Doubly robust estimation of causal effects for random object outcomes with continuous treatments

Bing Li; Lingzhou Xue; Satarupa Bhattacharjee; Xiao Wu

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Doubly robust estimation of causal effects for random object outcomes with continuous treatments

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that continuous-treatment causal effects on distribution-valued outcomes can be estimated by a doubly robust cross-fitted estimator built on Hilbert-space embeddings.

desk verdict A genuinely new setup for continuous-treatment causal inference with object-valued outcomes, but the main theorem is not verifiable as written: the estimator in (7) centers the kernel residual at the wrong argument, and the assumptions lack the rate conditions the CLT needs. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22754 v1 pith:EWJWJFKZ submitted 2025-06-28 stat.ME econ.EMmath.STstat.APstat.MLstat.TH

Satarupa Bhattacharjee , Bing Li , Xiao Wu , Lingzhou Xue This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.MEecon.EMmath.STstat.APstat.MLstat.TH MSC 62D2062G0862G20

keywords causalinferencecontinuoustreatmentsrandomobjectsFréchetregressiondoublyrobustestimationHilbertspaceembeddingsefficientinfluencefunctionsairpollutionandmortality

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes a doubly robust, cross-fitted estimator for the causal effect of a continuous treatment on a response that lives in a general metric space, such as a probability distribution, an image, a network, or a matrix. The target is the Fréchet exposure-dose function $\beta_t = \arg\min_y E[d^2_Y(Y_t, y)]$, the metric-space analogue of an average dose-response curve. The key move is to embed the outcome space into a Hilbert space by a known isometry $\rho$, so that $\beta_t = \rho^{-1}(E(\rho(Y_t)))$, and then estimate the Hilbert-space expectation from observed outcomes at the assigned treatment level. Under unconfoundedness, positivity, and smoothness assumptions, the paper proves $\sqrt{nh}(\hat\vartheta_{t,\mathrm{CF}} - \rho(\beta_t) - h^2 B_t) \to N(0, \Sigma_t)$, yielding confidence bands for the dose-response curve. The motivating application is the effect of long-term PM2.5 exposure on county-level age-at-death distributions across the United States.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is that a closed, convex Hilbert-space embedding commutes with Fréchet means: $E^\oplus(Y_t) = \rho^{-1}(E(\rho(Y_t)))$. The paper proves the needed property that the expectation of a Hilbert-space-valued random element lies in a closed convex set, so the abstract metric-space problem becomes a Hilbert-space regression problem. Estimation is carried by the efficient influence function for $E(\int w(s)V_s\,ds)$; writing the observed outcome as $V_T = \int V_s\,d\delta_T(s)$ separates the random function $V$ from the treatment $T$ and allows the influence function to be derived. The cross-fitted estimator $\hat\vartheta_{t;\mathrm{CF}}$ mimics the limiting form of this influence function with kernel weights $K_h(T_i-t)/\hat f_{T|X}(t|X_i)$ and an estimated outcome regression $\hat\gamma_l(t,X_i)$.

