贝叶斯因果推理中的先验和倾向得分。

Observational studies Pub Date : 2025-04-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1353/obs.2025.a956841
Arman Oganisian, Antonio Linero
{"title":"贝叶斯因果推理中的先验和倾向得分。","authors":"Arman Oganisian, Antonio Linero","doi":"10.1353/obs.2025.a956841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Aronow et al. (2025) provide a convincing case for the special status of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which the propensity scores are known and can be used to make causal inferences. Here we provide a Bayesian perspective on their work by summarizing recent developments in the Bayesian literature on the topic. Whether the propensity score should play a role in Bayesian causal inference - and what that role(s) should be - has been a controversial topic for some time. We begin by describing Bayesian inference for population-level estimands and show that under commonly made (but not necessarily required) assumptions, the propensity score model has no role to play in Bayesian causal inference from a purist perspective. We discuss recent work on why these assumptions can be problematic - particularly in high-dimensional models - and discuss several Bayesian motivations for relaxing them. We describe out recent approaches for incorporating the propensity score correspond to di erent ways of relaxing these assumptions. Given these considerations, we illustrate how a Bayesian might approach the synethic examples of Aronow et al. (2025).</p>","PeriodicalId":74335,"journal":{"name":"Observational studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"47-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12139722/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Priors and Propensity Scores in Bayesian Causal Inference.\",\"authors\":\"Arman Oganisian, Antonio Linero\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/obs.2025.a956841\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Aronow et al. (2025) provide a convincing case for the special status of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which the propensity scores are known and can be used to make causal inferences. Here we provide a Bayesian perspective on their work by summarizing recent developments in the Bayesian literature on the topic. Whether the propensity score should play a role in Bayesian causal inference - and what that role(s) should be - has been a controversial topic for some time. We begin by describing Bayesian inference for population-level estimands and show that under commonly made (but not necessarily required) assumptions, the propensity score model has no role to play in Bayesian causal inference from a purist perspective. We discuss recent work on why these assumptions can be problematic - particularly in high-dimensional models - and discuss several Bayesian motivations for relaxing them. We describe out recent approaches for incorporating the propensity score correspond to di erent ways of relaxing these assumptions. Given these considerations, we illustrate how a Bayesian might approach the synethic examples of Aronow et al. (2025).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Observational studies\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"47-60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12139722/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Observational studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/obs.2025.a956841\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Observational studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/obs.2025.a956841","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Aronow等人(2025)为随机对照试验(rct)的特殊地位提供了一个令人信服的案例,在随机对照试验中,倾向得分是已知的,可以用来进行因果推断。在这里,我们通过总结关于该主题的贝叶斯文献的最新发展,提供了他们工作的贝叶斯观点。倾向得分是否应该在贝叶斯因果推理中发挥作用——以及应该发挥什么样的作用——一直是一个有争议的话题。我们首先描述总体水平估计的贝叶斯推断,并表明在通常做出的(但不一定是必需的)假设下,从纯粹主义的角度来看,倾向得分模型在贝叶斯因果推断中没有作用。我们讨论了最近关于为什么这些假设会有问题的研究——特别是在高维模型中——并讨论了放松这些假设的几个贝叶斯动机。我们描述了最近合并倾向得分的方法,这些方法对应于放松这些假设的不同方式。考虑到这些因素,我们说明了贝叶斯如何接近Aronow等人(2025)的综合例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Priors and Propensity Scores in Bayesian Causal Inference.

Aronow et al. (2025) provide a convincing case for the special status of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which the propensity scores are known and can be used to make causal inferences. Here we provide a Bayesian perspective on their work by summarizing recent developments in the Bayesian literature on the topic. Whether the propensity score should play a role in Bayesian causal inference - and what that role(s) should be - has been a controversial topic for some time. We begin by describing Bayesian inference for population-level estimands and show that under commonly made (but not necessarily required) assumptions, the propensity score model has no role to play in Bayesian causal inference from a purist perspective. We discuss recent work on why these assumptions can be problematic - particularly in high-dimensional models - and discuss several Bayesian motivations for relaxing them. We describe out recent approaches for incorporating the propensity score correspond to di erent ways of relaxing these assumptions. Given these considerations, we illustrate how a Bayesian might approach the synethic examples of Aronow et al. (2025).

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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信