没有明星就是好消息根据协变量平衡测试的 p 值统一看待再随机化问题

IF 9.9 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Anqi Zhao , Peng Ding
{"title":"没有明星就是好消息根据协变量平衡测试的 p 值统一看待再随机化问题","authors":"Anqi Zhao ,&nbsp;Peng Ding","doi":"10.1016/j.jeconom.2024.105724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Randomized experiments balance all covariates on average and are considered the gold standard for estimating treatment effects. Chance imbalances are nonetheless common in realized treatment allocations. To inform readers of the comparability of treatment groups at baseline, contemporary scientific publications often report covariate balance tables with not only covariate means by treatment group but also the associated <span><math><mi>p</mi></math></span>-values from significance tests of their differences. The practical need to avoid small <span><math><mi>p</mi></math></span>-values as indicators of poor balance motivates balance check and rerandomization based on these <span><math><mi>p</mi></math></span>-values from covariate balance tests (ReP) as an attractive tool for improving covariate balance in designing randomized experiments. Despite the intuitiveness of such strategy and its possibly already widespread use in practice, the literature lacks results about its implications on subsequent inference, subjecting many effectively rerandomized experiments to possibly inefficient analyses. To fill this gap, we examine a variety of potentially useful schemes for ReP and quantify their impact on subsequent inference. Specifically, we focus on three estimators of the average treatment effect from the unadjusted, additive, and interacted linear regressions of the outcome on treatment, respectively, and derive their asymptotic sampling properties under ReP. The main findings are threefold. First, the estimator from the interacted regression is asymptotically the most efficient under all ReP schemes examined, and permits convenient regression-assisted inference identical to that under complete randomization. Second, ReP, in contrast to complete randomization, improves the asymptotic efficiency of the estimators from the unadjusted and additive regressions. Standard regression analyses are accordingly still valid but in general overconservative. Third, ReP reduces the asymptotic conditional biases of the three estimators and improves their coherence in terms of mean squared difference. These results establish ReP as a convenient tool for improving covariate balance in designing randomized experiments, and we recommend using the interacted regression for analyzing data from ReP designs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Econometrics","volume":"241 1","pages":"Article 105724"},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No star is good news: A unified look at rerandomization based on p-values from covariate balance tests\",\"authors\":\"Anqi Zhao ,&nbsp;Peng Ding\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jeconom.2024.105724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Randomized experiments balance all covariates on average and are considered the gold standard for estimating treatment effects. Chance imbalances are nonetheless common in realized treatment allocations. To inform readers of the comparability of treatment groups at baseline, contemporary scientific publications often report covariate balance tables with not only covariate means by treatment group but also the associated <span><math><mi>p</mi></math></span>-values from significance tests of their differences. The practical need to avoid small <span><math><mi>p</mi></math></span>-values as indicators of poor balance motivates balance check and rerandomization based on these <span><math><mi>p</mi></math></span>-values from covariate balance tests (ReP) as an attractive tool for improving covariate balance in designing randomized experiments. Despite the intuitiveness of such strategy and its possibly already widespread use in practice, the literature lacks results about its implications on subsequent inference, subjecting many effectively rerandomized experiments to possibly inefficient analyses. To fill this gap, we examine a variety of potentially useful schemes for ReP and quantify their impact on subsequent inference. Specifically, we focus on three estimators of the average treatment effect from the unadjusted, additive, and interacted linear regressions of the outcome on treatment, respectively, and derive their asymptotic sampling properties under ReP. The main findings are threefold. First, the estimator from the interacted regression is asymptotically the most efficient under all ReP schemes examined, and permits convenient regression-assisted inference identical to that under complete randomization. Second, ReP, in contrast to complete randomization, improves the asymptotic efficiency of the estimators from the unadjusted and additive regressions. Standard regression analyses are accordingly still valid but in general overconservative. Third, ReP reduces the asymptotic conditional biases of the three estimators and improves their coherence in terms of mean squared difference. These results establish ReP as a convenient tool for improving covariate balance in designing randomized experiments, and we recommend using the interacted regression for analyzing data from ReP designs.