Showing 1–13 of 13 results for author: Zhao, A

Covariate adjustment in randomized experiments with missing outcomes and covariates

Authors: Anqi Zhao, Peng Ding, Fan Li

Abstract: Covariate adjustment can improve precision in analyzing randomized experiments. With fully observed data, regression adjustment and propensity score weighting are asymptotically equivalent in improving efficiency over unadjusted analysis. When some outcomes are missing, we consider combining these two adjustment methods with inverse probability of observation weighting for handling missing outcome… ▽ More Covariate adjustment can improve precision in analyzing randomized experiments. With fully observed data, regression adjustment and propensity score weighting are asymptotically equivalent in improving efficiency over unadjusted analysis. When some outcomes are missing, we consider combining these two adjustment methods with inverse probability of observation weighting for handling missing outcomes, and show that the equivalence between the two methods breaks down. Regression adjustment no longer ensures efficiency gain over unadjusted analysis unless the true outcome model is linear in covariates or the outcomes are missing completely at random. Propensity score weighting, in contrast, still guarantees efficiency over unadjusted analysis, and including more covariates in adjustment never harms asymptotic efficiency. Moreover, we establish the value of using partially observed covariates to secure additional efficiency by the missingness indicator method, which imputes all missing covariates by zero and uses the union of the completed covariates and corresponding missingness indicators as the new, fully observed covariates. Based on these findings, we recommend using regression adjustment in combination with the missingness indicator method if the linear outcome model or missing complete at random assumption is plausible and using propensity score weighting with the missingness indicator method otherwise. △ Less

Submitted 4 March, 2024; v1 submitted 17 November, 2023; originally announced November 2023.

A randomization-based theory for preliminary testing of covariate balance in controlled trials

Authors: Anqi Zhao, Peng Ding

Abstract: Randomized trials balance all covariates on average and provide the gold standard for estimating treatment effects. Chance imbalances nevertheless exist more or less in realized treatment allocations and intrigue an important question: what should we do in case the treatment groups differ with respect to some important baseline characteristics? A common strategy is to conduct a {\it preliminary te… ▽ More Randomized trials balance all covariates on average and provide the gold standard for estimating treatment effects. Chance imbalances nevertheless exist more or less in realized treatment allocations and intrigue an important question: what should we do in case the treatment groups differ with respect to some important baseline characteristics? A common strategy is to conduct a {\it preliminary test} of the balance of baseline covariates after randomization, and invoke covariate adjustment for subsequent inference if and only if the realized allocation fails some prespecified criterion. Although such practice is intuitive and popular among practitioners, the existing literature has so far only evaluated its properties under strong parametric model assumptions in theory and simulation, yielding results of limited generality. To fill this gap, we examine two strategies for conducting preliminary test-based covariate adjustment by regression, and evaluate the validity and efficiency of the resulting inferences from the randomization-based perspective. As it turns out, the preliminary-test estimator based on the analysis of covariance can be even less efficient than the unadjusted difference in means, and risks anticonservative confidence intervals based on normal approximation even with the robust standard error. The preliminary-test estimator based on the fully interacted specification is on the other hand less efficient than its counterpart under the {\it always-adjust} strategy, and yields overconservative confidence intervals based on normal approximation. Based on theory and simulation, we echo the existing literature and do not recommend the preliminary-test procedure for covariate adjustment in randomized trials. △ Less

Submitted 16 July, 2023; originally announced July 2023.

Rerandomization and covariate adjustment in split-plot designs

Authors: Wenqi Shi, Anqi Zhao, Hanzhong Liu

Abstract: The split-plot design arises from agricultural sciences with experimental units, also known as subplots, nested within groups known as whole plots. It assigns the whole-plot intervention by a cluster randomization at the whole-plot level and assigns the subplot intervention by a stratified randomization at the subplot level. The randomization mechanism guarantees covariate balance on average at bo… ▽ More The split-plot design arises from agricultural sciences with experimental units, also known as subplots, nested within groups known as whole plots. It assigns the whole-plot intervention by a cluster randomization at the whole-plot level and assigns the subplot intervention by a stratified randomization at the subplot level. The randomization mechanism guarantees covariate balance on average at both the whole-plot and subplot levels, and ensures consistent inference of the average treatment effects by the Horvitz--Thompson and Hajek estimators. However, covariate imbalance often occurs in finite samples and subjects subsequent inference to possibly large variability and conditional bias. Rerandomization is widely used in the design stage of randomized experiments to improve covariate balance. The existing literature on rerandomization nevertheless focuses on designs with treatments assigned at either the unit or the group level, but not both, leaving the corresponding theory for rerandomization in split-plot designs an open problem. To fill the gap, we propose two strategies for conducting rerandomization in split-plot designs based on the Mahalanobis distance and establish the corresponding design-based theory. We show that rerandomization can improve the asymptotic efficiency of the Horvitz--Thompson and Hajek estimators. Moreover, we propose two covariate adjustment methods in the analysis stage, which can further improve the asymptotic efficiency when combined with rerandomization. The validity and improved efficiency of the proposed methods are demonstrated through numerical studies. △ Less

Submitted 25 September, 2022; originally announced September 2022.

