Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
2000 character limit reached

Sharp variance estimator and causal bootstrap in stratified randomized experiments (2401.16667v3)

Published 30 Jan 2024 in math.ST, stat.TH, stat.AP, and stat.ME

Abstract: Randomized experiments are the gold standard for estimating treatment effects, and randomization serves as a reasoned basis for inference. In widely used stratified randomized experiments, randomization-based finite-population asymptotic theory enables valid inference for the average treatment effect, relying on normal approximation and a Neyman-type conservative variance estimator. However, when the sample size is small or the outcomes are skewed, the Neyman-type variance estimator may become overly conservative, and the normal approximation can fail. To address these issues, we propose a sharp variance estimator and two causal bootstrap methods to more accurately approximate the sampling distribution of the weighted difference-in-means estimator in stratified randomized experiments. The first causal bootstrap procedure is based on rank-preserving imputation and we prove its second-order refinement over normal approximation. The second causal bootstrap procedure is based on constant-treatment-effect imputation and is further applicable in paired experiments. In contrast to traditional bootstrap methods, where randomness originates from hypothetical super-population sampling, our analysis for the proposed causal bootstrap is randomization-based, relying solely on the randomness of treatment assignment in randomized experiments. Numerical studies and two real data applications demonstrate advantages of our proposed methods in finite samples. The \texttt{R} package \texttt{CausalBootstrap} implementing our method is publicly available.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (31)
  1. Sampling-based versus design-based uncertainty in regression analysis. Econometrica, 88(1):265–296.
  2. Sharp bounds on the variance in randomized experiments. Annals of Statistics, 42(3):850–871.
  3. The econometrics of randomized experiments. In Handbook of Economic Field Experiments, volume 1, pages 73–140. Elsevier.
  4. Edgeworth expansions for sampling without replacement from finite populations. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 17(3):261–278.
  5. When possible, report a fisher-exact p value and display its underlying null randomization distribution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(32):19151–19158.
  6. Bobkov, S. G. (2004). Concentration of normalized sums and a central limit theorem for noncorrelated random variables. Annals of Probability, 32(4):2884–2907.
  7. Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. Annals of Statistics, 7(1):1–26.
  8. Fisher, R. A. (1926). The arrangement of field experiments. Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture, 33:503–513.
  9. Fogarty, C. B. (2018). Regression-assisted inference for the average treatment effect in paired experiments. Biometrika, 105(4):994–1000.
  10. Hall, P. (2013). The bootstrap and Edgeworth expansion. Springer Science & Business Media.
  11. Imai, K. (2008). Variance identification and efficiency analysis in randomized experiments under the matched-pair design. Statistics in Medicine, 27(24):4857–4873.
  12. Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 171(2):481–502.
  13. A causal bootstrap. Annals of Statistics, 49(3):1460–1488.
  14. Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  15. A “politically robust” experimental design for public policy evaluation, with application to the mexican universal health insurance program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(3):479–506.
  16. General forms of finite population central limit theorems with applications to causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(520):1759–1769.
  17. Regression-adjusted average treatment effect estimates in stratified randomized experiments. Biometrika, 107(4):935–948.
  18. Using standard tools from finite population sampling to improve causal inference for complex experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(522):868–881.
  19. Neyman, J. (1990). On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Statistical Science, 5(4):465–472.
  20. Olken, B. A. (2007). Monitoring corruption: evidence from a field experiment in indonesia. Journal of Political Economy, 115(2):200–249.
  21. Insights on variance estimation for blocked and matched pairs designs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 46(3):271–296.
  22. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5):688.
  23. Rubin, D. B. (1980). Randomization analysis of experimental data: The fisher randomization test comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(371):591–593.
  24. Design-based ratio estimators and central limit theorems for clustered, blocked rcts. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 117(540):2135–2146.
  25. Sharp bounds for variance of treatment effect estimators in the finite population in the presence of covariates. Statistica Sinica, in press.
  26. Rerandomization in stratified randomized experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 118(542):1295–1304.
  27. Bootstrap inference for the finite population mean under complex sampling designs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 84(4):1150–1174.
  28. An edgeworth expansion for symmetric finite population statistics. Annals of Probability, 30(3):1238–1265.
  29. Lehmann, E. L. (1966). Some concepts of dependence. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 37(5):1137–1153.
  30. Tchen, A. H. (1980). Inequalities for distributions with given marginals. Annals of Probability, 8(4):814–827.
  31. Design-based theory for lasso adjustment in randomized block experiments with a general blocking scheme. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.11271.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Slide Deck Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Whiteboard

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 1 tweet and received 1 like.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper: