arXiv subjects

Donald Rubin

Publications and source records attributed to Donald Rubin.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2020

Contrast Specific Propensity Scores

Basic propensity score methodology is designed to balance multivariate pre-treatment covariates when comparing one active treatment with one control treatment. Practical settings often involve comparing more than two treatments, where more complicated contrasts than the basic treatment-control one,(1,-1), are relevant. Here, we propose the use of contrast-specific propensity scores (CSPS). CSPS allow the creation of treatment groups of units that are balanced with respect to bifurcations of the specified contrasts and the multivariate space spanned by them.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2018

Sequential rerandomization

The seminal work of Morgan and Rubin (2012) considers rerandomization for all the units at one time. In practice, however, experimenters may have to rerandomize units sequentially. For example, a clinician studying a rare disease may be unable to wait to perform an experiment until all the experimental units are recruited. Our work offers a mathematical framework for sequential rerandomization designs, where the experimental units are enrolled in groups. We formulate an adaptive rerandomization procedure for balancing treatment/control assignments over some continuous or binary covariates, using Mahalanobis distance as the imbalance measure. We prove in our key result, Theorem 3, that given the same number of rerandomizations (in expected value), under certain mild assumptions, sequential rerandomization achieves better covariate balance than rerandomization at one time.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2018

Diagnosing missing always at random in multivariate data

Models for analyzing multivariate data sets with missing values require strong, often unassessable, assumptions. The most common of these is that the mechanism that created the missing data is ignorable - a twofold assumption dependent on the mode of inference. The first part, which is the focus here, under the Bayesian and direct-likelihood paradigms, requires that the missing data are missing at random; in contrast, the frequentist-likelihood paradigm demands that the missing data mechanism always produces missing at random data, a condition known as missing always at random. Under certain regularity conditions, assuming missing always at random leads to an assumption that can be tested using the observed data alone namely, the missing data indicators only depend on fully observed variables. Here, we propose three different diagnostic tests that not only indicate when this assumption is incorrect but also suggest which variables are the most likely culprits. Although missing always at random is not a necessary condition to ensure validity under the Bayesian and direct-likelihood paradigms, it is sufficient, and evidence for its violation should encourage the careful statistician to conduct targeted sensitivity analyses.

stat.AP↗