Covariate adjustment in multi-armed, possibly factorial experiments

Authors: Anqi Zhao, Peng Ding

Abstract: Randomized experiments are the gold standard for causal inference, and justify simple comparisons across treatment groups. Regression adjustment provides a convenient way to incorporate covariate information for additional efficiency. This article provides a unified account of its utility for improving estimation efficiency in multi-armed experiments. We start with the commonly used additive and f… ▽ More Randomized experiments are the gold standard for causal inference, and justify simple comparisons across treatment groups. Regression adjustment provides a convenient way to incorporate covariate information for additional efficiency. This article provides a unified account of its utility for improving estimation efficiency in multi-armed experiments. We start with the commonly used additive and fully interacted models for regression adjustment, and clarify the trade-offs between the resulting ordinary least-squares (OLS) estimators for estimating average treatment effects in terms of finite-sample performance and asymptotic efficiency. We then move on to regression adjustment based on restricted least squares (RLS), and establish for the first time its properties for inferring average treatment effects from the design-based perspective. The resulting inference has multiple guarantees. First, it is asymptotically efficient when the restriction is correctly specified. Second, it remains consistent as long as the restriction on the coefficients of the treatment indicators, if any, is correctly specified and separate from that on the coefficients of the treatment-covariates interactions. Third, it can have better finite-sample performance than its unrestricted counterpart even if the restriction is moderately misspecified. It is thus our recommendation for covariate adjustment in multi-armed experiments when the OLS fit of the fully interacted regression risks large finite-sample variability in case of many covariates, many treatments, yet a moderate sample size. In addition, the proposed theory of RLS also provides a powerful tool for studying OLS-based inference from general regression specifications. As an illustration, we demonstrate its unique value for studying OLS-based regression adjustment in factorial experiments via both theory and simulation. △ Less

Submitted 23 October, 2022; v1 submitted 20 December, 2021; originally announced December 2021.

Comments: to appear in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B

No star is good news: A unified look at rerandomization based on $p$-values from covariate balance tests

Authors: Anqi Zhao, Peng Ding

Abstract: Modern social and biomedical scientific publications require the reporting of covariate balance tables with not only covariate means by treatment group but also the associated $p$-values from significance tests of their differences. The practical need to avoid small $p$-values renders balance check and rerandomization by hypothesis testing standards an attractive tool for improving covariate balan… ▽ More Modern social and biomedical scientific publications require the reporting of covariate balance tables with not only covariate means by treatment group but also the associated $p$-values from significance tests of their differences. The practical need to avoid small $p$-values renders balance check and rerandomization by hypothesis testing standards an attractive tool for improving covariate balance in randomized experiments. Despite the intuitiveness of such practice and its arguably already widespread use in reality, the existing literature knows little about its implications on subsequent inference, subjecting many effectively rerandomized experiments to possibly inefficient analyses. To fill this gap, we examine a variety of potentially useful schemes for rerandomization based on $p$-values (ReP) from covariate balance tests, and demonstrate their impact on subsequent inference. Specifically, we focus on three estimators of the average treatment effect from the unadjusted, additive, and fully interacted linear regressions of the outcome on treatment, respectively, and derive their respective asymptotic sampling properties under ReP. The main findings are twofold. First, the estimator from the fully interacted regression is asymptotically the most efficient under all ReP schemes examined, and permits convenient regression-assisted inference identical to that under complete randomization. Second, ReP improves not only covariate balance but also the efficiency of the estimators from the unadjusted and additive regressions asymptotically. The standard regression analysis, in consequence, is still valid but can be overly conservative. △ Less

Submitted 3 June, 2023; v1 submitted 20 December, 2021; originally announced December 2021.

