BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Peng Ding

Peng Ding appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
math.STStatistics TheoryMethodologyApplicationsComputationecon.EMMachine LearningComputation and Language

Catalog footprint

What is connected

37works
8topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

Published work

37 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

SOP-Maze: Evaluating Large Language Models on Complicated Business Standard Operating Procedures

As large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as domain-specific agents, many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate their ability to follow instructions and make decisions in real-world scenarios. However, business scenarios often involve complex standard operating procedures (SOPs), and the evaluation of LLM capabilities in such contexts has not been fully explored. To bridge this gap, we propose SOP-Maze, a benchmark constructed from real-world business data and adapted into a collection of 397 instances and 3422 subtasks from 23 complex SOP scenarios. We further categorize SOP tasks into two broad classes: Lateral Root System (LRS), representing wide-option tasks that demand precise selection; and Heart Root System (HRS), which emphasizes deep logical reasoning with complex branches. Extensive experiments reveal that nearly all state-of-the-art models struggle with SOP-Maze. We conduct a comprehensive analysis and identify three key error categories: (i) route blindness: difficulty following procedures; (ii) conversational fragility: inability to handle real dialogue nuances; and (iii) calculation errors: mistakes in time or arithmetic reasoning under complex contexts. The systematic study explores LLM performance across SOP tasks that challenge both breadth and depth, offering new insights for improving model capabilities. We have open-sourced our work on: https://github.com/meituan-longcat/SOP-Maze.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2023arXiv

An instrumental variable method for point processes: generalised Wald estimation based on deconvolution

Point processes are probabilistic tools for modeling event data. While there exists a fast-growing literature studying the relationships between point processes, it remains unexplored how such relationships connect to causal effects. In the presence of unmeasured confounders, parameters from point process models do not necessarily have causal interpretations. We propose an instrumental variable method for causal inference with point process treatment and outcome. We define causal quantities based on potential outcomes and establish nonparametric identification results with a binary instrumental variable. We extend the traditional Wald estimation to deal with point process treatment and outcome, showing that it should be performed after a Fourier transform of the intention-to-treat effects on the treatment and outcome and thus takes the form of deconvolution. We term this as the generalised Wald estimation and propose an estimation strategy based on well-established deconvolution methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2023arXiv

Kernel-based off-policy estimation without overlap: Instance optimality beyond semiparametric efficiency

We study optimal procedures for estimating a linear functional based on observational data. In many problems of this kind, a widely used assumption is strict overlap, i.e., uniform boundedness of the importance ratio, which measures how well the observational data covers the directions of interest. When it is violated, the classical semi-parametric efficiency bound can easily become infinite, so that the instance-optimal risk depends on the function class used to model the regression function. For any convex and symmetric function class $\mathcal{F}$, we derive a non-asymptotic local minimax bound on the mean-squared error in estimating a broad class of linear functionals. This lower bound refines the classical semi-parametric one, and makes connections to moduli of continuity in functional estimation. When $\mathcal{F}$ is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space, we prove that this lower bound can be achieved up to a constant factor by analyzing a computationally simple regression estimator. We apply our general results to various families of examples, thereby uncovering a spectrum of rates that interpolate between the classical theories of semi-parametric efficiency (with $\sqrt{n}$-consistency) and the slower minimax rates associated with non-parametric function estimation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

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

Causal inference with observational studies often relies on the assumptions of unconfoundedness and overlap of covariate distributions in different treatment groups. The overlap assumption is violated when some units have propensity scores close to 0 or 1, and therefore both practical and theoretical researchers suggest dropping units with extreme estimated propensity scores. However, existing trimming methods ignore the uncertainty in this design stage and restrict inference only to the trimmed sample, due to the non-smoothness of the trimming. We propose a smooth weighting, which approximates the existing sample trimming but has better asymptotic properties. An advantage of the new smoothly weighted estimator is its asymptotic linearity, which ensures that the bootstrap can be used to make inference for the target population, incorporating uncertainty arising from both the design and analysis stages. We also extend the theory to the average treatment effect on the treated, suggesting trimming samples with estimated propensity scores close to 1.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Design-based theory for cluster rerandomization

