Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Inference on Nonlinear Counterfactual Functionals under a Multiplicative IV Model

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The multiplicative IV model identifies any moment-defined functional of the treatment-free counterfactual among the treated, including quantiles, and supports efficient multiply robust inference.

desk verdict Solid extension of the MIV model to general counterfactual moments; the identification is correct given the multiplicative assumption, but the paper should be more upfront that everything hangs on that untestable structure. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15612 v2 pith:VRUMBGFK submitted 2025-07-21 stat.ME

Yonghoon Lee , Mengxin Yu , Jiewen Liu , Chan Park , Yunshu Zhang , James M. Robins , Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62D2062G0562F12
keywords multiplicativeinstrumentalvariablemodelcounterfactualmomentequationsquantiletreatmenteffectonthetreatedsemiparametricefficiencymultiplyrobustestimationcross-fittingtestinversionnoncompliance
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 extends the multiplicative instrumental variable model from the average treatment effect on the treated to a broad class of counterfactual targets. It shows that any functional of the treatment-free counterfactual among the treated that solves a moment equation — means, distribution functions, quantiles, and quantile treatment effects — is identified under the MIV assumption. The key step is a ratio identity that rewrites the counterfactual moment as an observable function of the instrument and outcome data. The paper also constructs a semiparametrically efficient, multiply robust estimator and confidence intervals by test inversion, with asymptotic coverage guarantees and simulation support at moderate sample sizes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multiplicative IV assumption itself: $P(A=1\mid Z,U,X)=g_1(Z,X)g_2(U,X)$ with $g_1(0,X)=1$. This factorization makes the instrument-to-treatment probability ratio independent of $U$, which in turn implies the conditional independence $U\perp\!\!\perp Z \mid A=1, X$ used in the proof of Theorem 1. That independence is what converts the unobservable counterfactual moment into the observable ratio of instrument-induced differences $\delta_{M,A}(\beta,X)/\delta_A(X)$, and the same structure supports the efficient influence function, the multiple robustness conditions, and the test-inversion confidence sets.