What would settle it

In a simulation with a known Fréchet exposure-dose function, such as Gaussian distributions under the Wasserstein metric, compute $\sqrt{nh}(\hat\vartheta_{t,\mathrm{CF}} - \rho(\beta_t) - h^2B_t)$ over many replications and compare its empirical distribution with the normal limit in Theorem 2; coverage far from nominal at the stated rate would falsify the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, when the outcome space $(\mathcal{Y}, d_Y)$ admits a known continuous injective isometry $\rho: \mathcal{Y} \to \mathcal{H}$ into a Hilbert space with $\rho(\mathcal{Y})$ closed and convex, the Fréchet exposure-dose function $\beta_t$ can be recovered as $\rho^{-1}(E(\rho(Y_t)))$ and estimated at the rate $\sqrt{nh}$ with a Gaussian limit. The estimator uses only the observed pair $(T, V_T)$ with $V_T = \rho(Y_T)$, not the entire potential-outcome curves. It combines a kernel-weighted inverse probability term with an outcome-regression term, and the main theorem states that, under Assumptions 1 through 8, the cross-fitted estimator satisfies $\sqrt{nh}(\hat\vartheta_{t,\mathrm{CF}} - \rho(\beta_t) - h^2 B_t) \xrightarrow{d} N(0,\Sigma_t)$, with explicit bias $B_t$ and variance $\Sigma_t$. If correct, this is the first doubly robust method for continuous treatments with random object outcomes, and it also yields finite-sample confidence regions for contrasts between treatment levels via the HulC construction.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the outcome space can be mapped by a known distance-preserving map into a Hilbert space whose image is closed and convex, so that the Fréchet mean can be pulled back from an ordinary expectation; without such a map the estimator has no defined target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If only the generalized propensity score or only the outcome regression is correct, but not necessarily both, the estimator remains consistent for $\rho(\beta_t)$.
Confidence bands for the Fréchet exposure-dose function and for contrasts $\Delta_{tt'}$ follow from the asymptotic normality in Theorem 2, with a finite-sample alternative supplied by the HulC construction.
The framework covers distributional outcomes under Wasserstein or Fisher–Rao metrics, SPD matrices and networks, compositional data, and Riemannian-manifold-valued outcomes, all of which admit Hilbert-space embeddings.
In the PM2.5 analysis, lower exposures are causally associated with left-shifted age-at-death distributions, and low-income counties with high Black population share show the largest apparent benefits.
For binary treatment the method connects to the existing BTROCIN literature, so the continuous-treatment theory unifies and extends that line of work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the same influence function could be adapted to estimate conditional Fréchet exposure-dose functions within subgroups, which would sharpen the heterogeneity analysis reported in Section 6.
Editorial inference: because the theorem identifies the bias term $h^2B_t$, practitioners could select an under-smoothed bandwidth so that confidence intervals are centered at the estimand rather than at the biased target.
Editorial inference: for outcome spaces that do not admit the required embedding, such as phylogenetic trees with the BHV or hyperbolic metric, an intrinsic analogue could be built from doubly robust estimates of $E[d_Y^2(Y_t,y)]$ for each $y$, as the conclusion suggests.
Editorial inference: a direct simulation study comparing empirical coverage of Theorem 2 confidence bands to nominal levels across sample sizes would tell practitioners when the asymptotic approximation becomes usable.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, this is the first paper I am aware of that tries doubly robust continuous-treatment causal inference for metric-space-valued outcomes, and the Dirac-measure device for deriving the influence function is genuinely clever. Second, as written, the central theorem is not backed by the stated assumptions, and the estimator in (7) appears not to match the influence function derived in Corollary 2. That makes the asymptotic normality claim unverifiable from the text.

The setup is clear and the authors know the relevant literature: Lin et al. for distributional outcomes with binary treatment, Kurisu et al. for geodesic spaces, Colangelo and Lee for continuous treatments in Euclidean settings. Embedding the metric space into a Hilbert space and estimating the Frechet mean via the embedded expectation is a sensible approach, and the PM2.5 application is a good motivating example. The HulC-based confidence intervals are a reasonable addition.

Now the soft spots. Equation (7) has gamma_hat(t, X_i) inside the kernel residual, i.e., the outcome regression evaluated at the target t, rather than gamma_hat(T_i, X_i). The efficient influence function in Corollary 2 centers the residual at E(V_T | X, T), evaluated at the observed T_i. With the current centering, the second term does not have zero conditional mean even with correctly specified nuisances; it introduces a bias of order h^2 that is not the standard local constant bias. Either this is a typo, in which case it needs to be fixed and the theorem restated, or the estimator is wrong. Relatedly, Theorem 2 states a CLT under Assumptions 1-8, but those assumptions contain no rate conditions linking h, n, and the nuisance errors, such as sqrt(nh) rho_gamma -> 0. Without such conditions the remainder need not vanish. The bias term B_t also appears to be missing the factor 1/2 that multiplies the second-derivative term in kernel smoothing. All of this sits on proofs that are relegated to an unavailable supplement, and there is no code or data.