Complete randomization balances covariates on average, but covariate imbalance often exists in finite samples. Rerandomization can ensure covariate balance in the realized experiment by discarding the undesired treatment assignments. Many field experiments in public health and social sciences assign the treatment at the cluster level due to logistical constraints or policy considerations. Moreover, they are frequently combined with rerandomization in the design stage. We refer to cluster rerandomization as a cluster-randomized experiment compounded with rerandomization to balance covariates at the individual or cluster level. Existing asymptotic theory can only deal with rerandomization with treatments assigned at the individual level, leaving that for cluster rerandomization an open problem. To fill the gap, we provide a design-based theory for cluster rerandomization. Moreover, we compare two cluster rerandomization schemes that use prior information on the importance of the covariates: one based on the weighted Euclidean distance and the other based on the Mahalanobis distance with tiers of covariates. We demonstrate that the former dominates the latter with optimal weights and orthogonalized covariates. Last but not least, we discuss the role of covariate adjustment in the analysis stage and recommend covariate-adjusted procedures that can be conveniently implemented by least squares with the associated robust standard errors.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Multiply robust estimation of causal effects under principal ignorability

Causal inference concerns not only the average effect of the treatment on the outcome but also the underlying mechanism through an intermediate variable of interest. Principal stratification characterizes such a mechanism by targeting subgroup causal effects within principal strata, which are defined by the joint potential values of an intermediate variable. Due to the fundamental problem of causal inference, principal strata are inherently latent, rendering it challenging to identify and estimate subgroup effects within them. A line of research leverages the principal ignorability assumption that the latent principal strata are mean independent of the potential outcomes conditioning on the observed covariates. Under principal ignorability, we derive various nonparametric identification formulas for causal effects within principal strata in observational studies, which motivate estimators relying on the correct specifications of different parts of the observed-data distribution. Appropriately combining these estimators yields triply robust estimators for the causal effects within principal strata. These triply robust estimators are consistent if two of the treatment, intermediate variable, and outcome models are correctly specified, and moreover, they are locally efficient if all three models are correctly specified. We show that these estimators arise naturally from either the efficient influence functions in the semiparametric theory or the model-assisted estimators in the survey sampling theory. We evaluate different estimators based on their finite-sample performance through simulation and apply them to two observational studies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Posterior Predictive Propensity Scores and $p$-Values

\citet{Rosenbaum83ps} introduced the notion of the propensity score and discussed its central role in causal inference with observational studies. Their paper, however, caused a fundamental incoherence with an early paper by \citet{Rubin78}, which showed that the propensity score does not play any role in the Bayesian analysis of unconfounded observational studies if the priors on the propensity score and outcome models are independent. Despite the serious efforts made in the literature, it is generally difficult to reconcile these contradicting results. We offer a simple approach to incorporating the propensity score in Bayesian causal inference based on the posterior predictive $p$-value. To motivate a simple procedure, we focus on the model with the strong null hypothesis of no causal effects for any units whatsoever. Computationally, the proposed posterior predictive $p$-value equals the classic $p$-value based on the Fisher randomization test averaged over the posterior predictive distribution of the propensity score. Moreover, using the studentized doubly robust estimator as the test statistic, the proposed $p$-value inherits the doubly robust property and is also asymptotically valid for testing the weak null hypothesis of zero average causal effect. Perhaps surprisingly, this Bayesianly motivated $p$-value can have better frequentist's finite-sample performance than the frequentist's $p$-value based on the asymptotic approximation especially when the propensity scores can take extreme values.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Multi-Source Causal Inference Using Control Variates

While many areas of machine learning have benefited from the increasing availability of large and varied datasets, the benefit to causal inference has been limited given the strong assumptions needed to ensure identifiability of causal effects; these are often not satisfied in real-world datasets. For example, many large observational datasets (e.g., case-control studies in epidemiology, click-through data in recommender systems) suffer from selection bias on the outcome, which makes the average treatment effect (ATE) unidentifiable. We propose a general algorithm to estimate causal effects from \emph{multiple} data sources, where the ATE may be identifiable only in some datasets but not others. The key idea is to construct control variates using the datasets in which the ATE is not identifiable. We show theoretically that this reduces the variance of the ATE estimate. We apply this framework to inference from observational data under outcome selection bias, assuming access to an auxiliary small dataset from which we can obtain a consistent estimate of the ATE. We construct a control variate by taking the difference of the odds ratio estimates from the two datasets. Across simulations and two case studies with real data, we show that this control variate can significantly reduce the variance of the ATE estimate.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Is being an only child harmful to psychological health?: Evidence from an instrumental variable analysis of China's One-Child Policy

