A robust approach to quantifying uncertainty in matching problems of causal inference
Unquantified sources of uncertainty in observational causal analyses can break the integrity of the results. One would never want another analyst to repeat a calculation with the same dataset, using a seemingly identical procedure, only to find a different conclusion. However, as we show in this work, there is a typical source of uncertainty that is essentially never considered in observational causal studies: the choice of match assignment for matched groups, that is, which unit is matched to which other unit before a hypothesis test is conducted. The choice of match assignment is anything but innocuous, and can have a surprisingly large influence on the causal conclusions. Given that a vast number of causal inference studies test hypotheses on treatment effects after treatment cases are matched with similar control cases, we should find a way to quantify how much this extra source of uncertainty impacts results. What we would really like to be able to report is that \emph{no matter} which match assignment is made, as long as the match is sufficiently good, then the hypothesis test result still holds. In this paper, we provide methodology based on discrete optimization to create robust tests that explicitly account for this possibility. We formulate robust tests for binary and continuous data based on common test statistics as integer linear programs solvable with common methodologies. We study the finite-sample behavior of our test statistic in the discrete-data case. We apply our methods to simulated and real-world datasets and show that they can produce useful results in practical applied settings.