The simulations do not address the causal estimand directly: they report leave-one-out MSE for observed outcomes and confidence band widths, but no coverage and no comparison of estimated rho(beta_t) to a known truth. The abstract promises conformal inference, but the paper only gives the asymptotic bands and the HulC method.

These are load-bearing issues, not cosmetic ones. The kernel centering mistake in (7) could be a typo, and the supplementary might prove a corrected estimator, but as submitted the central claim cannot be checked. Researchers working on causal inference for object data should read it with caution. A serious referee should see it because the question is timely and the Dirac-measure derivation is novel. My recommendation: send it to review, but instruct reviewers to verify the estimator against the EIF and to demand the missing rate conditions and the supplement. If those do not check out, the paper should not be accepted in anything close to current form.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a doubly robust estimator for the Fréchet exposure-dose function β_t = E⊕(Y_t) when the outcome Y is metric-space-valued, the treatment T is continuous, and unconfoundedness given X is assumed. The identification strategy embeds Y into a Hilbert space through a known isometry ρ, targets E(V_t) with V_t = ρ(Y_t), and then maps back via ρ^{-1}. Three estimators are presented: IPW, a doubly robust estimator, and a cross-fitted doubly debiased estimator. The central theoretical claim is Theorem 2, which asserts a sqrt(nh)-rate normal approximation with an h^2 bias correction for the cross-fitted estimator under Assumptions 1–8. The paper also constructs confidence regions using the HulC method and applies the method to county-level PM2.5 exposure and age-at-death distributions.

Significance. If the main theorem and the efficient-influence-function derivations are correct, this would be the first doubly robust method for continuous-treatment causal inference with random object outcomes, and the Hilbert-embedding device is a natural and broadly applicable route for distributional data, SPD matrices, and Riemannian manifold-valued outcomes. The paper is explicit about the scope limitation to metric spaces admitting a known, convex, closed Hilbert embedding, and it acknowledges excluded cases such as phylogenetic tree space. However, the central asymptotic result is not verifiable from the manuscript as submitted: the proof is deferred to an unavailable supplement, the theorem statement omits the necessary rate conditions, and there are internal inconsistencies between the derived influence function and the estimator actually analyzed. The promise of the framework justifies a major revision rather than rejection, but the inferential claims currently rest on unverified algebra.

major comments (4)

[Theorem 2, Section 4] The statement of Theorem 2 is not supported by Assumptions 1–8 as written. No rate condition on the bandwidth is stated beyond the informal 'h → 0' in Section 3.1; in particular, there is no condition such as h → 0, nh → ∞, and nh^5 → 0 that would make the h^2 B_t bias term negligible relative to (nh)^{-1/2}. There are also no product-rate conditions linking the nuisance errors ργ, ρf, α_n, ν_n to (nh)^{1/2}, which are standard for a cross-fitted kernel-based DML estimator; without conditions such as (nh)^{1/2}(ργ + ρf) → 0 and (nh)^{1/2}(α_n^2 + ν_n^2) → 0, the claimed o_P(1) remainder cannot follow. Because the proof is in an unavailable supplement, these missing conditions cannot be checked, and the confidence bands used in Sections 5 and 6 depend directly on this theorem.
[Equations (6)-(7) and Corollary 2] The estimator in (7) centers the residual at γ_l(t, X_i) in both the offset term and the kernel term, whereas the efficient influence function in Theorem 1 and Corollary 2 centers the kernel residual at E(V_T|X,T) evaluated at T_i, i.e., at γ(T_i, X_i), with the offset γ(t, X_i). The estimator in (6) uses yet another centering, writing the conditional expectation as E(V_T|X,T). These are not the same object, and replacing γ(T_i, X_i) by γ(t, X_i) or moving the GPS denominator between f(t|X_i) and f(T_i|X_i) introduces additional O(h) and O(h^2) terms that are not derived anywhere in the paper. The first-order representation in Theorem 2 therefore requires an unverified bias correction before the sqrt(nh) CLT can be accepted.
[Theorem 2, bias term B_t] The bias term in Theorem 2 is written as B_t = (∫u^2 k(u)du)[E(d^2γ(t,X)/dt^2) + E(dγ(t,X)/dt · (d f_{T|X}(t|X)/dt)/f_{T|X}(t|X))]. For a kernel-smoothed local moment of the type considered here, the leading bias is conventionally (h^2/2) μ_2 E[γ''(t,X) + 2γ'(t,X) f'(t|X)/f(t|X)] under the centering in Corollary 2. The stated formula omits the factor 1/2 and appears to omit a factor 2 on the log-density derivative. Since the theorem subtracts h^2 B_t in the CLT, an incorrect constant or derivative combination changes the asymptotic distribution and the resulting confidence bands. No derivation of B_t is given in the main text.
[Proposition 4, Section 3.2] Proposition 4 claims that E[hatϑ_{t,DR}] = ρ(β_t) exactly when either nuisance is correctly specified. As written, the estimator involves a bandwidth h that is later sent to zero, and the theorem itself introduces an h^2 B_t bias term. The proposition should therefore be qualified: double robustness can hold only up to the kernel bias, or in a limiting sense as h → 0. If the intended claim is exact unbiasedness for fixed h, it is incompatible with Theorem 2; if it is asymptotic, the statement should say so and the proof should identify the residual terms that vanish.