This paper evaluates the effects of being an only child in a family on psychological health, leveraging data on the One-Child Policy in China. We use an instrumental variable approach to address the potential unmeasured confounding between the fertility decision and psychological health, where the instrumental variable is an index on the intensity of the implementation of the One-Child Policy. We establish an analytical link between the local instrumental variable approach and principal stratification to accommodate the continuous instrumental variable. Within the principal stratification framework, we postulate a Bayesian hierarchical model to infer various causal estimands of policy interest while adjusting for the clustering data structure. We apply the method to the data from the China Family Panel Studies and find small but statistically significant negative effects of being an only child on self-reported psychological health for some subpopulations. Our analysis reveals treatment effect heterogeneity with respect to both observed and unobserved characteristics. In particular, urban males suffer the most from being only children, and the negative effect has larger magnitude if the families were more resistant to the One-Child Policy. We also conduct sensitivity analysis to assess the key instrumental variable assumption.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Overlap in Observational Studies with High-Dimensional Covariates

Estimating causal effects under exogeneity hinges on two key assumptions: unconfoundedness and overlap. Researchers often argue that unconfoundedness is more plausible when more covariates are included in the analysis. Less discussed is the fact that covariate overlap is more difficult to satisfy in this setting. In this paper, we explore the implications of overlap in observational studies with high-dimensional covariates and formalize curse-of-dimensionality argument, suggesting that these assumptions are stronger than investigators likely realize. Our key innovation is to explore how strict overlap restricts global discrepancies between the covariate distributions in the treated and control populations. Exploiting results from information theory, we derive explicit bounds on the average imbalance in covariate means under strict overlap and show that these bounds become more restrictive as the dimension grows large. We discuss how these implications interact with assumptions and procedures commonly deployed in observational causal inference, including sparsity and trimming.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Regression adjustment in completely randomized experiments with a diverging number of covariates

Randomized experiments have become important tools in empirical research. In a completely randomized treatment-control experiment, the simple difference in means of the outcome is unbiased for the average treatment effect, and covariate adjustment can further improve the efficiency without assuming a correctly specified outcome model. In modern applications, experimenters often have access to many covariates, motivating the need for a theory of covariate adjustment under the asymptotic regime with a diverging number of covariates. We study the asymptotic properties of covariate adjustment under the potential outcomes model and propose a bias-corrected estimator that is consistent and asymptotically normal under weaker conditions. Our theory is purely randomization-based without imposing any parametric outcome model assumptions. To prove the theoretical results, we develop novel vector and matrix concentration inequalities for sampling without replacement.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Rerandomization and Regression Adjustment

Randomization is a basis for the statistical inference of treatment effects without strong assumptions on the outcome-generating process. Appropriately using covariates further yields more precise estimators in randomized experiments. R. A. Fisher suggested blocking on discrete covariates in the design stage or conducting analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in the analysis stage. We can embed blocking into a wider class of experimental design called rerandomization, and extend the classical ANCOVA to more general regression adjustment. Rerandomization trumps complete randomization in the design stage, and regression adjustment trumps the simple difference-in-means estimator in the analysis stage. It is then intuitive to use both rerandomization and regression adjustment. Under the randomization-inference framework, we establish a unified theory allowing the designer and analyzer to have access to different sets of covariates. We find that asymptotically (a) for any given estimator with or without regression adjustment, rerandomization never hurts either the sampling precision or the estimated precision, and (b) for any given design with or without rerandomization, our regression-adjusted estimator never hurts the estimated precision. Therefore, combining rerandomization and regression adjustment yields better coverage properties and thus improves statistical inference. To theoretically quantify these statements, we discuss optimal regression-adjusted estimators in terms of the sampling precision and the estimated precision, and then measure the additional gains of the designer and the analyzer. We finally suggest using rerandomization in the design and regression adjustment in the analysis followed by the Huber--White robust standard error.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Two seemingly paradoxical results in linear models: the variance inflation factor and the analysis of covariance

