Nonparametric identification is not enough, but randomized controlled trials are
arXiv:2108.11342
Abstract
We argue that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are special even among settings where average treatment effects are identified by a nonparametric unconfoundedness assumption. This claim follows from two results of Robins and Ritov (1997): (1) with at least one continuous covariate control, no estimator of the average treatment effect exists which is uniformly consistent without further assumptions, (2) knowledge of the propensity score yields a uniformly consistent estimator and honest confidence intervals that shrink at parametric rates with increasing sample size, regardless of how complicated the propensity score function is. We emphasize the latter point, and note that successfully-conducted RCTs provide knowledge of the propensity score to the researcher. We discuss modern developments in covariate adjustment for RCTs, noting that statistical models and machine learning methods can be used to improve efficiency while preserving finite sample unbiasedness. We conclude that statistical inference has the potential to be fundamentally more difficult in observational settings than it is in RCTs, even when all confounders are measured.
References in corpus (8)
- Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data: Reexamining Freedman's critique
- Robust Inference on Average Treatment Effects with Possibly More Covariates than Observations
- Finite-Sample Optimal Estimation and Inference on Average Treatment Effects Under Unconfoundedness
- Adaptive confidence intervals for regression functions under shape constraints
- The Bayesian Analysis of Complex, High-Dimensional Models: Can It Be CODA?
- What can be estimated? Identifiability, estimability, causal inference and ill-posed inverse problems
- A Unified Theory of Regression Adjustment for Design-based Inference
- Randomization does not imply unconfoundedness