IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v183y2020i1p355-377.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimally balanced Gaussian process propensity scores for estimating treatment effects

Author

Listed:
  • Brian G. Vegetabile
  • Daniel L. Gillen
  • Hal S. Stern

Abstract

Propensity scores are commonly employed in observational study settings where the goal is to estimate average treatment effects. The paper introduces a flexible propensity score modelling approach, where the probability of treatment is modelled through a Gaussian process framework. To evaluate the effectiveness of the estimated propensity score, a metric of covariate imbalance is developed that quantifies the discrepancy between the distributions of covariates in the treated and control groups. It is demonstrated that this metric is ultimately a function of the hyperparameters of the covariance matrix of the Gaussian process and therefore it is possible to select the hyperparameters to optimize the metric and to minimize overall covariate imbalance. The effectiveness of the Gaussian process method is compared in a simulation against other methods of estimating the propensity score and the method is applied to data from a study of Dehejia and Wahba in 1999 to demonstrate benchmark performance within a relevant policy application.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian G. Vegetabile & Daniel L. Gillen & Hal S. Stern, 2020. "Optimally balanced Gaussian process propensity scores for estimating treatment effects," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(1), pages 355-377, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:183:y:2020:i:1:p:355-377
    DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12502
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssa.12502?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. LaLonde, Robert J, 1986. "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 604-620, September.
    2. Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder, 2003. "Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1161-1189, July.
    3. Kosuke Imai & Marc Ratkovic, 2014. "Covariate balancing propensity score," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 76(1), pages 243-263, January.
    4. Rosenbaum, Paul R., 2010. "Design Sensitivity and Efficiency in Observational Studies," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(490), pages 692-702.
    5. Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 4-29, February.
    6. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881.
    7. Fan Li & Kari Lock Morgan & Alan M. Zaslavsky, 2018. "Balancing Covariates via Propensity Score Weighting," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(521), pages 390-400, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ganesh Karapakula, 2023. "Stable Probability Weighting: Large-Sample and Finite-Sample Estimation and Inference Methods for Heterogeneous Causal Effects of Multivalued Treatments Under Limited Overlap," Papers 2301.05703, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    2. Davide Viviano & Jelena Bradic, 2021. "Dynamic covariate balancing: estimating treatment effects over time with potential local projections," Papers 2103.01280, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    3. Tenglong Li & Jordan Lawson, 2021. "A generalized bootstrap procedure of the standard error and confidence interval estimation for inverse probability of treatment weighting," Papers 2109.00171, arXiv.org.
    4. Brett R. Gordon & Florian Zettelmeyer & Neha Bhargava & Dan Chapsky, 2019. "A Comparison of Approaches to Advertising Measurement: Evidence from Big Field Experiments at Facebook," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(2), pages 193-225, March.
    5. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    6. Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna & Xiaojun Song & Qi Xu, 2022. "Covariate distribution balance via propensity scores," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(6), pages 1093-1120, September.
    7. Guido W. Imbens, 2020. "Potential Outcome and Directed Acyclic Graph Approaches to Causality: Relevance for Empirical Practice in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1129-1179, December.
    8. Guido W. Imbens, 2015. "Matching Methods in Practice: Three Examples," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 373-419.
    9. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2017. "The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 3-32, Spring.
    10. Taneli Mäkinen & Fan Li & Andrea Mercatanti & Andrea Silvestrini, 2020. "Effects of eligibility for central bank purchases on corporate bond spreads," BIS Working Papers 894, Bank for International Settlements.
    11. Dongcheng Zhang & Kunpeng Zhang, 2020. "Weighting-Based Treatment Effect Estimation via Distribution Learning," Papers 2012.13805, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    12. Phillip Heiler, 2020. "Efficient Covariate Balancing for the Local Average Treatment Effect," Papers 2007.04346, arXiv.org.
    13. Mäkinen, Taneli & Li, Fan & Mercatanti, Andrea & Silvestrini, Andrea, 2022. "Causal analysis of central bank holdings of corporate bonds under interference," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    14. Zhang, Xiaoke & Xue, Wu & Wang, Qiyue, 2021. "Covariate balancing functional propensity score for functional treatments in cross-sectional observational studies," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    15. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Jonas Metzger & Evan M. Munro, 2019. "Using Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Networks for the Design of Monte Carlo Simulations," NBER Working Papers 26566, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Christian Hansen & Kengo Kato, 2018. "High-dimensional econometrics and regularized GMM," CeMMAP working papers CWP35/18, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    17. Kitagawa, Toru & Muris, Chris, 2016. "Model averaging in semiparametric estimation of treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 193(1), pages 271-289.
    18. Caloffi, Annalisa & Freo, Marzia & Ghinoi, Stefano & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica, 2022. "Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    19. Chunrong Ai & Oliver Linton & Kaiji Motegi & Zheng Zhang, 2021. "A unified framework for efficient estimation of general treatment models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 779-816, July.
    20. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2006. "Moving the Goalposts: Addressing Limited Overlap in the Estimation of Average Treatment Effects by Changing the Estimand," NBER Technical Working Papers 0330, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:183:y:2020:i:1:p:355-377. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.