What would settle it

Simulate data satisfying the core IV assumptions but with $P(A=1\mid Z,U,X)=g_1(Z,X)+g_2(U,X)$, estimate a counterfactual moment such as $E[1\{Y^{a=0}\le y\}\mid A=1]$ with the proposed estimator in large samples, and compare with the truth; nonvanishing bias would show the multiplicative assumption is carrying the identification. A more direct check is to obtain a proxy $\tilde U$ and test whether $\tilde U\perp\!\!\perp Z\mid A=1,X$, as the model implies for $U$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the multiplicative IV model, the conditional moment of the counterfactual equals an observable ratio of covariances: for any measurable moment function $M$, $$E[M($Y^{{a=0}}$, \$\beta$) \mid A=1] = -E\left[\frac{\delta_{M,A}(\$\beta$, X)}{\delta_A(X)} \mid A=1\right],$$ where $\delta_{M,A}$ and $\delta_A$ are the instrument-induced differences in $E[M(Y,\beta)(1-A)\mid Z,X]$ and in $P(A=1\mid Z,X)$. Since this holds for every measurable $M$, the solution $\beta^*$ of the counterfactual moment equation is identified; choosing $M(Y^{a=0},\beta)=1\{Y^{a=0}\ge \beta\}-q$ identifies the $q$-th quantile of the treatment-free counterfactual among the treated, and the authors use this to build confidence sets for the quantile treatment effect on the treated. The same framework yields an efficient influence function for the moment, an estimator that remains unbiased under any of three alternative nuisance specifications, and asymptotically valid confidence intervals obtained by inverting the moment test.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the untestable assumption that the instrument and the unmeasured confounders influence the probability of treatment by multiplying separate factors; if they combine additively or interact on another scale, the identifying equality can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The MIV assumption identifies all moment-defined functionals of the treatment-free counterfactual among the treated, not only its mean, so quantile treatment effects on the treated no longer require monotonicity or a complier subpopulation.
  • Estimation and inference can use the efficient influence function with cross-fitting; the estimator is multiply robust, remaining unbiased if one of several alternative nuisance models is correct.
  • Confidence intervals for functionals without closed-form estimates are obtained by inverting the moment test on a grid and carry asymptotic coverage guarantees.
  • In the Job Corps application, the procedure yields confidence intervals for the median treatment effect on treated log weekly earnings that are positive at conventional levels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the factorization holds for a non-binary instrument, the same ratio logic may identify moment functionals with the instrument categories collapsed into contrasts, though the paper does not develop this.
  • Editorial extension: because the model implies $U\perp\!\!\perp Z\mid A=1,X$, a researcher with an auxiliary proxy for $U$ could construct a falsification test of the MIV assumption; the paper offers no such test or sensitivity analysis.
  • Editorial extension: the test-inversion confidence set can be a union of intervals in one dimension, as the paper notes; a smoothed or profiled version could yield connected intervals and shorter coverage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper extends the recently introduced multiplicative IV (MIV) model to inference on general nonlinear counterfactual functionals of the treatment-free outcome among the treated. Under the MIV assumption and standard IV conditions, Theorem 1 identifies any moment equation E[M(Y^{a=0},β)|A=1]=0 as an observable ratio of covariances, and the paper develops efficient influence-function-based estimators with multiple robustness, cross-fitting, and asymptotically valid confidence intervals for the moment value. An inverse-inference procedure then yields confidence sets for the functional itself, including the quantile treatment effect on the treated. The methods are illustrated by simulations and an application to the Job Corps dataset.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful expansion of the MIV model beyond the average treatment effect on the treated to quantile and distributional effects. The identification algebra in Theorem 1 is correct under the stated assumptions, and the semiparametric efficiency theory in Theorem 2 and the multiple robustness structure in Corollary 1 are carefully derived and consistent with the literature. The paper provides rigorous proofs, a clearly described cross-fitting procedure, and a simulation study showing tight coverage at moderate sample sizes. The principal limitations are the strong, untestable multiplicative structure of Assumption 2, which is not accompanied by a sensitivity analysis, and a few technical gaps in the theorem statements that affect the interpretation of the identification and inference results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Theorem 1] Theorem 1 divides by δ_A(X) but does not require δ_A(X) ≠ 0 almost surely. Under Assumption 2, δ_A(X) = E[g2(U,X)|X](g1(1,X) - 1), which is non-positive and can vanish when g1(1,X) = 1, so the identified expression in (3) and the estimating equation h(β,P)=0 in (4) may be undefined. The theorem should add a positivity/relevance condition such as δ_A(X) ≠ 0 a.s. and state how this is implied (or not) by the model assumptions; without it, the central identification claim is not well-defined.
  2. [Section 2.1, Assumption 2 and Theorem 1] The identification rests entirely on the multiplicative factorization in Assumption 2. In the proof, the ratio P(A=1|Z=1,U,X)/P(A=1|Z=0,U,X) is replaced by the observable ratio P(A=1|Z=1,X)/P(A=1|Z=0,X) using exactly this factorization. If the true mechanism is non-multiplicative, for example logistic with an interaction η·Z·U, this replacement fails and the observable estimand (4) becomes a U-weighted average of E[M(Y^{a=0},β)|U,X] rather than the target E[M(Y^{a=0},β)|A=1]; the bias is first order in η. The paper gives no sensitivity analysis or bias bound for departures from Assumption 2, nor does it state the model's testable implication that P(A=1|Z=1,X) ≤ P(A=1|Z=0,X) pointwise. Given that the assumption is untestable, the authors should at least characterize the bias under a non-multiplicative perturbation or provide a sensitivity analysis.
  3. [Section 2.3, Corollary 4 and Algorithm 1] The abstract refers to functionals that are 'the unique solution' of a moment equation, but Theorem 1 identifies the moment equation without stating a uniqueness or monotonicity condition for β*. For non-monotone moment functions, or when the counterfactual distribution has flat regions, h(β,P)=0 may have multiple solutions; the confidence set in (11)–(12) will still contain the true β* but may include spurious values, and the claimed inference on the functional is then not well defined. The paper should either impose an explicit identifiability condition (e.g., strict monotonicity of M in β with a continuity/density condition, as suggested in the QTT example) or define β* as a chosen root and discuss the implications for the reported set.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Algorithm 1, Step 4] In the final step, both β_L and β_R are defined using 'min'; β_R should be the maximum of the grid values satisfying |θ̂_β| ≤ z_α σ̂_β/√n, otherwise the output is not even the interval of solutions.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'measureable' should be 'measurable' (Section 1.2), 'thatβ' should be 'that β' (Section 2.2), and 'A TT' should be 'ATT' (Section 2.3).
  3. [Section 2.2, Corollary 2] The condition ∥h(β, ˆP) − h(β,P)∥ = o_P(1) is not the usual rate condition for the asymptotic normality result; the authors should state it in terms of the componentwise L2 rates and product-bias rates that appear in Assumption 3, or at least clarify the assumed convergence rate of h(β, ˆP).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the identification result is a direct mathematical consequence of the explicitly stated MIV assumption, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1, is a self-contained derivation from Assumptions 1 and 2. The target parameter is defined by the moment equation E[M(Y^{a=0}, beta) | A = 1] = 0, and the proof computes the observable ratio-of-covariances representation using only the multiplicative structure of the treatment propensity, the IV independence assumption, and weak ignorability. No constant in the identifying equation is fitted to the target functional, and no nuisance function estimated in the paper is defined in terms of the target beta*. The efficient influence function, multiple robustness structure, and cross-fitting inference are standard semiparametric calculations that do not presuppose the claimed result. Proposition 1 re-expresses Theorem 1 for a moment function involving the observed treated-outcome quantile gamma*, but the proof does not use beta* to define gamma* or to force the moment condition; it simply applies the already-established identification result at the true counterfactual quantile. The paper cites the authors' prior work introducing the multiplicative IV model and recovering the ATT as a special case, but these citations are background and a consistency check rather than load-bearing support for the new theorem; Assumption 2 is stated explicitly in the present paper. The acknowledged limitation in Remark 1, that the test-inversion confidence set may not be an interval, is an honest caveat and not a circular step. The reviewer concern about lack of sensitivity analysis for Assumption 2 and the omitted positivity/relevance condition is a correctness and robustness issue, not a circularity issue, because the theorem's logic does not reduce to its own conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no invented entities or free parameters. It relies on standard IV assumptions plus a new multiplicative structural assumption. The central claim stands or falls on the MIV assumption being correct for the application.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: consistency, weak ignorability and exclusion restriction (A,Z)⊥⊥Y^{a=0}|X,U, and IV independence U⊥⊥Z|X
    Standard IV assumptions needed to relate observed outcomes to counterfactuals. Invoked throughout, notably in the proof of Theorem 1.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: Multiplicative IV model, P(A=1|Z,U,X)=g1(Z,X)g2(U,X) with g1(0,X)=1
    Core identifying assumption. Enables the simplification of δ_M,A and the conditional independence U⊥⊥Z|A=1,X. Untestable.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: Regularity conditions: bounded nuisance, L2 convergence rate τ_n, product biases O(τ_n/√n), strong instrument |λ1-λ0|≥c6, bounded moment function, non-degenerate variance
    Needed for asymptotic normality and uniform coverage. Standard in DML literature.
  • domain assumption Existence and uniqueness of β* as a solution to E[M(Y^{a=0},β)|A=1]=0
    Implicit in the problem setup; the paper assumes β* is a solution but does not discuss conditions for uniqueness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inference on Nonlinear Counterfactual Functionals under a Multiplicative IV Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VRUMBGFK