A result from a standard linear model course is that the variance of the ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficient of a variable will never decrease when including additional covariates. The variance inflation factor (VIF) measures the increase of the variance. Another result from a standard linear model or experimental design course is that including additional covariates in a linear model of the outcome on the treatment indicator will never increase the variance of the OLS coefficient of the treatment at least asymptotically. This technique is called the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), which is often used to improve the efficiency of treatment effect estimation. So we have two paradoxical results: adding covariates never decreases the variance in the first result but never increases the variance in the second result. In fact, these two results are derived under different assumptions. More precisely, the VIF result conditions on the treatment indicators but the ANCOVA result averages over them. Comparing the estimators with and without adjusting for additional covariates in a completely randomized experiment, I show that the former has smaller variance averaging over the treatment indicators, and the latter has smaller variance at the cost of a larger bias conditioning on the treatment indicators. Therefore, there is no real paradox.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

A paradox from randomization-based causal inference

Under the potential outcomes framework, causal effects are defined as comparisons between potential outcomes under treatment and control. To infer causal effects from randomized experiments, Neyman proposed to test the null hypothesis of zero average causal effect (Neyman's null), and Fisher proposed to test the null hypothesis of zero individual causal effect (Fisher's null). Although the subtle difference between Neyman's null and Fisher's null has caused lots of controversies and confusions for both theoretical and practical statisticians, a careful comparison between the two approaches has been lacking in the literature for more than eighty years. We fill in this historical gap by making a theoretical comparison between them and highlighting an intriguing paradox that has not been recognized by previous researchers. Logically, Fisher's null implies Neyman's null. It is therefore surprising that, in actual completely randomized experiments, rejection of Neyman's null does not imply rejection of Fisher's null for many realistic situations, including the case with constant causal effect. Furthermore, we show that this paradox also exists in other commonly-used experiments, such as stratified experiments, matched-pair experiments, and factorial experiments. Asymptotic analyses, numerical examples, and real data examples all support this surprising phenomenon. Besides its historical and theoretical importance, this paradox also leads to useful practical implications for modern researchers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

General forms of finite population central limit theorems with applications to causal inference

Frequentists' inference often delivers point estimators associated with confidence intervals or sets for parameters of interest. Constructing the confidence intervals or sets requires understanding the sampling distributions of the point estimators, which, in many but not all cases, are related to asymptotic Normal distributions ensured by central limit theorems. Although previous literature has established various forms of central limit theorems for statistical inference in super population models, we still need general and convenient forms of central limit theorems for some randomization-based causal analysis of experimental data, where the parameters of interests are functions of a finite population and randomness comes solely from the treatment assignment. We use central limit theorems for sample surveys and rank statistics to establish general forms of the finite population central limit theorems that are particularly useful for proving asymptotic distributions of randomization tests under the sharp null hypothesis of zero individual causal effects, and for obtaining the asymptotic repeated sampling distributions of the causal effect estimators. The new central limit theorems hold for general experimental designs with multiple treatment levels and multiple treatment factors, and are immediately applicable for studying the asymptotic properties of many methods in causal inference, including instrumental variable, regression adjustment, rerandomization, clustered randomized experiments, and so on. Previously, the asymptotic properties of these problems are often based on heuristic arguments, which in fact rely on general forms of finite population central limit theorems that have not been established before. Our new theorems fill in this gap by providing more solid theoretical foundation for asymptotic randomization-based causal inference.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

On the Conditional Distribution of the Multivariate $t$ Distribution

As alternatives to the normal distributions, $t$ distributions are widely applied in robust analysis for data with outliers or heavy tails. The properties of the multivariate $t$ distribution are well documented in Kotz and Nadarajah's book, which, however, states a wrong conclusion about the conditional distribution of the multivariate $t$ distribution. Previous literature has recognized that the conditional distribution of the multivariate $t$ distribution also follows the multivariate $t$ distribution. We provide an intuitive proof without directly manipulating the complicated density function of the multivariate $t$ distribution.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Principal stratification analysis using principal scores

