Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userUncertainty in the Design Stage of Two-Stage Bayesian Propensity Score Analysis
75
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Shirley Liao
Publication date
2018
fields
Mathematical Statistics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The two-stage process of propensity score analysis (PSA) includes a design stage where propensity scores are estimated and implemented to approximate a randomized experiment and an analysis stage where treatment effects are estimated conditional upon the design. This paper considers how uncertainty associated with the design stage impacts estimation of causal effects in the analysis stage. Such design uncertainty can derive from the fact that the propensity score itself is an estimated quantity, but also from other features of the design stage tied to choice of propensity score implementation. This paper offers a procedure for obtaining the posterior distribution of causal effects after marginalizing over a distribution of design-stage outputs, lending a degree of formality to Bayesian methods for PSA (BPSA) that have gained attention in recent literature. Formulation of a probability distribution for the design-stage output depends on how the propensity score is implemented in the design stage, and propagation of uncertainty into causal estimates depends on how the treatment effect is estimated in the analysis stage. We explore these differences within a sample of commonly-used propensity score implementations (quantile stratification, nearest-neighbor matching, caliper matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and doubly robust estimation) and investigate in a simulation study the impact of statistician choice in PS model and implementation on the degree of between- and within-design variability in the estimated treatment effect. The methods are then deployed in an investigation of the association between levels of fine particulate air pollution and elevated exposure to emissions from coal-fired power plants.
rate research
Read More
Selective inference (post-selection inference) is a methodology that has attracted much attention in recent years in the fields of statistics and machine learning. Naive inference based on data that are also used for model selection tends to show an overestimation, and so the selective inference conditions the event that the model was selected. In this paper, we develop selective inference in propensity score analysis with a semiparametric approach, which has become a standard tool in causal inference. Specifically, for the most basic causal inference model in which the causal effect can be written as a linear sum of confounding variables, we conduct Lasso-type variable selection by adding an $ell_1$ penalty term to the loss function that gives a semiparametric estimator. Confidence intervals are then given for the coefficients of the selected confounding variables, conditional on the event of variable selection, with asymptotic guarantees. An important property of this method is that it does not require modeling of nonparametric regression functions for the outcome variables, as is usually the case with semiparametric propensity score analysis.
Occupancy models are used in statistical ecology to estimate species dispersion. The two components of an occupancy model are the detection and occupancy probabilities, with the main interest being in the occupancy probabilities. We show that for the homogeneous occupancy model there is an orthogonal transformation of the parameters that gives a natural two-stage inference procedure based on a conditional likelihood. We then extend this to a partial likelihood that gives explicit estimators of the model parameters. By allowing the separate modelling of the detection and occupancy probabilities, the extension of the two-stage approach to more general models has the potential to simplify the computational routines used there.
Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) is a popular method for estimating the average treatment effect (ATE). However, empirical studies show that the IPTW estimators can be sensitive to the misspecification of the propensity score model. To address this problem, researchers have proposed to estimate propensity score by directly optimizing the balance of pre-treatment covariates. While these methods appear to empirically perform well, little is known about how the choice of balancing conditions affects their theoretical properties. To fill this gap, we first characterize the asymptotic bias and efficiency of the IPTW estimator based on the Covariate Balancing Propensity Score (CBPS) methodology under local model misspecification. Based on this analysis, we show how to optimally choose the covariate balancing functions and propose an optimal CBPS-based IPTW estimator. This estimator is doubly robust; it is consistent for the ATE if either the propensity score model or the outcome model is correct. In addition, the proposed estimator is locally semiparametric efficient when both models are correctly specified. To further relax the parametric assumptions, we extend our method by using a sieve estimation approach. We show that the resulting estimator is globally efficient under a set of much weaker assumptions and has a smaller asymptotic bias than the existing estimators. Finally, we evaluate the finite sample performance of the proposed estimators via simulation and empirical studies. An open-source software package is available for implementing the proposed methods.
This paper discusses the challenges presented by tall data problems associated with Bayesian classification (specifically binary classification) and the existing methods to handle them. Current methods include parallelizing the likelihood, subsampling, and consensus Monte Carlo. A new method based on the two-stage Metropolis-Hastings algorithm is also proposed. The purpose of this algorithm is to reduce the exact likelihood computational cost in the tall data situation. In the first stage, a new proposal is tested by the approximate likelihood based model. The full likelihood based posterior computation will be conducted only if the proposal passes the first stage screening. Furthermore, this method can be adopted into the consensus Monte Carlo framework. The two-stage method is applied to logistic regression, hierarchical logistic regression, and Bayesian multivariate adaptive regression splines.
Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) is a popular propensity score (PS)-based approach to estimate causal effects in observational studies at risk of confounding bias. A major issue when estimating the PS is the presence of partially observed covariates. Multiple imputation (MI) is a natural approach to handle missing data on covariates, but its use in the PS context raises three important questions: (i) should we apply Rubins rules to the IPTW treatment effect estimates or to the PS estimates themselves? (ii) does the outcome have to be included in the imputation model? (iii) how should we estimate the variance of the IPTW estimator after MI? We performed a simulation study focusing on the effect of a binary treatment on a binary outcome with three confounders (two of them partially observed). We used MI with chained equations to create complete datasets and compared three ways of combining the results: combining treatment effect estimates (MIte); combining the PS across the imputed datasets (MIps); or combining the PS parameters and estimating the PS of the average covariates across the imputed datasets (MIpar). We also compared the performance of these methods to complete case (CC) analysis and the missingness pattern (MP) approach, a method which uses a different PS model for each pattern of missingness. We also studied empirically the consistency of these 3 MI estimators. Under a missing at random (MAR) mechanism, CC and MP analyses were biased in most cases when estimating the marginal treatment effect, whereas MI approaches had good performance in reducing bias as long as the outcome was included in the imputation model. However, only MIte was unbiased in all the studied scenarios and Rubins rules provided good variance estimates for MIte.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