@misc{pith2026250715612,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inference on Nonlinear Counterfactual Functionals under a Multiplicative IV Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VRUMBGFK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15612}
}
read the original abstract

Instrumental variable (IV) methods play a central role in causal inference, particularly in settings where treatment assignment is confounded by unobserved variables. IV methods have been extensively developed in recent years and applied across diverse domains, from economics to epidemiology. In this work, we study the recently introduced multiplicative IV (MIV) model and demonstrate its utility for causal inference beyond the average treatment effect. In particular, we show that it enables identification and inference for a broad class of counterfactual functionals characterized by moment equations. This includes, for example, inference on quantile treatment effects. We develop methods for efficient and multiply robust estimation of such functionals, and provide inference procedures with asymptotic validity. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed procedure performs well even with moderate sample sizes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15612 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Causal diagram for the IV model. on Y a=1; in particular, it allows for the presence of a direct effect of Z on Y a=1. The corresponding directed acyclic graph (DAG) and Single World Intervention Graph (SWIG) are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The coverage rate of the confidence interval (11) for the median of the counterfactual on the treated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The coverage rate of the confidence interval (11) for the median of the counterfactual on the treated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. On a Debiased and Semiparametric Efficient Changes-in-Changes Estimator

    stat.ME 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A covariate-conditional distributional bridge identifies the ATT under non-monotonic confounding and yields a Neyman-orthogonal, semiparametrically efficient estimator.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models