Practitioners are interested in not only the average causal effect of the treatment on the outcome but also the underlying causal mechanism in the presence of an intermediate variable between the treatment and outcome. However, in many cases we cannot randomize the intermediate variable, resulting in sample selection problems even in randomized experiments. Therefore, we view randomized experiments with intermediate variables as semi-observational studies. In parallel with the analysis of observational studies, we provide a theoretical foundation for conducting objective causal inference with an intermediate variable under the principal stratification framework, with principal strata defined as the joint potential values of the intermediate variable. Our strategy constructs weighted samples based on principal scores, defined as the conditional probabilities of the latent principal strata given covariates, without access to any outcome data. This principal stratification analysis yields robust causal inference without relying on any model assumptions on the outcome distributions. We also propose approaches to conducting sensitivity analysis for violations of the ignorability and monotonicity assumptions, the very crucial but untestable identification assumptions in our theory. When the assumptions required by the classical instrumental variable analysis cannot be justified by background knowledge or cannot be made because of scientific questions of interest, our strategy serves as a useful alternative tool to deal with intermediate variables. We illustrate our methodologies by using two real data examples, and find scientifically meaningful conclusions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Randomization-Based Causal Inference from Unbalanced 2^2 Split-Plot Designs

Given two 2-level factors of interest, a 2^2 split-plot design} (a) takes each of the $2^2=4$ possible factorial combinations as a treatment, (b) identifies one factor as `whole-plot,' (c) divides the experimental units into blocks, and (d) assigns the treatments in such a way that all units within the same block receive the same level of the whole-plot factor. Assuming the potential outcomes framework, we propose in this paper a randomization-based estimation procedure for causal inference from 2^2 designs that are not necessarily balanced. Sampling variances of the point estimates are derived in closed form as linear combinations of the between- and within-block covariances of the potential outcomes. Results are compared to those under complete randomization as measures of design efficiency. Interval estimates are constructed based on conservative estimates of the sampling variances, and the frequency coverage properties evaluated via simulation. Asymptotic connections of the proposed approach to the model-based super-population inference are also established. Superiority over existing model-based alternatives is reported under a variety of settings for both binary and continuous outcomes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Robust Modeling Using Non-Elliptically Contoured Multivariate t Distributions

Models based on multivariate t distributions are widely applied to analyze data with heavy tails. However, all the marginal distributions of the multivariate t distributions are restricted to have the same degrees of freedom, making these models unable to describe different marginal heavy-tailedness. We generalize the traditional multivariate t distributions to non-elliptically contoured multivariate t distributions, allowing for different marginal degrees of freedom. We apply the non-elliptically contoured multivariate t distributions to three widely-used models: the Heckman selection model with different degrees of freedom for selection and outcome equations, the multivariate Robit model with different degrees of freedom for marginal responses, and the linear mixed-effects model with different degrees of freedom for random effects and within-subject errors. Based on the Normal mixture representation of our t distribution, we propose efficient Bayesian inferential procedures for the model parameters based on data augmentation and parameter expansion. We show via simulation studies and real examples that the conclusions are sensitive to the existence of different marginal heavy-tailedness.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Sharp sensitivity bounds for mediation under unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding

It is often of interest to decompose a total effect of an exposure into the component that acts on the outcome through some mediator and the component that acts independently through other pathways. Said another way, we are interested in the direct and indirect effects of the exposure on the outcome. Even if the exposure is randomly assigned, it is often infeasible to randomize the mediator, leaving the mediator-outcome confounding not fully controlled. We develop a sensitivity analysis technique that can bound the direct and indirect effects without parametric assumptions about the unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

A Potential Tale of Two by Two Tables from Completely Randomized Experiments

Causal inference in completely randomized treatment-control studies with binary outcomes is discussed from Fisherian, Neymanian and Bayesian perspectives, using the potential outcomes framework. A randomization-based justification of Fisher's exact test is provided. Arguing that the crucial assumption of constant causal effect is often unrealistic, and holds only for extreme cases, some new asymptotic and Bayesian inferential procedures are proposed. The proposed procedures exploit the intrinsic non-additivity of unit-level causal effects, can be applied to linear and non-linear estimands, and dominate the existing methods, as verified theoretically and also through simulation studies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Exact confidence intervals for the average causal effect on a binary outcome

Based on the physical randomization of completely randomized experiments, Rigdon and Hudgens (2015) propose two approaches to obtaining exact confidence intervals for the average causal effect on a binary outcome. They construct the first confidence interval by combining, with the Bonferroni adjustment, the prediction sets for treatment effects among treatment and control groups, and the second one by inverting a series of randomization tests. With sample size $n$, their second approach requires performing $O(n^4)$ randomization tests. We demonstrate that the physical randomization also justifies other ways to constructing exact confidence intervals that are more computationally efficient. By exploiting recent advances in hypergeometric confidence intervals and the stochastic order information of randomization tests, we propose approaches that either do not need to invoke Monte Carlo, or require performing at most $O(n^2)$ randomization tests. We provide technical details and R code in the Supplementary Material.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Identifiability of Normal and Normal Mixture Models With Nonignorable Missing Data

Missing data problems arise in many applied research studies. They may jeopardize statistical inference of the model of interest, if the missing mechanism is nonignorable, that is, the missing mechanism depends on the missing values themselves even conditional on the observed data. With a nonignorable missing mechanism, the model of interest is often not identifiable without imposing further assumptions. We find that even if the missing mechanism has a known parametric form, the model is not identifiable without specifying a parametric outcome distribution. Although it is fundamental for valid statistical inference, identifiability under nonignorable missing mechanisms is not established for many commonly-used models. In this paper, we first demonstrate identifiability of the normal distribution under monotone missing mechanisms. We then extend it to the normal mixture and $t$ mixture models with non-monotone missing mechanisms. We discover that models under the Logistic missing mechanism are less identifiable than those under the Probit missing mechanism. We give necessary and sufficient conditions for identifiability of models under the Logistic missing mechanism, which sometimes can be checked in real data analysis. We illustrate our methods using a series of simulations, and apply them to a real-life dataset.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Principal causal effect identification and surrogate endpoint evaluation by multiple trials

Principal stratification is a causal framework to analyze randomized experiments with a post-treatment variable between the treatment and endpoint variables. Because the principal strata defined by the potential outcomes of the post-treatment variable are not observable, we generally cannot identify the causal effects within principal strata. Motivated by a real data set of phase III adjuvant colon clinical trials, we propose approaches to identifying and estimating the principal causal effects via multiple trials. For the identifiability, we remove the commonly-used exclusion restriction assumption by stipulating that the principal causal effects are homogeneous across these trials. To remove another commonly-used monotonicity assumption, we give a necessary condition for the local identifiability, which requires at least three trials. Applying our approaches to the data from adjuvant colon clinical trials, we find that the commonly-used monotonicity assumption is untenable, and disease-free survival with three-year follow-up is a valid surrogate endpoint for overall survival with five-year follow-up, which satisfies both the causal necessity and the causal sufficiency. We also propose a sensitivity analysis approach based on Bayesian hierarchical models to investigate the impact of the deviation from the homogeneity assumption.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Representation for the Gauss-Laplace Transmutation

Under certain conditions, a symmetric unimodal continuous random variable $ξ$ can be represented as a scale mixture of the standard Normal distribution $Z$, i.e., $ξ= \sqrt{W} Z$, where the mixing distribution $W$ is independent of $Z.$ It is well known that if the mixing distribution is inverse Gamma, then $ξ$ is student's $t$ distribution. However, it is less well known that if the mixing distribution is Gamma, then $ξ$ is a Laplace distribution. Several existing proofs of the latter result rely on complex calculus and change of variables in integrals. We offer two simple and intuitive proofs based on representation and moment generating functions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Sensitivity Analysis Without Assumptions

Unmeasured confounding may undermine the validity of causal inference with observational studies. Sensitivity analysis provides an attractive way to partially circumvent this issue by assessing the potential influence of unmeasured confounding on the causal conclusions. However, previous sensitivity analysis approaches often make strong and untestable assumptions such as having a confounder that is binary, or having no interaction between the effects of the exposure and the confounder on the outcome, or having only one confounder. Without imposing any assumptions on the confounder or confounders, we derive a bounding factor and a sharp inequality such that the sensitivity analysis parameters must satisfy the inequality if an unmeasured confounder is to explain away the observed effect estimate or reduce it to a particular level. Our approach is easy to implement and involves only two sensitivity parameters. Surprisingly, our bounding factor, which makes no simplifying assumptions, is no more conservative than a number of previous sensitivity analysis techniques that do make assumptions. Our new bounding factor implies not only the traditional Cornfield conditions that both the relative risk of the exposure on the confounder and that of the confounder on the outcome must satisfy, but also a high threshold that the maximum of these relative risks must satisfy. Furthermore, this new bounding factor can be viewed as a measure of the strength of confounding between the exposure and the outcome induced by a confounder.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The Differential Geometry of Homogeneity Spaces Across Effect Scales

If an effect measure is more homogeneous than others, then its value is more likely to be stable across different subgroups or subpopulations. Therefore, it is of great importance to find a more homogeneous effect measure that allows for transportability of research results. For a binary outcome, applied researchers often claim that the risk difference is more heterogeneous than the risk ratio or odds ratio, because they find, based on evidence from surveys of meta-analyses, that the null hypotheses of homogeneity are rejected more often for the risk difference than for the risk ratio and odds ratio. However, the evidence for these claims are far from satisfactory, because of different statistical powers of the homogeneity tests under different effect scales. For binary treatment, covariate and outcome, we theoretically quantify the homogeneity of different effect scales. Because when homogeneity holds the four outcome probabilities lie in a three dimensional sub-space of the four dimensional space, we can use results from differential geometry to compute the volumes of these three dimensional spaces to compare the relative homogeneity of the risk difference, risk ratio, and odds ratio. We demonstrate that the homogeneity space for the risk difference has the smallest volume, and the homogeneity space for the odds ratio has the largest volume, providing some further evidence for the previous claim that the risk difference is more heterogeneous than the risk ratio and odds ratio.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Bayesian Robust Inference of Sample Selection Using Selection-t Models

Heckman selection model is the most popular econometric model in analysis of data with sample selection. However, selection models with Normal errors cannot accommodate heavy tails in the error distribution. Recently, Marchenko and Genton proposed a selection-t model to perform frequentist' robust analysis of sample selection. Instead of using their maximum likelihood estimates, our paper develops new Bayesian procedures for the selection-t models with either continuous or binary outcomes. By exploiting the Normal mixture representation of the t distribution, we can use data augmentation to impute the missing data, and use parameter expansion to sample the restricted covariance matrices. The Bayesian procedures only involve simple steps, without calculating analytical or numerical derivatives of the complicated log likelihood functions. Simulation studies show the vulnerability of the selection models with Normal errors, as well as the robustness of the selection models with t errors. Interestingly, we find evidence of heavy-tailedness in three real examples analyzed by previous studies, and the conclusions about the existence of selection effect are very sensitive to the distributional assumptions of the error terms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Generalized Cornfield conditions for the risk difference

A central question in causal inference with observational studies is the sensitivity of conclusions to unmeasured confounding. The classical Cornfield condition allows us to assess whether an unmeasured binary confounder can explain away the observed relative risk of the exposure on the outcome. It states that for an unmeasured confounder to explain away an observed relative risk, the association between the unmeasured confounder and the exposure, and also that between the unmeasured confounder and the outcome, must both be larger than the observed relative risk. In this paper, we extend the classical Cornfield condition in three directions. First, we consider analogous conditions for the risk difference, and allow for a categorical, not just a binary, unmeasured confounder. Second, we provide more stringent thresholds which the maximum of the above-mentioned associations must satisfy, rather than simply weaker conditions that both must satisfy. Third, we show that all previous results on Cornfield conditions hold under weaker assumptions than previously used. We illustrate their potential applications by real examples, where our new conditions give more information than the classical ones.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Identifiability of Subgroup Causal Effects in Randomized Experiments with Nonignorable Missing Covariates

Although randomized experiments are widely regarded as the gold standard for estimating causal effects, missing data of the pretreatment covariates makes it challenging to estimate the subgroup causal effects. When the missing data mechanism of the covariates is nonignorable, the parameters of interest are generally not pointly identifiable, and we can only get bounds for the parameters of interest, which may be too wide for practical use. In some real cases, we have prior knowledge that some restrictions may be plausible. We show the identifiability of the causal effects and joint distributions for four interpretable missing data mechanisms, and evaluate the performance of the statistical inference via simulation studies. One application of our methods to a real data set from a randomized clinical trial shows that one of the nonignorable missing data mechanisms fits better than the ignorable missing data mechanism, and the results conform to the study's original expert opinions. We also illustrate the potential applications of our methods to observational studies using a data set from a job-training program.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Qualitative Evaluation of Associations by the Transitivity of the Association Signs

We say that the signs of association measures among three variables {X, Y, Z} are transitive if a positive association measure between the variable X and the intermediate variable Y and further a positive association measure between Y and the endpoint variable Z imply a positive association measure between X and Z. We introduce four association measures with different stringencies, and discuss conditions for the transitivity of the signs of these association measures. When the variables follow exponential family distributions, the conditions become simpler and more interpretable. Applying our results to two data sets from an observational study and a randomized experiment, we demonstrate that the results can help us to draw conclusions about the signs of the association measures between X and Z based only on two separate studies about {X, Y} and {Y, Z}.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Randomization Inference for Treatment Effect Variation

Applied researchers are increasingly interested in whether and how treatment effects vary in randomized evaluations, especially variation not explained by observed covariates. We propose a model-free approach for testing for the presence of such unexplained variation. To use this randomization-based approach, we must address the fact that the average treatment effect, generally the object of interest in randomized experiments, actually acts as a nuisance parameter in this setting. We explore potential solutions and advocate for a method that guarantees valid tests in finite samples despite this nuisance. We also show how this method readily extends to testing for heterogeneity beyond a given model, which can be useful for assessing the sufficiency of a given scientific theory. We finally apply our method to the National Head Start Impact Study, a large-scale randomized evaluation of a Federal preschool program, finding that there is indeed significant unexplained treatment effect variation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Semiparametric Inference of the Complier Average Causal Effect with Nonignorable Missing Outcomes

Noncompliance and missing data often occur in randomized trials, which complicate the inference of causal effects. When both noncompliance and missing data are present, previous papers proposed moment and maximum likelihood estimators for binary and normally distributed continuous outcomes under the latent ignorable missing data mechanism. However, the latent ignorable missing data mechanism may be violated in practice, because the missing data mechanism may depend directly on the missing outcome itself. Under noncompliance and an outcome-dependent nonignorable missing data mechanism, previous studies showed the identifiability of complier average causal effect for discrete outcomes. In this paper, we study the semiparametric identifiability and estimation of complier average causal effect in randomized clinical trials with both all-or-none noncompliance and the outcome-dependent nonignorable missing continuous outcomes, and propose a two-step maximum likelihood estimator in order to eliminate the infinite dimensional nuisance parameter. Our method does not need to specify a parametric form for the missing data mechanism. We also evaluate the finite sample property of our method via extensive simulation studies and sensitivity analysis, with an application to a double-blinded psychiatric clinical trial.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Three Occurrences of the Hyperbolic-Secant Distribution

Although it is the generator distribution of the sixth natural exponential family with quadratic variance function, the Hyperbolic-Secant distribution is much less known than other distributions in the exponential families. Its lack of familiarity is due to its isolation from many widely-used statistical models. We fill in the gap by showing three examples naturally generating the Hyperbolic-Secant distribution, including Fisher's analysis of similarity between twins, the Jeffreys' prior for contingency tables, and invalid instrumental variables.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

To Adjust or Not to Adjust? Sensitivity Analysis of M-Bias and Butterfly-Bias

"M-Bias," as it is called in the epidemiologic literature, is the bias introduced by conditioning on a pretreatment covariate due to a particular "M-Structure" between two latent factors, an observed treatment, an outcome, and a "collider." This potential source of bias, which can occur even when the treatment and the outcome are not confounded, has been a source of considerable controversy. We here present formulae for identifying under which circumstances biases are inflated or reduced. In particular, we show that the magnitude of M-Bias in linear structural equation models tends to be relatively small compared to confounding bias, suggesting that it is generally not a serious concern in many applied settings. These theoretical results are consistent with recent empirical findings from simulation studies. We also generalize the M-Bias setting (1) to allow for the correlation between the latent factors to be nonzero, and (2) to allow for the collider to be a confounder between the treatment and the outcome. These results demonstrate that mild deviations from the M-Structure tend to increase confounding bias more rapidly than M-Bias, suggesting that choosing to condition on any given covariate is generally the superior choice. As an application, we re-examine a controversial example between Professors Donald Rubin and Judea Pearl.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access