To adjust or not to adjust? Estimating the average treatment effect in randomized experiments with missing covariates

Authors: Anqi Zhao, Peng Ding

Abstract: Complete randomization allows for consistent estimation of the average treatment effect based on the difference in means of the outcomes without strong modeling assumptions on the outcome-generating process. Appropriate use of the pretreatment covariates can further improve the estimation efficiency. However, missingness in covariates is common in experiments and raises an important question: shou… ▽ More Complete randomization allows for consistent estimation of the average treatment effect based on the difference in means of the outcomes without strong modeling assumptions on the outcome-generating process. Appropriate use of the pretreatment covariates can further improve the estimation efficiency. However, missingness in covariates is common in experiments and raises an important question: should we adjust for covariates subject to missingness, and if so, how? The unadjusted difference in means is always unbiased. The complete-covariate analysis adjusts for all completely observed covariates and improves the efficiency of the difference in means if at least one completely observed covariate is predictive of the outcome. Then what is the additional gain of adjusting for covariates subject to missingness? A key insight is that the missingness indicators act as fully observed pretreatment covariates as long as missingness is not affected by the treatment, and can thus be used in covariate adjustment to bring additional estimation efficiency. This motivates adding the missingness indicators to the regression adjustment, yielding the missingness-indicator method as a well-known but not so popular strategy in the literature of missing data. We recommend it due to its many advantages. We also propose modifications to the missingness-indicator method based on asymptotic and finite-sample considerations. To reconcile the conflicting recommendations in the missing data literature, we analyze and compare various strategies for analyzing randomized experiments with missing covariates under the design-based framework. This framework treats randomization as the basis for inference and does not impose any modeling assumptions on the outcome-generating process and missing-data mechanism. △ Less

Submitted 31 July, 2021; originally announced August 2021.

Reconciling design-based and model-based causal inferences for split-plot experiments

Authors: Anqi Zhao, Peng Ding

Abstract: The split-plot design assigns different interventions at the whole-plot and sub-plot levels, respectively, and induces a group structure on the final treatment assignments. A common strategy is to use the OLS fit of the outcome on the treatment indicators coupled with the robust standard errors clustered at the whole-plot level. It does not give consistent estimator for the causal effects of inter… ▽ More The split-plot design assigns different interventions at the whole-plot and sub-plot levels, respectively, and induces a group structure on the final treatment assignments. A common strategy is to use the OLS fit of the outcome on the treatment indicators coupled with the robust standard errors clustered at the whole-plot level. It does not give consistent estimator for the causal effects of interest when the whole-plot sizes vary. Another common strategy is to fit the linear mixed-effects model of the outcome with Normal random effects and errors. It is a purely model-based approach and can be sensitive to violations of parametric assumptions. In contrast, the design-based inference assumes no outcome models and relies solely on the controllable randomization mechanism determined by the physical experiment. We first extend the existing design-based inference based on the {\htf} estimator to the Hajek estimator, and establish the finite-population central limit theorem for both under split-plot randomization. We then reconcile the results with those under the model-based approach, and propose two regression strategies, namely (i) the WLS fit of the unit-level data based on the inverse probability weighting and (ii) the OLS fit of the aggregate data based on whole-plot total outcomes, to reproduce the Hajek and {\htf} estimators from least squares, respectively. This, together with the asymptotic conservativeness of the corresponding cluster-robust covariances for estimating the true design-based covariances as we establish in the process, justifies the validity of regression-based estimators for design-based inference. In light of the flexibility of regression formulation with covariate adjustment, we further extend the theory to the case with covariates and demonstrate the efficiency gain by regression-based covariate adjustment via both asymptotic theory and simulation. △ Less

Submitted 22 October, 2021; v1 submitted 3 May, 2021; originally announced May 2021.

Regression-based causal inference with factorial experiments: estimands, model specifications, and design-based properties

Authors: Anqi Zhao, Peng Ding

Abstract: Factorial designs are widely used due to their ability to accommodate multiple factors simultaneously. The factor-based regression with main effects and some interactions is the dominant strategy for downstream data analysis, delivering point estimators and standard errors via one single regression. Justification of these convenient estimators from the design-based perspective requires quantifying… ▽ More Factorial designs are widely used due to their ability to accommodate multiple factors simultaneously. The factor-based regression with main effects and some interactions is the dominant strategy for downstream data analysis, delivering point estimators and standard errors via one single regression. Justification of these convenient estimators from the design-based perspective requires quantifying their sampling properties under the assignment mechanism conditioning on the potential outcomes. To this end, we derive the sampling properties of the factor-based regression estimators from both saturated and unsaturated models, and demonstrate the appropriateness of the robust standard errors for the Wald-type inference. We then quantify the bias-variance trade-off between the saturated and unsaturated models from the design-based perspective, and establish a novel design-based Gauss--Markov theorem that ensures the latter's gain in efficiency when the nuisance effects omitted indeed do not exist. As a byproduct of the process, we unify the definitions of factorial effects in various literatures and propose a location-shift strategy for their direct estimation from factor-based regressions. Our theory and simulation suggest using factor-based inference for general factorial effects, preferably with parsimonious specifications in accordance with the prior knowledge of zero nuisance effects. △ Less

Submitted 8 December, 2021; v1 submitted 7 January, 2021; originally announced January 2021.