minor comments (6)

[Section 3, opening paragraph] The text says 'two estimators of the CITROCIN'; the acronym should be CTROCIN. Elsewhere, 'Brochner integral' should be 'Bochner integral', and there are several typos such as 'continouous' and 'SUTV A' in Section 2.
[Corollary 1] Condition 2 states that there exist c1 > 0 and c2 < 0 such that f_T(s) < c2, which is impossible for a probability density; this is likely intended to be a positive upper bound. Please correct the statement.
[Assumption 7] The norm notation ∥·∥_{2,P_X} is defined with the integrand weighted by f_{TX}(t,x), which is not the marginal measure P_X; either the notation or the definition should be aligned. Also, the assumption introduces γ_l(t,·) on the left-hand side but the target is γ_l(t,·), and the relation between these functions is unclear.
[Table 1] The caption says the data-generating mechanisms include outcome models '(A), (B), and (C)', but only settings (A) and (B) are defined in the text; the caption or the text should be corrected.
[Table 2 and Figure 4] Table 2 reports only confidence band widths, not empirical coverage; since the confidence bands are the main practical output of Theorem 2, coverage should be reported at the nominal level. Additionally, Figure 4's caption refers to a cyan region while the text describes a blue region; these should be harmonized.
[Section 6] The application uses L = 100 cross-fitting folds with n = 2392, giving about 24 observations per fold, while the GPS is estimated with 19 covariates. This is a practical stability concern that should be discussed, for example by also reporting results with a smaller L or repeated sample splitting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the influence-function construction and cross-fitted estimator are derived from the estimand rather than fitted to it; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The estimand β_t is defined independently as the Fréchet mean argmin_y E[d_Y^2(Y_t,y)], and the Hilbert-space identity ρ(E⊕(Y_t)) = E(ρ(Y_t)) is derived, not assumed, from Assumptions 2–3 via Proposition 1 on closed convex subsets of a Hilbert space. The moment function in Theorem 1 is obtained from semiparametric efficient influence function calculations for the observed-data model, and the doubly robust and cross-fitted estimators (6)–(7) are constructed to mimic that influence function; this is the standard non-circular logic. The asymptotic result in Theorem 2 is conditional on explicit regularity and rate assumptions (Assumptions 4–9), and no fitted parameter is subsequently relabeled as a prediction. The paper's self-citations, notably to Bhattacharjee et al. (2025) and Bhattacharjee & Müller (2023), are used only as candidate nuisance estimators that would satisfy Assumptions 7–8 if their rates hold; Theorem 2 does not reduce to those papers, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the estimator. Known limitations, such as the failure of Hilbert embedding for phylogenetic tree space with BHV or hyperbolic metric, are explicitly acknowledged in Section 7. The review concerns about missing bandwidth/product-rate conditions, possible bias constants, and the centering of residuals in Eq. (7) are correctness gaps in the stated proof, not circularity: they do not make the estimand equal to the input by construction. No circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework leans on standard causal assumptions (ignorability, positivity, SUTVA), a known isometric Hilbert embedding, and high-level nuisance convergence rates. The main added burden beyond prior continuous-treatment causal inference is the closed, convex embedding assumption, which restricts the outcome space.

