4.5 Article

Significance test for semiparametric conditional average treatment effects and other structural functions

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2023.107839

关键词

Treatment effect heterogeneity; Neyman orthogonality; Precision medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper investigates hypothesis testing regarding the potential additional contributions of other covariates to the structural function, given the known covariates. The proposed distance-based test, based on Neyman's orthogonality condition, effectively detects local alternatives and is robust to the influence of nuisance functions. Numerical studies and real data analysis demonstrate the importance of this test in exploring covariates associated with AIDS treatment effects.
The paper investigates a hypothesis testing problem concerning the potential additional contributions of other covariates to the structural function, given the known covariates. The structural function is the conditional expectation given covariates in which the response may depend on unknown nuisance functions. It includes classic regression functions and the conditional average treatment effects as illustrative instances. Based on Neyman's orthogonality condition, the proposed distance-based test exhibits the quasioracle property in the sense that the nuisance function asymptotically does not influence on the limiting distributions of the test statistic under both the null and alternatives. This novel test can effectively detect the local alternatives distinct from the null at the fastest possible rate in hypothesis testing. This is particularly noteworthy given the involvement of nonparametric estimation of the conditional expectation. Numerical studies are conducted to examine the performance of the test. In the real data analysis section, the proposed tests are applied to identify significantly explanatory covariates that are associated with AIDS treatment effects, yielding noteworthy insights. (c) 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据