Covariate-adjusted Fisher randomization tests for the average treatment effect

Authors: Anqi Zhao, Peng Ding

Abstract: Fisher's randomization test (FRT) delivers exact $p$-values under the strong null hypothesis of no treatment effect on any units whatsoever and allows for flexible covariate adjustment to improve the power. Of interest is whether the procedure could also be valid for testing the weak null hypothesis of zero average treatment effect. Towards this end, we evaluate two general strategies for FRT with… ▽ More Fisher's randomization test (FRT) delivers exact $p$-values under the strong null hypothesis of no treatment effect on any units whatsoever and allows for flexible covariate adjustment to improve the power. Of interest is whether the procedure could also be valid for testing the weak null hypothesis of zero average treatment effect. Towards this end, we evaluate two general strategies for FRT with covariate-adjusted test statistics: that based on the residuals from an outcome model with only the covariates, and that based on the output from an outcome model with both the treatment and the covariates. Based on theory and simulation, we recommend using the ordinary least squares (OLS) fit of the observed outcome on the treatment, centered covariates, and their interactions for covariate adjustment, and conducting FRT with the robust $t$-value of the treatment as the test statistic. The resulting FRT is finite-sample exact for the strong null hypothesis, asymptotically valid for the weak null hypothesis, and more powerful than the unadjusted analog under alternatives, all irrespective of whether the linear model is correctly specified or not. We develop the theory for complete randomization, cluster randomization, stratified randomization, and rerandomization, respectively, and give a recommendation for the test procedure and test statistic under each design. We first focus on the finite-population perspective and then extend the result to the super-population perspective, highlighting the difference in standard errors. Motivated by the similarity in procedure, we also evaluate the design-based properties of five existing permutation tests originally for linear models and show the superiority of the proposed FRT for testing the treatment effects. △ Less

Submitted 29 April, 2021; v1 submitted 27 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Learning to Search via Retrospective Imitation

Authors: Jialin Song, Ravi Lanka, Albert Zhao, Aadyot Bhatnagar, Yisong Yue, Masahiro Ono

Abstract: We study the problem of learning a good search policy for combinatorial search spaces. We propose retrospective imitation learning, which, after initial training by an expert, improves itself by learning from \textit{retrospective inspections} of its own roll-outs. That is, when the policy eventually reaches a feasible solution in a combinatorial search tree after making mistakes and backtracks, i… ▽ More We study the problem of learning a good search policy for combinatorial search spaces. We propose retrospective imitation learning, which, after initial training by an expert, improves itself by learning from \textit{retrospective inspections} of its own roll-outs. That is, when the policy eventually reaches a feasible solution in a combinatorial search tree after making mistakes and backtracks, it retrospectively constructs an improved search trace to the solution by removing backtracks, which is then used to further train the policy. A key feature of our approach is that it can iteratively scale up, or transfer, to larger problem sizes than those solved by the initial expert demonstrations, thus dramatically expanding its applicability beyond that of conventional imitation learning. We showcase the effectiveness of our approach on a range of tasks, including synthetic maze solving and combinatorial problems expressed as integer programs. △ Less

Submitted 23 June, 2019; v1 submitted 3 April, 2018; originally announced April 2018.

MSIQ: Joint Modeling of Multiple RNA-seq Samples for Accurate Isoform Quantification

