Search for: All records

Abstract Assessing sensitivity to unmeasured confounding is an important step in observational studies, which typically estimate effects under the assumption that all confounders are measured. In this paper, we develop a sensitivity analysis framework for balancing weights estimators, an increasingly popular approach that solves an optimization problem to obtain weights that directly minimizes covariate imbalance. In particular, we adapt a sensitivity analysis framework using the percentile bootstrap for a broad class of balancing weights estimators. We prove that the percentile bootstrap procedure can, with only minor modifications, yield valid confidence intervals for causal effects under restrictions on the level of unmeasured confounding. We also propose an amplification—a mapping from a one-dimensional sensitivity analysis to a higher dimensional sensitivity analysis—to allow for interpretable sensitivity parameters in the balancing weights framework. We illustrate our method through extensive real data examples. 

In multisite trials, learning about treatment effect variation across sites is critical for understanding where and for whom a program works. Unadjusted comparisons, however, capture “compositional” differences in the distributions of unit-level features as well as “contextual” differences in site-level features, including possible differences in program implementation. Our goal in this article is to adjust site-level estimates for differences in the distribution of observed unit-level features: If we can reweight (or “transport”) each site to have a common distribution of observed unit-level covariates, the remaining treatment effect variation captures contextual and unobserved compositional differences across sites. This allows us to make apples-to-apples comparisons across sites, parceling out the amount of cross-site effect variation explained by systematic differences in populations served. In this article, we develop a framework for transporting effects using approximate balancing weights, where the weights are chosen to directly optimize unit-level covariate balance between each site and the common target distribution. We first develop our approach for the general setting of transporting the effect of a single-site trial. We then extend our method to multisite trials, assess its performance via simulation, and use it to analyze a series of multisite trials of adult education and vocational training programs. In our application, we find that distributional differences are potentially masking cross-site variation. Our method is available in the balancer R package. 

U.S. elections rely heavily on computers such as voter registration databases, electronic pollbooks, voting machines, scanners, tabulators, and results reporting websites. These introduce digital threats to election outcomes. Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) mitigate threats to some of these systems by manually inspecting random samples of ballot cards. RLAs have a large chance of correcting wrong outcomes (by conducting a full manual tabulation of a trustworthy record of the votes), but can save labor when reported outcomes are correct. This efficiency is eroded when sampling cannot be targeted to ballot cards that contain the contest(s) under audit. If the sample is drawn from all cast cards, then RLA sample sizes scale like the reciprocal of the fraction of ballot cards that contain the contest(s) under audit. That fraction shrinks as the number of cards per ballot grows (i.e., when elections contain more contests) and as the fraction of ballots that contain the contest decreases (i.e., when a smaller percentage of voters are eligible to vote in the contest). States that conduct RLAs of contests on multi-card ballots or RLAs of small contests can dramatically reduce sample sizes by using information about which ballot cards contain which contests—by keeping track of card-style data (CSD). For instance, CSD reduce the expected number of draws needed to audit a single countywide contest on a 4-card ballot by 75%. Similarly, CSD reduce the expected number of draws by 95% or more for an audit of two contests with the same margin on a 4-card ballot if one contest is on every ballot and the other is on 10% of ballots. In realistic examples, the savings can be several orders of magnitude.