Ask any question about EPFL courses, lectures, exercises, research, news, etc. or try the example questions below.
DISCLAIMER: The Graph Chatbot is not programmed to provide explicit or categorical answers to your questions. Rather, it transforms your questions into API requests that are distributed across the various IT services officially administered by EPFL. Its purpose is solely to collect and recommend relevant references to content that you can explore to help you answer your questions.
In causal inference the effect of confounding may be controlled using regression adjustment in an outcome model, propensity score adjustment, inverse probability of treatment weighting or a combination of these. Approaches based on modelling the treatment assignment mechanism, along with their doubly robust extensions, have been difficult to motivate using formal likelihood-based or Bayesian arguments, as the treatment assignment model plays no part in inferences concerning the expected outcomes. On the other hand, forcing dependency between the outcome and treatment assignment models by allowing the former to be misspecified results in loss of the balancing property of the propensity scores and the loss of any double robustness. In this paper, we explain in the framework of misspecified models why doubly robust inferences cannot arise from purely likelihood-based arguments. As an alternative to Bayesian propensity score analysis, we propose a Bayesian posterior predictive method for constructing doubly robust estimation procedures by incorporating the inverse treatment assignment probabilities as importance sampling weights in Monte Carlo integration.
Julien René Fageot, Matthieu Martin Jean-André Simeoni, Sepand Kashani, Adrian Thibault Etienne Jarret, Joan Rue Queralt