for WATEs.
  2. [Section 4.1, Remark 3] The notation Dft(at) in Definition 3 is reused for both a single-time intervention and a sequence of interventions; the paper should clarify when Dt denotes the entire sequence versus a single timepoint to avoid confusion in statements such as 'Dft(at) = 1(...)'.
  3. [Section 6, Table 3] The text says a log-wage difference of 0.059 corresponds to a roughly 6% wage increase; it might be more precise to say the expected percent change is approximately exp(0.059)-1, which is about 6.1%, and to avoid interpreting the log scale as exactly a percentage.
  4. [Appendix B, Simulation study] The simulation description says that 'data points with coverage less than 0.5 were omitted from the figure.' This should be justified: omitting failed convergence cases from a coverage plot can make the estimator's behavior appear better than it is, and the figure should either include all runs or the paper should show a separate display for the non-convergent cases.
  5. [Section 5.1, Eq. (10)] In the recursive definition of mt(bt,ht), the notation Qt+1(bt+1 | Ht+1) is used, but the definition of the sequential regression in (10) should make clear that the expectation is over future covariates under the natural regime, not under the intervention; a brief clarifying sentence would help readers unfamiliar with LMTP notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flip/WATE equivalence is derived from definitions, and the longitudinal identification and efficiency results are proved in the paper's own appendices.

full rationale

The central single-timepoint claim is a direct derivation, not an assumed input: Definition 2 defines psi_f = E[Y{Df(1)}-Y{Df(0)}]/E[Df(1)-Df(0)], and the proof of Proposition 1 (Appendix C) uses consistency plus V independent of (Y(0),Y(1)) given X to obtain E[Y{Df(1)}-Y{Df(0)}]=E[f(X)E{Y(1)-Y(0)|X}] and E[Df(1)-Df(0)]=E[f(X)]; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The longitudinal identification claim (Theorem 1) is likewise proved from the NPSEM, consistency, Assumption 2, and Lemma 5 in Appendix D, rather than imported by citation; the stronger Assumption 2 is explicitly flagged as the cost of the intuitive natural-value flip, and point 3 of Section 4.1 provides a modified intervention under standard sequential randomization. The paper cites the authors' earlier S-LMTP work (Diaz et al. 2023) and maximally coupled policies (Levis et al. 2024), but those citations supply context and vocabulary, not the identification or efficiency results; the proofs of the efficient influence function, multiply robust bounds, and sequential double robustness are carried out in Appendix E. The acknowledged limitations (strong sequential randomization, cross-world alternatives, open robustness question) are validity and interpretation concerns, not circular reductions. Hence the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces flip interventions as stochastic policies, not as new physical or ontological entities; no new particles, forces, or dimensions are postulated. The free parameters are the user-chosen weight functions and tuning constants such as the trimming threshold and the smooth trimming scale in the application. The assumptions listed are the standard causal and regularity conditions the results depend on, most importantly strong sequential randomization and smoothness of the weight function.

free parameters (2)
  • Smooth trimming scale k in data application = 20
    The flip weight ft = 1 - exp(-20 * P(At = at | Ht)) is chosen by hand. It determines how aggressively near-zero propensity score subjects are flipped and directly shapes the reported 6.6% effect.
  • Trimming threshold epsilon = User-specified, e.g., epsilon appearing in trimming and smooth trimming weights
    Weights such as 1{P(At = at | Ht) >= epsilon} or smooth approximations depend on a selected epsilon. The estimand changes with epsilon, so it is a free parameter of the method class.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The observed data arise from a nonparametric structural equation model with deterministic functions and independent exogenous variables.
    Invoked in Section 3 to define counterfactual variables, natural values of treatment, and interventions.
  • domain assumption Consistency holds and there is no interference between subjects, embedded in the NPSEM framework.
    Stated in Section 3.1; needed to equate counterfactual quantities under intervention with observed data.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: standard sequential randomization UA,t independent of future exogenous variables given Ht.
    Stated in Section 3.1; used for the modified interventions that avoid dependence on the natural treatment value.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: strong sequential randomization UA,t independent of {UX,t+1, UA,t+1, UY} given Ht.
    Stated in Section 3.1 and used in Theorem 1; this is the primary exchangeability condition for the intuitive flip interventions.
  • domain assumption Auxiliary random variables V1,...,VT are iid uniform and independent of the observed data Z.
    Introduced in Definition 3 as the standard device for stochastic interventions.
  • domain assumption The weight function is smooth: twice differentiable with bounded derivatives, and the ratio rt = Qt/Pt is uniformly bounded.
    Adopted in Section 5 to obtain pathwise differentiability and root-n convergence. It excludes trimming indicators and matching-style weights, which are handled by smooth approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Longitudinal weighted and trimmed treatment effects with flip interventions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TVEJGA6L

