IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1805.05067.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Finite Sample Performance of Treatment Effects Estimators based on the Lasso

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Zimmert

Abstract

This paper contributes to the literature on treatment effects estimation with machine learning inspired methods by studying the performance of different estimators based on the Lasso. Building on recent work in the field of high-dimensional statistics, we use the semiparametric efficient score estimation structure to compare different estimators. Alternative weighting schemes are considered and their suitability for the incorporation of machine learning estimators is assessed using theoretical arguments and various Monte Carlo experiments. Additionally we propose an own estimator based on doubly robust Kernel matching that is argued to be more robust to nuisance parameter misspecification. In the simulation study we verify theory based intuition and find good finite sample properties of alternative weighting scheme estimators like the one we propose.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Zimmert, 2018. "The Finite Sample Performance of Treatment Effects Estimators based on the Lasso," Papers 1805.05067, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1805.05067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.05067
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hainmueller, Jens, 2012. "Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 25-46, January.
    2. Matias Busso & John DiNardo & Justin McCrary, 2014. "New Evidence on the Finite Sample Properties of Propensity Score Reweighting and Matching Estimators," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(5), pages 885-897, December.
    3. Enno Mammen & Christoph Rothe & Melanie Schienle, 2010. "Nonparametric Regression with Nonparametrically Generated Covariates," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2010-059, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    4. Bryan S. Graham & Cristine Campos De Xavier Pinto & Daniel Egel, 2012. "Inverse Probability Tilting for Moment Condition Models with Missing Data," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 79(3), pages 1053-1079.
    5. José R. Zubizarreta, 2015. "Stable Weights that Balance Covariates for Estimation With Incomplete Outcome Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(511), pages 910-922, September.
    6. Martin Huber & Michael Lechner & Andreas Steinmayr, 2015. "Radius matching on the propensity score with bias adjustment: tuning parameters and finite sample behaviour," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 1-31, August.
    7. Fan J. & Li R., 2001. "Variable Selection via Nonconcave Penalized Likelihood and its Oracle Properties," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 1348-1360, December.
    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. Frölich, Markus & Huber, Martin & Wiesenfarth, Manuel, 2017. "The finite sample performance of semi- and non-parametric estimators for treatment effects and policy evaluation," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 91-102.
    2. Phillip Heiler, 2020. "Efficient Covariate Balancing for the Local Average Treatment Effect," Papers 2007.04346, arXiv.org.
    3. Susan Athey & Guido Imbens & Thai Pham & Stefan Wager, 2017. "Estimating Average Treatment Effects: Supplementary Analyses and Remaining Challenges," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 278-281, May.
    4. Pierre Chausse & George Luta, 2017. "Casual Inference using Generalized Empirical Likelihood Methods," Working Papers 1707, University of Waterloo, Department of Economics, revised Dec 2017.
    5. Sean Yiu & Li Su, 2018. "Covariate association eliminating weights: a unified weighting framework for causal effect estimation," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 105(3), pages 709-722.
    6. Dmitry Arkhangelsky & Susan Athey & David A. Hirshberg & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2021. "Synthetic Difference-in-Differences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(12), pages 4088-4118, December.
    7. Jason J. Sauppe & Sheldon H. Jacobson, 2017. "The role of covariate balance in observational studies," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 323-344, June.
    8. Martin Huber, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," Papers 1910.00641, arXiv.org.
    9. Kitagawa, Toru & Muris, Chris, 2016. "Model averaging in semiparametric estimation of treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 193(1), pages 271-289.
    10. Zichen Deng & Maarten Lindeboom, 2021. "Early-life Famine Exposure, Hunger Recall and Later-life Health," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-054/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. 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.
    12. Marco Caliendo & Stefan Tübbicke, 2020. "New evidence on long-term effects of start-up subsidies: matching estimates and their robustness," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1605-1631, October.
    13. Adeola Oyenubi & Martin Wittenberg, 2021. "Does the choice of balance-measure matter under genetic matching?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 489-502, July.
    14. Michael C. Knaus, 2021. "A double machine learning approach to estimate the effects of musical practice on student’s skills," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 282-300, January.
    15. Adeola Oyenubi & Martin Wittenberg, 0. "Does the choice of balance-measure matter under genetic matching?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-14.
    16. Felix Ehrenfried & Christian Holzner, 2018. "Dynamics and Endogeneity of Firms' Recruitment Behaviour," CESifo Working Paper Series 7283, CESifo.
    17. Caliendo, Marco & Tübbicke, Stefan, 2019. "Do Start-Up Subsidies for the Unemployed Affect Participants' Well-Being? A Rigorous Look at (Un-)Intended Consequences of Labor Market Policies," IZA Discussion Papers 12755, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Toru Kitagawa & Chris Muris, 2013. "Covariate selection and model averaging in semiparametric estimation of treatment effects," CeMMAP working papers CWP61/13, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    19. Olaf Hübler, 2019. "The Role of Body Weight for Health, Earnings, and Life Satisfaction," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1024, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    20. Arun Advani & Tymon Sloczynski, 2013. "Mostly harmless simulations? On the internal validity of empirical Monte Carlo studies," CeMMAP working papers CWP64/13, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:1805.05067. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.