Authors: Wei Vivian Li, Anqi Zhao, Shihua Zhang, **gyi Jessica Li

Abstract: Next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) technology has been widely used to assess full-length RNA isoform abundance in a high-throughput manner. RNA-seq data offer insight into gene expression levels and transcriptome structures, enabling us to better understand the regulation of gene expression and fundamental biological processes. Accurate isoform quantification from RNA-seq data is challenging… ▽ More Next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) technology has been widely used to assess full-length RNA isoform abundance in a high-throughput manner. RNA-seq data offer insight into gene expression levels and transcriptome structures, enabling us to better understand the regulation of gene expression and fundamental biological processes. Accurate isoform quantification from RNA-seq data is challenging due to the information loss in sequencing experiments. A recent accumulation of multiple RNA-seq data sets from the same tissue or cell type provides new opportunities to improve the accuracy of isoform quantification. However, existing statistical or computational methods for multiple RNA-seq samples either pool the samples into one sample or assign equal weights to the samples when estimating isoform abundance. These methods ignore the possible heterogeneity in the quality of different samples and could result in biased and unrobust estimates. In this article, we develop a method, which we call "joint modeling of multiple RNA-seq samples for accurate isoform quantification" (MSIQ), for more accurate and robust isoform quantification by integrating multiple RNA-seq samples under a Bayesian framework. Our method aims to (1) identify a consistent group of samples with homogeneous quality and (2) improve isoform quantification accuracy by jointly modeling multiple RNA-seq samples by allowing for higher weights on the consistent group. We show that MSIQ provides a consistent estimator of isoform abundance, and we demonstrate the accuracy and effectiveness of MSIQ compared with alternative methods through simulation studies on D. melanogaster genes. We justify MSIQ's advantages over existing approaches via application studies on real RNA-seq data from human embryonic stem cells, brain tissues, and the HepG2 immortalized cell line. △ Less

Submitted 2 December, 2017; v1 submitted 18 March, 2016; originally announced March 2016.

MSC Class: 97K80; 47N30

Journal ref: Ann. Appl. Stat. 12(1) (2018) 510-539

Randomization-Based Causal Inference from Unbalanced 2^2 Split-Plot Designs

Authors: Anqi Zhao, Peng Ding, Tirthankar Dasgupta

Abstract: Given two 2-level factors of interest, a 2^2 split-plot design} (a) takes each of the $2^2=4$ possible factorial combinations as a treatment, (b) identifies one factor as `whole-plot,' (c) divides the experimental units into blocks, and (d) assigns the treatments in such a way that all units within the same block receive the same level of the whole-plot factor. Assuming the potential outcomes fr… ▽ More Given two 2-level factors of interest, a 2^2 split-plot design} (a) takes each of the $2^2=4$ possible factorial combinations as a treatment, (b) identifies one factor as `whole-plot,' (c) divides the experimental units into blocks, and (d) assigns the treatments in such a way that all units within the same block receive the same level of the whole-plot factor. Assuming the potential outcomes framework, we propose in this paper a randomization-based estimation procedure for causal inference from 2^2 designs that are not necessarily balanced. Sampling variances of the point estimates are derived in closed form as linear combinations of the between- and within-block covariances of the potential outcomes. Results are compared to those under complete randomization as measures of design efficiency. Interval estimates are constructed based on conservative estimates of the sampling variances, and the frequency coverage properties evaluated via simulation. Asymptotic connections of the proposed approach to the model-based super-population inference are also established. Superiority over existing model-based alternatives is reported under a variety of settings for both binary and continuous outcomes. △ Less

Submitted 11 February, 2016; originally announced February 2016.

Neyman-Pearson Classification under High-Dimensional Settings

Authors: Anqi Zhao, Yang Feng, Lie Wang, Xin Tong

Abstract: Most existing binary classification methods target on the optimization of the overall classification risk and may fail to serve some real-world applications such as cancer diagnosis, where users are more concerned with the risk of misclassifying one specific class than the other. Neyman-Pearson (NP) paradigm was introduced in this context as a novel statistical framework for handling asymmetric ty… ▽ More Most existing binary classification methods target on the optimization of the overall classification risk and may fail to serve some real-world applications such as cancer diagnosis, where users are more concerned with the risk of misclassifying one specific class than the other. Neyman-Pearson (NP) paradigm was introduced in this context as a novel statistical framework for handling asymmetric type I/II error priorities. It seeks classifiers with a minimal type II error and a constrained type I error under a user specified level. This article is the first attempt to construct classifiers with guaranteed theoretical performance under the NP paradigm in high-dimensional settings. Based on the fundamental Neyman-Pearson Lemma, we used a plug-in approach to construct NP-type classifiers for Naive Bayes models. The proposed classifiers satisfy the NP oracle inequalities, which are natural NP paradigm counterparts of the oracle inequalities in classical binary classification. Besides their desirable theoretical properties, we also demonstrated their numerical advantages in prioritized error control via both simulation and real data studies. △ Less

Submitted 14 August, 2015; v1 submitted 12 August, 2015; originally announced August 2015.

Comments: 33 pages, 2 figures