free parameters (3)

bandwidth h = not reported for simulations or application
The kernel estimators in equations (3), (6), and (7) require a bandwidth h with h tending to 0; no data-driven selection rule or chosen value is stated in the main text.
number of cross-fitting folds L = L=100 in the application; unspecified in simulations
The estimator in equation (7) depends on L, and the theory does not specify how L should be chosen.
kernel k = not specified beyond Assumption 4
Any symmetric probability density satisfying Assumption 4 can be used; the choice affects finite-sample results but not the asymptotics.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Stable Unit Treatment Values Assumption (SUTVA)
Stated in Section 2; required so potential outcomes are well-defined and there is no interference.
domain assumption Ignorability: Y independent of T given X
Assumption 1 in Section 2; unverifiable in observational data and necessary for the IPW and DR moment conditions.
domain assumption Positivity and smoothness of the generalized propensity score f_T|X(t|x) >= c > 0
Assumption 5; required for IPW weights and for the efficient influence function to be well-defined.
domain assumption Known isometric Hilbert embedding rho with rho(Y) closed and convex
Assumptions 2 and 3 in Section 2.1; the key device beta_t = rho^{-1}(E(rho(Y_t))) fails without it. The authors note in Section 7 that tree space with the BHV metric does not fit.
domain assumption High-level convergence rates for nuisance estimators (Assumptions 6 through 8) and smoothness of treatment effect (Assumption 9)
These rate and smoothness conditions are needed for Theorem 2 but are not verified in the application.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Doubly robust estimation of causal effects for random object outcomes with continuous treatments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWJWJFKZ

@misc{pith2026250622754,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Doubly robust estimation of causal effects for random object outcomes with continuous treatments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWJWJFKZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22754}
}

read the original abstract

Causal inference is central to statistics and scientific discovery, enabling researchers to identify cause-and-effect relationships beyond associations. While traditionally studied within Euclidean spaces, contemporary applications increasingly involve complex, non-Euclidean data structures that reside in abstract metric spaces, known as random objects, such as images, shapes, networks, and distributions. This paper introduces a novel framework for causal inference with continuous treatments applied to non-Euclidean data. To address the challenges posed by the lack of linear structures, we leverage Hilbert space embeddings of the metric spaces to facilitate Fr\'echet mean estimation and causal effect mapping. Motivated by a study on the impact of exposure to fine particulate matter on age-at-death distributions across U.S. counties, we propose a nonparametric, doubly-debiased causal inference approach for outcomes as random objects with continuous treatments. Our framework can accommodate moderately high-dimensional vector-valued confounders and derive efficient influence functions for estimation to ensure both robustness and interpretability. We establish rigorous asymptotic properties of the cross-fitted estimators and employ conformal inference techniques for counterfactual outcome prediction. Validated through numerical experiments and applied to real-world environmental data, our framework extends causal inference methodologies to complex data structures, broadening its applicability across scientific disciplines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22754 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The left panel shows the changes in the density of the age-at-death distribution as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The panels show (clockwise) the changes in the density of the age-at-death distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Causal map for pairwise comparison between the treatment levels 5%, 50% and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The 95% pointwise confidence bands for four different socio-demographic groups [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Distance Profile Embedding for Independence and Conditional Independence Testing of Random Objects
stat.ME 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Random objects in arbitrary metric spaces are embedded as distance-profile functions, and HSIC/KCI-type tests on the embedded space yield independence and conditional-independence tests with analytic null asymptotics,...
Causal inference for group-contaminated structured outcomes: observable quotients, lossless reduction and exact randomization inference
stat.ME 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Under latent group contamination of structured outcomes, only orbit-invariant targets are identifiable, quotient reduction is lossless exactly when a parameter-free conditional law exists, and an exact quotient random...
Spectrum Aggregation for 6G: Lessons from 5G Carrier Aggregation and Dual Connectivity
cs.NI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

