IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rza/ersawp/vy2020iid86.html

On sensitivity of Genetic Matching to the choice of balance measure

Author

Listed:
  • Adeola Oyenubi

Abstract

This paper considers the sensitivity of Genetic Matching (GenMatch) to the choice of balance measure. It explores the performance of a newly introduced distributional balance measure that is similar to the KS test but is more evenly sensitive to imbalance across the support. This measure is introduced by Goldman & Kaplan (2008) (i.e. the GK measure). This is important because the rationale behind distributional balance measures is their ability to provide a broader description of balance. I also consider the performance of multivariate balance measures i.e. distance covariance and correlation. This is motivated by the fact that ideally, balance for causal inference refers to balance in joint density and individual balance in a set of univariate distributions does not necessarily imply balance in the joint distribution. Simulation results show that GK dominates the KS test in terms of Bias and Mean Square Error (MSE); and the distance correlation measure dominates all other measure in terms of Bias and MSE. These results have two important implication for the choice of balance measure (i) Even sensitivity across the support is important and not all distributional measures has this property (ii) Multivariate balance measures can improve the performance of matching estimators.

Suggested Citation

  • Adeola Oyenubi, "undated". "On sensitivity of Genetic Matching to the choice of balance measure," ERSA Working Paper Series v::y:2020:i::id:86, Economic Research Southern Africa.
  • Handle: RePEc:rza:ersawp:v::y:2020:i::id:86
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ersawps.org/index.php/working-paper-series/article/view/86/63
    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. Gary King & Christopher Lucas & Richard A. Nielsen, 2017. "The Balance‐Sample Size Frontier in Matching Methods for Causal Inference," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(2), pages 473-489, April.
    3. Michael Lechner & Anthony Strittmatter, 2019. "Practical procedures to deal with common support problems in matching estimation," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 193-207, February.
    4. Goldman, Matt & Kaplan, David M., 2018. "Comparing distributions by multiple testing across quantiles or CDF values," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 143-166.
    5. Augurzky, Boris & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2001. "The Propensity Score: A Means to An End," IZA Discussion Papers 271, IZA Network @ LISER.
    6. Székely, Gábor J. & Rizzo, Maria L., 2012. "On the uniqueness of distance covariance," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 82(12), pages 2278-2282.
    7. Goldman, Matt & Kaplan, David M., 2018. "Comparing distributions by multiple testing across quantiles or CDF values," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 143-166.
    8. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2013. "The performance of estimators based on the propensity score," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 1-21.
    9. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    10. Goller, Daniel & Lechner, Michael & Moczall, Andreas & Wolff, Joachim, 2020. "Does the estimation of the propensity score by machine learning improve matching estimation? The case of Germany's programmes for long term unemployed," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    11. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Adeola Oyenubi & Martin Wittenberg, "undated". "Does the choice of balance-measure matter under Genetic Matching?," ERSA Working Paper Series v::y:2020:i::id:114, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    14. Mebane Jr., Walter R. & Sekhon, Jasjeet S., 2011. "Genetic Optimization Using Derivatives: The rgenoud Package for R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 42(i11).
    15. Alexis Diamond & Jasjeet S. Sekhon, 2013. "Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A General Multivariate Matching Method for Achieving Balance in Observational Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 932-945, July.
    16. Adeola Oyenubi, 2020. "A note on Covariate Balancing Propensity Score and Instrument-like variables," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(1), pages 202-209.
    17. Kosuke Imai & Gary King & Elizabeth A. Stuart, 2008. "Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(2), pages 481-502, April.
    18. Iacus, Stefano M. & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2012. "Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 1-24, January.
    19. repec:rza:wpaper:819 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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.
    2. Adeola Oyenubi & Martin Wittenberg, "undated". "Does the choice of balance-measure matter under Genetic Matching?," ERSA Working Paper Series v::y:2020:i::id:114, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Cousineau, Martin & Verter, Vedat & Murphy, Susan A. & Pineau, Joelle, 2023. "Estimating causal effects with optimization-based methods: A review and empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 367-380.
    6. Jason J. Sauppe & Sheldon H. Jacobson & Edward C. Sewell, 2014. "Complexity and Approximation Results for the Balance Optimization Subset Selection Model for Causal Inference in Observational Studies," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 547-566, August.
    7. Hugo Bodory & Lorenzo Camponovo & Martin Huber & Michael Lechner, 2020. "The Finite Sample Performance of Inference Methods for Propensity Score Matching and Weighting Estimators," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 183-200, January.
    8. Adeola Oyenubi, 2020. "A note on Covariate Balancing Propensity Score and Instrument-like variables," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(1), pages 202-209.
    9. Seonho Shin, 2022. "Evaluating the Effect of the Matching Grant Program for Refugees: An Observational Study Using Matching, Weighting, and the Mantel-Haenszel Test," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 103-133, March.
    10. Martin Huber, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," Papers 1910.00641, arXiv.org.
    11. Martin Cousineau & Vedat Verter & Susan A. Murphy & Joelle Pineau, 2022. "Estimating causal effects with optimization-based methods: A review and empirical comparison," Papers 2203.00097, arXiv.org.
    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. Bensch, Gunther & Kluve, Jochen & Stöterau, Jonathan, 2021. "The market-based dissemination of energy-access technologies as a business model for rural entrepreneurs: Evidence from Kenya," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    14. Margaret E. Roberts & Brandon M. Stewart & Richard A. Nielsen, 2020. "Adjusting for Confounding with Text Matching," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 887-903, October.
    15. Tübbicke Stefan, 2022. "Entropy Balancing for Continuous Treatments," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 71-89, January.
    16. Jones, Andrew M. & Rice, Nigel & Zantomio, Francesca, 2020. "Acute health shocks and labour market outcomes: Evidence from the post crash era," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    17. Jones, A.M.; & Pastore, C.; & Rice, N.;, 2018. "Tracking pupils into adulthood: selective schools and long-term well-being in the 1958 British cohort," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 18/32, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    18. Anthony Strittmatter & Conny Wunsch, 2025. "Labor market sorting and the gender pay gap revisited," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 38(3), pages 1-41, September.
    19. Cao, Hung & Phan, Hieu V. & Silveri, Sabatino, 2024. "Data breach disclosures and stock price crash risk: Evidence from data breach notification laws," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    20. Yimin Dai & Ying Yan, 2024. "Mahalanobis balancing: A multivariate perspective on approximate covariate balancing," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1450-1471, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:rza:ersawp:v::y:2020:i::id:86. 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: Maggi Sigg (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersawps.org/index.php/working-paper-series/ .

    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.