Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Blocking estimators and inference under the Neyman-Rubin model

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1510.01103 v1 pith:ZCZMD6ES submitted 2015-10-05 stat.ME

classification stat.ME
keywords arbitraryblockingestimatorsmodelneyman-rubinunderassignmentsaverage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

We derive the variances of estimators for sample average treatment effects under the Neyman-Rubin potential outcomes model for arbitrary blocking assignments and an arbitrary number of treatments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Gaussian comparison above the median

    math.ST 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A centered Gaussian with smaller covariance assigns at least as much probability as one with larger covariance to any closed convex set with reference probability at least 1/2.

  2. Stochastic Sensitivity Analysis for Matched Observational Studies

    stat.ME 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stochastic sensitivity analysis for matched studies finds worst-case conditional laws for hidden confounders instead of worst-case realizations, controlled by a sensitivity parameter that permits imperfect alignment w...

  3. Regression-adjusted average treatment effect estimates in stratified randomized experiments

    math.ST 2019-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Regression-adjusted average treatment effect estimators are consistent, asymptotically normal, and asymptotically no less efficient than the unadjusted stratified difference-in-means estimator.

Pith tools