Abstract:Researchers in many fields endeavor to estimate treatment effects by regressing outcome data (Y) on a treatment (D) and observed confounders (X). Even absent unobserved confounding, the regression coefficient on the treatment reports a weighted average of strata-specific treatment effects (Angrist, 1998). Where heterogeneous treatment effects cannot be ruled out, the resulting coefficient is thus not generally equal to the average treatment effect (ATE), and is unlikely to be the quantity of direct scientific or policy interest. The difference between the coefficient and the ATE has led researchers to propose various interpretational, bounding, and diagnostic aids (Humphreys, 2009; Aronow and Samii, 2016; Sloczynski, 2022; Chattopadhyay and Zubizarreta, 2023). We note that the linear regression of Y on D and X can be misspecified when the treatment effect is heterogeneous in X. The "weights of regression", for which we provide a new (more general) expression, simply characterize how the OLS coefficient will depart from the ATE under the misspecification resulting from unmodeled treatment effect heterogeneity. Consequently, a natural alternative to suffering these weights is to address the misspecification that gives rise to them. For investigators committed to linear approaches, we propose relying on the slightly weaker assumption that the potential outcomes are linear in X. Numerous well-known estimators are unbiased for the ATE under this assumption, namely regression-imputation/g-computation/T-learner, regression with an interaction of the treatment and covariates (Lin, 2013), and balancing weights. Any of these approaches avoid the apparent weighting problem of the misspecified linear regression, at an efficiency cost that will be small when there are few covariates relative to sample size. We demonstrate these lessons using simulations in observational and experimental settings.

The Effect of Omitted Variables on the Sign of Regression Coefficients

An Omitted Variable Bias Framework for Sensitivity Analysis of Instrumental Variables

Making sense of sensitivity: extending omitted variable bias

Residuals and Regression Diagnostics: Focusing on Logistic Regression

On the minimum strength of (unobserved) covariates to overturn an insignificant result

Understanding and avoiding the "weights of regression": Heterogeneous effects, misspecification, and longstanding solutions

An Automatic Finite-Sample Robustness Metric: When Can Dropping a Little Data Make a Big Difference?

Inference in generalized linear models with robustness to misspecified variances

Biases in estimates of air pollution impacts: the role of omitted variables and measurement errors

On the minimax robustness against correlation and heteroscedasticity of ordinary least squares among generalized least squares estimators of regression

A Monte Carlo Study of the Effects of Common Method Variance on Significance Testing and Parameter Bias in Hierarchical Linear Modeling

Robust testing in generalized linear models by sign flipping score contributions

Mitigating Included- and Omitted-Variable Bias in Estimates of Disparate Impact

A Causal View on Bias in Missing Data Imputation: The Impact of Evil Auxiliary Variables on Norming of Test Scores

Robustness, Heterogeneous Treatment Effects and Covariate Shifts

On the Ambiguity of Interaction and Nonlinear Main Effects in a Regime of Dependent Covariates

Sensitivity Analysis of G-estimators to Invalid Instrumental Variables

Interpretation of Linear Regression Coefficients under Mean Model Miss-Specification

Regression-with-residuals Estimation of Marginal Effects: A Method of Adjusting for Treatment-induced Confounders that may also be Moderators

How Much Should We Trust Staggered Difference-In-Differences Estimates?

Extended Sensitivity Analysis for Heterogeneous Unmeasured Confounding with An Application to Sibling Studies of Returns to Education