@misc{pith2026250609188,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Longitudinal weighted and trimmed treatment effects with flip interventions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TVEJGA6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09188}
}
read the original abstract

Weighting and trimming are popular methods for addressing positivity violations in causal inference. While well-studied with single-timepoint data, standard methods do not easily generalize to address non-baseline positivity violations in longitudinal data, and remain vulnerable to such violations. In this paper, we extend weighting and trimming to longitudinal data via stochastic ``flip'' interventions, which maintain the treatment status of subjects who would have received the target treatment, and flip others' treatment to the target with probability equal to their weight (e.g., overlap weight, trimming indicator). We first show, in single-timepoint data, that flip interventions yield a large class of weighted average treatment effects, ascribing a novel policy interpretation to these popular weighted estimands. With longitudinal data, we then show that flip interventions provide interpretable weighting or trimming on non-baseline covariates and, crucially, yield effects that are identifiable under arbitrary positivity violations. Moreover, we demonstrate that flip interventions are policy-relevant since they could be implemented in practice. By contrast, we show that alternative approaches for weighting on non-baseline covariates fail to achieve this property. We derive flexible and efficient estimators based on efficient influence functions when the weight is a smooth function of the propensity score. Namely, we construct multiply robust-style and sequentially doubly robust-style estimators that achieve root-n consistency and asymptotic normality under nonparametric conditions. Finally, we demonstrate our methods through an analysis of the effect of union membership on earnings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09188 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Propensity score distributions by timepoint. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean difference in number of treatments under the “always treat” flip interven [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulations results 36 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Propensity score weighting across counterfactual worlds: longitudinal effects under positivity violations

    stat.ME 2025-07 reject novelty 7.0 of 10

    A proposed longitudinal cross-world weighting estimand is not identified by the proof given, because the derivation silently assumes the two regimes' counterfactual covariate processes coincide.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Insights into the cross-world independence assumption of causal mediation analysis

    Ryan M Andrews and Vanessa Didelez. Insights into the cross-world independence assumption of causal mediation analysis. Epidemiology, 32 0 (2): 0 209--219, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Efficient and adaptive estimation for semiparametric models, volume 4

    Peter J Bickel, Chris AJ Klaassen, Y Ritov, and JA Wellner. Efficient and adaptive estimation for semiparametric models, volume 4. Springer, 1993

    1993

  3. [3]

    Incremental causal effects: an introduction and review

    Matteo Bonvini, Alec McClean, Zach Branson, and Edward H Kennedy. Incremental causal effects: an introduction and review. In Handbook of matching and weighting adjustments for causal inference, pages 349--372. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Causal effect estimation after propensity score trimming with continuous treatments

    Zach Branson, Edward H Kennedy, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, and Larry Wasserman. Causal effect estimation after propensity score trimming with continuous treatments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00706, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Debiased machine learning without sample-splitting for stable estimators

    Qizhao Chen, Vasilis Syrgkanis, and Morgane Austern. Debiased machine learning without sample-splitting for stable estimators. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 3096--3109, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    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. The Econometrics Journal, 21 0 (1): 0 C1--C68, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Balancing weights for causal inference

    Eric R Cohn, Eli Ben-Michael, Avi Feller, and Jos \'e R Zubizarreta. Balancing weights for causal inference. In Handbook of Matching and Weighting Adjustments for Causal Inference, pages 293--312. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects

    Richard K Crump, V Joseph Hotz, Guido W Imbens, and Oscar A Mitnik. Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrika, 96 0 (1): 0 187--199, 2009

    2009

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Population intervention causal effects based on stochastic interventions

    Iv \'a n D \' az and Mark van der Laan. Population intervention causal effects based on stochastic interventions. Biometrics, 68 0 (2): 0 541--549, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    Nonparametric causal effects based on longitudinal modified treatment policies

    Iv \'a n D \' az, Nicholas Williams, Katherine L Hoffman, and Edward J Schenck. Nonparametric causal effects based on longitudinal modified treatment policies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 118 0 (542): 0 846--857, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    A distribution-free theory of nonparametric regression, volume 1

    L \'a szl \'o Gy \"o rfi, Michael Kohler, Adam Krzyzak, Harro Walk, et al. A distribution-free theory of nonparametric regression, volume 1. Springer, 2002

    2002

  4. [12]

    Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies

    Jens Hainmueller. Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political analysis, 20 0 (1): 0 25--46, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Estimation of the effect of interventions that modify the received treatment

    Sebastian Haneuse and Andrea Rotnitzky. Estimation of the effect of interventions that modify the received treatment. Statistics in medicine, 32 0 (30): 0 5260--5277, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Policy-relevant treatment effects

    James J Heckman and Edward Vytlacil. Policy-relevant treatment effects. American Economic Review, 91 0 (2): 0 107--111, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    Structural equations, treatment effects, and econometric policy evaluation 1

    James J Heckman and Edward Vytlacil. Structural equations, treatment effects, and econometric policy evaluation 1. Econometrica, 73 0 (3): 0 669--738, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Causal Inference: What if

    Miguel Hern\' a n and James Robins. Causal Inference: What if. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Robust estimation of inverse probability weights for marginal structural models

    Kosuke Imai and Marc Ratkovic. Robust estimation of inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110 0 (511): 0 1013--1023, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Identification and responses to positivity violations in longitudinal studies: an illustration based on invasively mechanically ventilated icu patients

    Aksel KG Jensen, Theis Lange, Olav L Schj rring, and Maya L Petersen. Identification and responses to positivity violations in longitudinal studies: an illustration based on invasively mechanically ventilated icu patients. Biostatistics & Epidemiology, 8 0 (1): 0 e2347709, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Demystifying double robustness: A comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data

    Joseph DY 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

    2007

  12. [20]

    Semiparametric counterfactual density estimation

    Edward Kennedy, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, and Larry Wasserman. Semiparametric counterfactual density estimation. Biometrika, 110 0 (4): 0 875--896, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Nonparametric causal effects based on incremental propensity score interventions

    Edward H Kennedy. Nonparametric causal effects based on incremental propensity score interventions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114 0 (526): 0 645--656, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Towards optimal doubly robust estimation of heterogeneous causal effects

    Edward H Kennedy. Towards optimal doubly robust estimation of heterogeneous causal effects. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 17 0 (2): 0 3008--3049, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Non-parametric methods for doubly robust estimation of continuous treatment effects

    Edward H Kennedy, Zongming Ma, Matthew D McHugh, and Dylan S Small. Non-parametric methods for doubly robust estimation of continuous treatment effects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 79 0 (4): 0 1229--1245, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Sharp instruments for classifying compliers and generalizing causal effects

    Edward H Kennedy, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, and Max G’Sell. Sharp instruments for classifying compliers and generalizing causal effects. The Annals of Statistics, 48 0 (4): 0 2008--2030, 2020

    2008

  17. [25]

    Doubly-robust and heteroscedasticity-aware sample trimming for causal inference

    Samir Khan and Johan Ugander. Doubly-robust and heteroscedasticity-aware sample trimming for causal inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10171, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Stochastic interventions, sensitivity analysis, and optimal transport

    Alexander W Levis, Edward H Kennedy, Alec McClean, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, and Larry Wasserman. Stochastic interventions, sensitivity analysis, and optimal transport. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14285, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Propensity score weighting for causal inference with multiple treatments

    Fan Li and Fan Li. Propensity score weighting for causal inference with multiple treatments. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 13 0 (4): 0 2389--2415, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting

    Fan Li, Kari Lock Morgan, and Alan M Zaslavsky. Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113 0 (521): 0 390--400, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Sequential double robustness in right-censored longitudinal models

    Alexander R Luedtke, Oleg Sofrygin, Mark J van der Laan, and Marco Carone. Sequential double robustness in right-censored longitudinal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02459, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Nonparametric estimation of conditional incremental effects

