BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Edward H. Kennedy

Edward H. Kennedy contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyMachine Learningmath.STStatistics TheoryApplicationscs.CYecon.EM

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
8works
0followers
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Distribution-uniform anytime-valid sequential inference and the Robbins-Siegmund distributions

This paper develops a theory of distribution- and time-uniform asymptotics, culminating in the first large-sample anytime-valid inference procedures that are shown to be uniformly valid in a rich class of distributions. Historically, anytime-valid methods -- including confidence sequences, anytime $p$-values, and sequential hypothesis tests -- have been justified nonasymptotically. By contrast, large-sample inference procedures such as those based on the central limit theorem occupy an important part of statistical toolbox due to their simplicity, universality, and the weak assumptions they make. While recent work has derived asymptotic analogues of anytime-valid methods, they were not distribution-uniform (also called \emph{honest}), meaning that their type-I errors may not be uniformly upper-bounded by the desired level in the limit. The theory and methods we outline resolve this tension, and they do so without imposing assumptions that are any stronger than the distribution-uniform fixed-$n$ (non-anytime-valid) counterparts or distribution-pointwise anytime-valid special cases. It is shown that certain ``Robbins-Siegmund'' probability distributions play roles in anytime-valid asymptotics analogous to those played by Gaussian distributions in standard asymptotics. As an application, we derive the first anytime-valid test of conditional independence without the Model-X assumption.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Median Optimal Treatment Regimes

Optimal treatment regimes are personalized policies for making a treatment decision based on subject characteristics, with the policy chosen to maximize some value. It is common to aim to maximize the mean outcome in the population, via a regime assigning treatment only to those whose mean outcome is higher under treatment versus control. However, the mean can be an unstable measure of centrality, resulting in imprecise statistical procedures, as well as unrobust decisions that can be overly influenced by a small fraction of subjects. In this work, we propose a new median optimal treatment regime that instead treats individuals whose conditional median is higher under treatment. This ensures that optimal decisions for individuals from the same group are not overly influenced either by (i) a small fraction of the group (unlike the mean criterion), or (ii) unrelated subjects from different groups (unlike marginal median/quantile criteria). We introduce a new measure of value, the Average Conditional Median Effect (ACME), which summarizes across-group median treatment outcomes of a policy, and which the median optimal treatment regime maximizes. After developing key motivating examples that distinguish median optimal treatment regimes from mean and marginal median optimal treatment regimes, we give a nonparametric efficiency bound for estimating the ACME of a policy, and propose a new doubly robust-style estimator that achieves the efficiency bound under weak conditions. To construct the median optimal treatment regime, we introduce a new doubly robust-style estimator for the conditional median treatment effect. Finite-sample properties are explored via numerical simulations and the proposed algorithm is illustrated using data from a randomized clinical trial in patients with HIV.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The role of the geometric mean in case-control studies

Historically used in settings where the outcome is rare or data collection is expensive, outcome-dependent sampling is relevant to many modern settings where data is readily available for a biased sample of the target population, such as public administrative data. Under outcome-dependent sampling, common effect measures such as the average risk difference and the average risk ratio are not identified, but the conditional odds ratio is. Aggregation of the conditional odds ratio is challenging since summary measures are generally not identified. Furthermore, the marginal odds ratio can be larger (or smaller) than all conditional odds ratios. This so-called non-collapsibility of the odds ratio is avoidable if we use an alternative aggregation to the standard arithmetic mean. We provide a new definition of collapsibility that makes this choice of aggregation method explicit, and we demonstrate that the odds ratio is collapsible under geometric aggregation. We describe how to partially identify, estimate, and do inference on the geometric odds ratio under outcome-dependent sampling. Our proposed estimator is based on the efficient influence function and therefore has doubly robust-style properties.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Incremental Intervention Effects in Studies with Dropout and Many Timepoints

Modern longitudinal studies collect feature data at many timepoints, often of the same order of sample size. Such studies are typically affected by {dropout} and positivity violations. We tackle these problems by generalizing effects of recent incremental interventions (which shift propensity scores rather than set treatment values deterministically) to accommodate multiple outcomes and subject dropout. We give an identifying expression for incremental intervention effects when dropout is conditionally ignorable (without requiring treatment positivity), and derive the nonparametric efficiency bound for estimating such effects. Then we present efficient nonparametric estimators, showing that they converge at fast parametric rates and yield uniform inferential guarantees, even when nuisance functions are estimated flexibly at slower rates. We also study the variance ratio of incremental intervention effects relative to more conventional deterministic effects in a novel infinite time horizon setting, where the number of timepoints can grow with sample size, and show that incremental intervention effects yield near-exponential gains in statistical precision in this setup. Finally we conclude with simulations and apply our methods in a study of the effect of low-dose aspirin on pregnancy outcomes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Semiparametric counterfactual density estimation