    Alberto Abadie. Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models. Journal of econometrics, 113 0 (2): 0 231--263, 2003

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Instrumental variables estimates of the effect of subsidized training on the quantiles of trainee earnings

    Alberto Abadie, Joshua Angrist, and Guido Imbens. Instrumental variables estimates of the effect of subsidized training on the quantiles of trainee earnings. Econometrica, 70 0 (1): 0 91--117, 2002

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects, 1995

    Joshua D Angrist and Guido W Imbens. Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects, 1995

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables

    Joshua D Angrist, Guido W Imbens, and Donald B Rubin. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American statistical Association, 91 0 (434): 0 444--455, 1996

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    Efficient and adaptive estimation for semiparametric models, volume 4

    Peter J Bickel, Chris AJ Klaassen, Peter J Bickel, Ya’acov Ritov, J Klaassen, Jon A Wellner, and YA'Acov Ritov. Efficient and adaptive estimation for semiparametric models, volume 4. Springer, 1993

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    An iv model of quantile treatment effects

    Victor Chernozhukov and Christian Hansen. An iv model of quantile treatment effects. Econometrica, 73 0 (1): 0 245--261, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Instrumental variable estimation of nonseparable models

    Victor Chernozhukov, Guido W Imbens, and Whitney K Newey. Instrumental variable estimation of nonseparable models. Journal of Econometrics, 139 0 (1): 0 4--14, 2007

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Instrumental variable quantile regression

    Victor Chernozhukov, Christian Hansen, and Kaspar W \"u thrich. Instrumental variable quantile regression. Handbook of quantile regression, pages 119--143, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters, 2018

    Victor Chernozhukov, Denis Chetverikov, Mert Demirer, Esther Duflo, Christian Hansen, Whitney Newey, and James Robins. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    A semiparametric instrumental variable approach to optimal treatment regimes under endogeneity

    Yifan Cui and Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen. A semiparametric instrumental variable approach to optimal treatment regimes under endogeneity. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 116 0 (533): 0 162--173, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Structural equation methods in the social sciences

    Arthur S Goldberger. Structural equation methods in the social sciences. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 979--1001, 1972

    1972

  4. [12]

    Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data

    Miguel A Hern \'a n and James M Robins. Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60 0 (7): 0 578--586, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    Localized debiased machine learning: Efficient inference on quantile treatment effects and beyond

    Nathan Kallus, Xiaojie Mao, and Masatoshi Uehara. Localized debiased machine learning: Efficient inference on quantile treatment effects and beyond. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25 0 (16): 0 1--59, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Semiparametric theory and empirical processes in causal inference

    Edward H Kennedy. Semiparametric theory and empirical processes in causal inference. Statistical causal inferences and their applications in public health research, pages 141--167, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Sharp instruments for classifying compliers and generalizing causal effects

    Edward H Kennedy, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, and Max G’Sell. Sharp instruments for classifying compliers and generalizing causal effects. The Annals of Statistics, 48 0 (4): 0 2008--2030, 2020

    2008

  8. [16]

    Nonparametric identification and efficient estimation of causal effects with instrumental variables

    Alexander W Levis, Edward H Kennedy, and Luke Keele. Nonparametric identification and efficient estimation of causal effects with instrumental variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09332, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Robins, and Eric J

    Jiewen Liu, Chan Park, Yonghoon Lee, Yunshu Zhang, Mengxin Yu, James M. Robins, and Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen. The multiplicative instrumental variable model, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09302

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Identification and inference for marginal average treatment effect on the treated with an instrumental variable

    Lan Liu, Wang Miao, Baoluo Sun, James Robins, and Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen. Identification and inference for marginal average treatment effect on the treated with an instrumental variable. Statistica sinica, 30 0 (3): 0 1517, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Identification of the outcome distribution and sensitivity analysis under weak confounder--instrument interaction

    Lu Mao. Identification of the outcome distribution and sensitivity analysis under weak confounder--instrument interaction. Statistics & probability letters, 189: 0 109590, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Instrumental variables estimation under a structural cox model