    Alec McClean, Zach Branson, and Edward H Kennedy. Nonparametric estimation of conditional incremental effects. Journal of Causal Inference, 12 0 (1): 0 20230024, 2024 a

    2024

  23. [31]

    Fair comparisons of causal parameters with many treatments and positivity violations

    Alec McClean, Yiting Li, Sunjae Bae, Mara A McAdams-DeMarco, Iv \'a n D \' az, and Wenbo Wu. Fair comparisons of causal parameters with many treatments and positivity violations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13522, 2024 b

    2024

  24. [32]

    Causal inference in epidemiological studies with strong confounding

    Kelly L Moore, Romain Neugebauer, Mark J van der Laan, and Ira B Tager. Causal inference in epidemiological studies with strong confounding. Statistics in medicine, 31 0 (13): 0 1380--1404, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    Causality

    Judea Pearl. Causality. Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    Diagnosing and responding to violations in the positivity assumption

    Maya L Petersen, Kristin E Porter, Susan Gruber, Yue Wang, and Mark J Van Der Laan. Diagnosing and responding to violations in the positivity assumption. Statistical methods in medical research, 21 0 (1): 0 31--54, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    SuperLearner: Super Learner Prediction, 2024

    Eric Polley, Erin LeDell, Chris Kennedy, and Mark van der Laan . SuperLearner: Super Learner Prediction, 2024. URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=SuperLearner. R package version 2.0-29

    2024

  28. [36]

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    R Core Team . R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2024. URL https://www.R-project.org/

    2024

  29. [37]

    Single world intervention graphs (swigs): A unification of the counterfactual and graphical approaches to causality

    Thomas S Richardson and James M Robins. Single world intervention graphs (swigs): A unification of the counterfactual and graphical approaches to causality. Center for the Statistics and the Social Sciences, University of Washington Series. Working Paper, 128 0 (30): 0 2013, 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect

    James Robins. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Mathematical modelling, 7 0 (9-12): 0 1393--1512, 1986

    1986

  31. [39]

    Higher order influence functions and minimax estimation of nonlinear functionals

    James Robins, Lingling Li, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, and Aad van der Vaart. Higher order influence functions and minimax estimation of nonlinear functionals. In Institute of Mathematical Statistics Collections, pages 335--421. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    Effects of multiple interventions

    James M Robins, Miguel A Hern \'a n, and Uwe Siebert. Effects of multiple interventions. Comparative quantification of health risks: global and regional burden of disease attributable to selected major risk factors, 1: 0 2191--2230, 2004

    2004

  33. [41]

    On the multiply robust estimation of the mean of the g-functional

    Andrea Rotnitzky, James Robins, and Lucia Babino. On the multiply robust estimation of the mean of the g-functional. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08582, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Characterization of parameters with a mixed bias property

    Andrea Rotnitzky, Ezequiel Smucler, and James M Robins. Characterization of parameters with a mixed bias property. Biometrika, 108 0 (1): 0 231--238, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    A doubly robust censoring unbiased transformation

    Daniel Rubin and Mark J van der Laan. A doubly robust censoring unbiased transformation. The international journal of biostatistics, 3 0 (1), 2007

    2007

  36. [44]

    Incremental effects for continuous exposures

    Kyle Schindl, Shuying Shen, and Edward H Kennedy. Incremental effects for continuous exposures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11967, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 7e

    Justin M. Shea. wooldridge: 115 Data Sets from "Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 7e" by Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2024. URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=wooldridge. R package version 1.4-4

    2024

  38. [46]

    Optimal regimes for algorithm-assisted human decision-making

    Mats J Stensrud, JD Laurendeau, and Aaron L Sarvet. Optimal regimes for algorithm-assisted human decision-making. Biometrika, page asae016, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Nonparametric policy analysis

    James H Stock. Nonparametric policy analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84 0 (406): 0 567--575, 1989

    1989

  40. [48]

    Intervening on risk factors for coronary heart disease: an application of the parametric g-formula

    Sarah L Taubman, James M Robins, Murray A Mittleman, and Miguel A Hern \'a n. Intervening on risk factors for coronary heart disease: an application of the parametric g-formula. International journal of epidemiology, 38 0 (6): 0 1599--1611, 2009

    2009

  41. [49]

    On causal inference in the presence of interference

    Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen and Tyler J VanderWeele. On causal inference in the presence of interference. Statistical methods in medical research, 21 0 (1): 0 55--75, 2012

    2012

  42. [50]

    rpart: Recursive Partitioning and Regression Trees, 2023

    Terry Therneau and Beth Atkinson. rpart: Recursive Partitioning and Regression Trees, 2023. URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rpart. R package version 4.1.23

    2023

  43. [51]

    Semiparametric theory and missing data, volume 4

    Anastasios A Tsiatis. Semiparametric theory and missing data, volume 4. Springer, 2006

    2006

  44. [52]

    Causal effect models for realistic individualized treatment and intention to treat rules

    Mark J van der Laan and Maya L Petersen. Causal effect models for realistic individualized treatment and intention to treat rules. The international journal of biostatistics, 3 0 (1), 2007

    2007

  45. [53]

    Asymptotic statistics, volume 3

    Aad W van der Vaart. Asymptotic statistics, volume 3. Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  46. [54]

    Weak convergence and empirical processes

    Aad W van der Vaart and Jon A Wellner. Weak convergence and empirical processes. Springer, 1996

    1996

  47. [55]

    On model selection and model misspecification in causal inference

    Stijn Vansteelandt, Maarten Bekaert, and Gerda Claeskens. On model selection and model misspecification in causal inference. Statistical methods in medical research, 21 0 (1): 0 7--30, 2012

    2012

  48. [56]

    Whose wages do unions raise? a dynamic model of unionism and wage rate determination for young men

    Francis Vella and Marno Verbeek. Whose wages do unions raise? a dynamic model of unionism and wage rate determination for young men. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 13 0 (2): 0 163--183, 1998

    1998

  49. [57]

    Dynamic covariate balancing: estimating treatment effects over time

    Davide Viviano and Jelena Bradic. Dynamic covariate balancing: estimating treatment effects over time. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.01280, 2021

    2021

  50. [58]

    On the asymptotic distribution of differentiable statistical functions

    Richard von Mises. On the asymptotic distribution of differentiable statistical functions. The annals of mathematical statistics, 18 0 (3): 0 309--348, 1947

    1947

  51. [59]

    Intervention treatment distributions that depend on the observed treatment process and model double robustness in causal survival analysis

    Lan Wen, Julia L Marcus, and Jessica G Young. Intervention treatment distributions that depend on the observed treatment process and model double robustness in causal survival analysis. Statistical methods in medical research, 32 0 (3): 0 509--523, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    lmtp: An r package for estimating the causal effects of modified treatment policies

    Nicholas Williams and Iván Díaz. lmtp: An r package for estimating the causal effects of modified treatment policies. Observational Studies, 2023. URL https://muse.jhu.edu/article/883479

    2023

  53. [61]

    Wright and Andreas Ziegler

    Marvin N. Wright and Andreas Ziegler. ranger : A fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R . Journal of Statistical Software, 77 0 (1): 0 1--17, 2017. doi:10.18637/jss.v077.i01

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    Asymptotic inference of causal effects with observational studies trimmed by the estimated propensity scores

    Shu Yang and Peng Ding. Asymptotic inference of causal effects with observational studies trimmed by the estimated propensity scores. Biometrika, 105 0 (2): 0 487--493, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Identification, estimation and approximation of risk under interventions that depend on the natural value of treatment using observational data

    Jessica G Young, Miguel A Hern \'a n, and James M Robins. Identification, estimation and approximation of risk under interventions that depend on the natural value of treatment using observational data. Epidemiologic methods, 3 0 (1): 0 1--19, 2014

    2014

  56. [64]

    Propensity score weighting analysis of survival outcomes using pseudo-observations

    Shuxi Zeng, Fan Li, and Liangyuan Hu. Propensity score weighting analysis of survival outcomes using pseudo-observations. Statistica Sinica, 33 0 (3): 0 2161--2184, 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    Asymptotic theory for cross-validated targeted maximum likelihood estimation

    Wenjing Zheng and Mark J van der Laan. Asymptotic theory for cross-validated targeted maximum likelihood estimation. U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series, 2010

    2010

  58. [66]

    Marginal interventional effects

    Xiang Zhou and Aleksei Opacic. Marginal interventional effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10717, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.