Causal effects are often characterized with averages, which can give an incomplete picture of the underlying counterfactual distributions. Here we consider estimating the entire counterfactual density and generic functionals thereof. We focus on two kinds of target parameters. The first is a density approximation, defined by a projection onto a finite-dimensional model using a generalized distance metric, which includes f-divergences as well as $L_p$ norms. The second is the distance between counterfactual densities, which can be used as a more nuanced effect measure than the mean difference, and as a tool for model selection. We study nonparametric efficiency bounds for these targets, giving results for smooth but otherwise generic models and distances. Importantly, we show how these bounds connect to means of particular non-trivial functions of counterfactuals, linking the problems of density and mean estimation. We go on to propose doubly robust-style estimators for the density approximations and distances, and study their rates of convergence, showing they can be optimally efficient in large nonparametric models. We also give analogous methods for model selection and aggregation, when many models may be available and of interest. Our results all hold for generic models and distances, but throughout we highlight what happens for particular choices, such as $L_2$ projections on linear models, and KL projections on exponential families. Finally we illustrate by estimating the density of CD4 count among patients with HIV, had all been treated with combination therapy versus zidovudine alone, as well as a density effect. Our results suggest combination therapy may have increased CD4 count most for high-risk patients. Our methods are implemented in the freely available R package npcausal on GitHub.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Counterfactual Risk Assessments, Evaluation, and Fairness

Algorithmic risk assessments are increasingly used to help humans make decisions in high-stakes settings, such as medicine, criminal justice and education. In each of these cases, the purpose of the risk assessment tool is to inform actions, such as medical treatments or release conditions, often with the aim of reducing the likelihood of an adverse event such as hospital readmission or recidivism. Problematically, most tools are trained and evaluated on historical data in which the outcomes observed depend on the historical decision-making policy. These tools thus reflect risk under the historical policy, rather than under the different decision options that the tool is intended to inform. Even when tools are constructed to predict risk under a specific decision, they are often improperly evaluated as predictors of the target outcome. Focusing on the evaluation task, in this paper we define counterfactual analogues of common predictive performance and algorithmic fairness metrics that we argue are better suited for the decision-making context. We introduce a new method for estimating the proposed metrics using doubly robust estimation. We provide theoretical results that show that only under strong conditions can fairness according to the standard metric and the counterfactual metric simultaneously hold. Consequently, fairness-promoting methods that target parity in a standard fairness metric may --- and as we show empirically, do --- induce greater imbalance in the counterfactual analogue. We provide empirical comparisons on both synthetic data and a real world child welfare dataset to demonstrate how the proposed method improves upon standard practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Discussion of "On nearly assumption-free tests of nominal confidence interval coverage for causal parameters estimated by machine learning"

We congratulate the authors on their exciting paper, which introduces a novel idea for assessing the estimation bias in causal estimates. Doubly robust estimators are now part of the standard set of tools in causal inference, but a typical analysis stops with an estimate and a confidence interval. The authors give an approach for a unique type of model-checking that allows the user to check whether the bias is sufficiently small with respect to the standard error, which is generally required for confidence intervals to be reliable.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Efficient nonparametric causal inference with missing exposure information

Missing exposure information is a very common feature of many observational studies. Here we study identifiability and efficient estimation of causal effects on vector outcomes, in such cases where treatment is unconfounded but partially missing. We consider a missing at random setting where missingness in treatment can depend not only on complex covariates, but also on post-treatment outcomes. We give a new identifying expression for average treatment effects in this setting, along with the efficient influence function for this parameter in a nonparametric model, which yields a nonparametric efficiency bound. We use this latter result to construct nonparametric estimators that are less sensitive to the curse of dimensionality than usual, e.g., by having faster rates of convergence than the complex nuisance estimators they rely on. Further we show that these estimators can be root-n consistent and asymptotically normal under weak nonparametric conditions, even when constructed using flexible machine learning. Finally we apply these results to the problem of causal inference with a partially missing instrumental variable.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access