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15629,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Econometrics\",\"volume\":\"241 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 105724\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Econometrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407624000708\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Econometrics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407624000708","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随机实验平均平衡了所有协变量,被认为是估计治疗效果的黄金标准。然而,偶然的不平衡在已实现的治疗分配中很常见。为了让读者了解基线治疗组的可比性,当代科学出版物通常会报告协变量平衡表,其中不仅包括各治疗组的协变量平均值,还包括对其差异进行显著性检验后得出的相关 p 值。由于实际需要避免将小的 p 值作为平衡性差的指标,因此在设计随机实验时,根据这些协变量平衡性检验得出的 p 值进行平衡性检查和重新随机化(ReP)是改善协变量平衡性的一种有吸引力的工具。尽管这种策略很直观,而且可能已经在实践中广泛使用,但文献中缺乏有关其对后续推断影响的结果,这使得许多有效的重新随机化实验可能受到低效分析的影响。为了填补这一空白,我们研究了各种可能有用的 ReP 方案,并量化了它们对后续推断的影响。具体来说,我们重点研究了分别来自未调整、加法和交互线性回归的平均治疗效果的三个估计值,并推导出它们在 ReP 条件下的渐近抽样特性。主要发现有三个方面。首先,在所有研究的 ReP 方案下,交互回归的估计值在渐近上都是最有效的,并且可以方便地进行与完全随机化下相同的回归辅助推断。其次,与完全随机化相比,ReP 提高了未调整回归和加法回归估计值的渐近效率。因此,标准回归分析仍然有效,但总体上过于保守。第三,ReP 减少了三个估计值的渐近条件偏差,并提高了它们在均方差方面的一致性。这些结果证明,ReP 是改进随机试验设计中协变量平衡的便捷工具,我们建议使用交互回归分析 ReP 设计的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
No star is good news: A unified look at rerandomization based on p-values from covariate balance tests

Randomized experiments balance all covariates on average and are considered the gold standard for estimating treatment effects. Chance imbalances are nonetheless common in realized treatment allocations. To inform readers of the comparability of treatment groups at baseline, contemporary scientific publications often report covariate balance tables with not only covariate means by treatment group but also the associated p-values from significance tests of their differences. The practical need to avoid small p-values as indicators of poor balance motivates balance check and rerandomization based on these p-values from covariate balance tests (ReP) as an attractive tool for improving covariate balance in designing randomized experiments. Despite the intuitiveness of such strategy and its possibly already widespread use in practice, the literature lacks results about its implications on subsequent inference, subjecting many effectively rerandomized experiments to possibly inefficient analyses. To fill this gap, we examine a variety of potentially useful schemes for ReP and quantify their impact on subsequent inference. Specifically, we focus on three estimators of the average treatment effect from the unadjusted, additive, and interacted linear regressions of the outcome on treatment, respectively, and derive their asymptotic sampling properties under ReP. The main findings are threefold. First, the estimator from the interacted regression is asymptotically the most efficient under all ReP schemes examined, and permits convenient regression-assisted inference identical to that under complete randomization. Second, ReP, in contrast to complete randomization, improves the asymptotic efficiency of the estimators from the unadjusted and additive regressions. Standard regression analyses are accordingly still valid but in general overconservative. Third, ReP reduces the asymptotic conditional biases of the three estimators and improves their coherence in terms of mean squared difference. These results establish ReP as a convenient tool for improving covariate balance in designing randomized experiments, and we recommend using the interacted regression for analyzing data from ReP designs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Econometrics
Journal of Econometrics 社会科学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
1.60%
发文量
220
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Econometrics serves as an outlet for important, high quality, new research in both theoretical and applied econometrics. The scope of the Journal includes papers dealing with identification, estimation, testing, decision, and prediction issues encountered in economic research. Classical Bayesian statistics, and machine learning methods, are decidedly within the range of the Journal''s interests. The Annals of Econometrics is a supplement to the Journal of Econometrics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信