The paper recommends enhanced carrier aggregation as the preferred framework for 6G spectrum aggregation over dual connectivity due to better scalability and reduced fragmentation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

4 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

(2011), ‘Riemannian Lp center of mass: existence, uniqueness, and convexity’,Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 139(2), 655–673

Afsari, B. (2011), ‘Riemannian Lp center of mass: existence, uniqueness, and convexity’,Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 139(2), 655–673. Arsigny, V., Fillard, P., Pennec, X. & Ayache, N. (2007), ‘Geometric means in a novel vector space structure on symmetric positive-definite matrices’, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 29(...

arXiv 2011
[24]

K., Gretton, A., Fukumizu, K., Sch¨ olkopf, B

Sriperumbudur, B. K., Gretton, A., Fukumizu, K., Sch¨ olkopf, B. & Lanckriet, G. R. (2010), ‘Hilbert space embeddings and metrics on probability measures’, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11, 1517–1561. Sturm, K.-T. (2003), ‘Probability measures on metric spaces of nonpositive’, Heat Kernels and Analysis on Manifolds, Graphs, and Metric Spaces pp. 357—-390. Takatsu,...

work page 2010
[53]

(1958), ‘On the smoothing of probability density functions’, J

Whittle, P. (1958), ‘On the smoothing of probability density functions’, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 20(2), 334–343. Wu, X., Mealli, F., Kioumourtzoglou, M.-A., Dominici, F. & Braun, D. (2024), ‘Matching on generalized propensity scores with continuous exposures’, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 119, 757–772. Wu, X., Nethery, R. C., Sabath, M. B., Braun, D. & Dominici, F...

work page 1958
[688]

Rubin, D. B. (2005), ‘Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions’, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100(469), 322–331. Sch¨ otz, C. (2021), The Fr´ echet Mean and Statistics in Non-Euclidean Spaces, PhD thesis, Heidel- berg University. Sejdinovic, D., Gretton, A., Sriperumbudur, B. & Fukumizu, K. (2012), ‘Hypothesis testing using pairwise d...

arXiv 2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

(2011), ‘Riemannian Lp center of mass: existence, uniqueness, and convexity’,Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 139(2), 655–673

Afsari, B. (2011), ‘Riemannian Lp center of mass: existence, uniqueness, and convexity’,Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 139(2), 655–673. Arsigny, V., Fillard, P., Pennec, X. & Ayache, N. (2007), ‘Geometric means in a novel vector space structure on symmetric positive-definite matrices’, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 29(...

arXiv 2011

[2] [24]

K., Gretton, A., Fukumizu, K., Sch¨ olkopf, B

Sriperumbudur, B. K., Gretton, A., Fukumizu, K., Sch¨ olkopf, B. & Lanckriet, G. R. (2010), ‘Hilbert space embeddings and metrics on probability measures’, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11, 1517–1561. Sturm, K.-T. (2003), ‘Probability measures on metric spaces of nonpositive’, Heat Kernels and Analysis on Manifolds, Graphs, and Metric Spaces pp. 357—-390. Takatsu,...

work page 2010

[3] [53]

(1958), ‘On the smoothing of probability density functions’, J

Whittle, P. (1958), ‘On the smoothing of probability density functions’, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 20(2), 334–343. Wu, X., Mealli, F., Kioumourtzoglou, M.-A., Dominici, F. & Braun, D. (2024), ‘Matching on generalized propensity scores with continuous exposures’, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 119, 757–772. Wu, X., Nethery, R. C., Sabath, M. B., Braun, D. & Dominici, F...

work page 1958

[4] [688]

Rubin, D. B. (2005), ‘Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions’, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100(469), 322–331. Sch¨ otz, C. (2021), The Fr´ echet Mean and Statistics in Non-Euclidean Spaces, PhD thesis, Heidel- berg University. Sejdinovic, D., Gretton, A., Sriperumbudur, B. & Fukumizu, K. (2012), ‘Hypothesis testing using pairwise d...

arXiv 2005