    Torben Martinussen, Ditte N rbo S rensen, and Stijn Vansteelandt. Instrumental variables estimation under a structural cox model. Biostatistics, 20 0 (1): 0 65--79, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Instrumental variable estimation of causal odds ratios using structural nested mean models

    Roland A Matsouaka and Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen. Instrumental variable estimation of causal odds ratios using structural nested mean models. Biostatistics, 18 0 (3): 0 465--476, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Instrumental variable estimation of marginal structural mean models for time-varying treatment

    Haben Michael, Yifan Cui, Scott A Lorch, and Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen. Instrumental variable estimation of marginal structural mean models for time-varying treatment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119 0 (546): 0 1240--1251, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Semiparametric efficiency bounds

    Whitney K Newey. Semiparametric efficiency bounds. Journal of applied econometrics, 5 0 (2): 0 99--135, 1990

    1990

  16. [24]

    Structural nested cumulative failure time models to estimate the effects of interventions

    Sally Picciotto, Miguel A Hern \'a n, John H Page, Jessica G Young, and James M Robins. Structural nested cumulative failure time models to estimate the effects of interventions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107 0 (499): 0 886--900, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Optimal individualized decision rules using instrumental variable methods

    Hongxiang Qiu, Marco Carone, Ekaterina Sadikova, Maria Petukhova, Ronald C Kessler, and Alex Luedtke. Optimal individualized decision rules using instrumental variable methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 116 0 (533): 0 174--191, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Estimation of treatment effects in randomised trials with non-compliance and a dichotomous outcome using structural mean models

    James Robins and Andrea Rotnitzky. Estimation of treatment effects in randomised trials with non-compliance and a dichotomous outcome using structural mean models. Biometrika, 91 0 (4): 0 763--783, 2004

    2004

  19. [27]

    Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using structural nested mean models

    James M Robins. Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using structural nested mean models. Communications in Statistics-Theory and methods, 23 0 (8): 0 2379--2412, 1994

    1994

  20. [28]

    National Job Corps Study: The impacts of Job Corps on participants' employment and related outcomes

    Peter Z Schochet. National Job Corps Study: The impacts of Job Corps on participants' employment and related outcomes. US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of …, 2001

    2001

  21. [29]

    Marginal and nested structural models using instrumental variables

    Zhiqiang Tan. Marginal and nested structural models using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105 0 (489): 0 157--169, 2010

    2010

  22. [30]

    Marginal structural models for time-varying endogenous treatments: A time-varying instrumental variable approach

    Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen, Haben Michael, and Yifan Cui. Marginal structural models for time-varying endogenous treatments: A time-varying instrumental variable approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.05422, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Semiparametric theory and missing data, volume 4

    Anastasios A Tsiatis. Semiparametric theory and missing data, volume 4. Springer, 2006

    2006

  24. [32]

    On differentiable functionals

    Aad Van Der Vaart. On differentiable functionals. The Annals of Statistics, pages 178--204, 1991

    1991

  25. [33]

    Causal inference with generalized structural mean models

    Stijn Vansteelandt and Els Goetghebeur. Causal inference with generalized structural mean models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 65 0 (4): 0 817--835, 2003

    2003

  26. [34]

    Independence, monotonicity, and latent index models: An equivalence result

    Edward Vytlacil. Independence, monotonicity, and latent index models: An equivalence result. Econometrica, 70 0 (1): 0 331--341, 2002

    2002

  27. [35]

    Bounded, efficient and multiply robust estimation of average treatment effects using instrumental variables

    Linbo Wang and Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen. Bounded, efficient and multiply robust estimation of average treatment effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 80 0 (3): 0 531--550, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Instrumental variable estimation of the causal hazard ratio

    Linbo Wang, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, Torben Martinussen, and Stijn Vansteelandt. Instrumental variable estimation of the causal hazard ratio. Biometrics, 79 0 (2): 0 539--550, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    The tariff on animal and vegetable oils

    Philip Green Wright. The tariff on animal and vegetable oils. Macmillan, 1928

    1928

  30. [38]

    Structural cumulative survival models for estimation of treatment effects accounting for treatment switching in randomized experiments

    Andrew Ying and Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen. Structural cumulative survival models for estimation of treatment effects accounting for treatment switching in randomized experiments. Biometrics, 79 0 (3): 0 1597--1609, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

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