We also address the question of how to choose the trimming threshold. One extreme possibility is fixed trimming ($b_n=b>0$). Although fixed trimming helps restore asymptotic Gaussianity by forcing the probability weights to be bounded away from zero, this practice is difficult to justify, unless one is willing to re-interpret the estimation and inference result completely. We instead propose to determine the trimming threshold by taking into account the bias and variance of the (trimmed) IPW estimator. We suggest an easy-to-implement method to choose the trimming threshold by minimizing an empirical analogue of the asymptotic mean squared error.

This paper relates to a large body of literature on program evaluation and causal inference [@imbens2015causal; @abadie2018econometric; @hernan2018book]. Estimators with inverse weighting are widely used in missing data models [@robins1994estimation; @wooldridge2007inverse] and treatment effect estimation [@hirano2003efficient; @cattaneo2010efficient]. They also feature in settings such as instrumental variables [@abadie2003semiparametric], difference-in-differences [@abadie2005semiparametric], and counterfactual analysis [@dinardo1996labor]. [@khan2010irregular] show that, depending on tail behaviors of the probability weights, the variance bound of the IPW estimator can be infinite, which leads to a slower-than-$\sqrt{n}$ convergence rate. [@sasaki2018ratio] propose a trimming method and a companion sieve-based bias correction technique for conducting inference for moments of ratios, which complement our paper. [@chaudhuri2014heavy] propose a different trimming strategy based on $|DY/e( X)|$ rather than the probability weight, and an inference procedure relying on asymptotic Gaussianity. [-@crump2009dealing] also study the problem of trimming threshold selection, the difference is that their method is based on minimizing a variance term, and hence can lead to a much larger trimming threshold than what we propose.

The untrimmed IPW estimator (i.e., $b_n=0$) is a special case of, and the asymptotic distribution is known as the Lévy stable distribution. Stable convergence has been established in many contexts. For example, [@vaynman2014stable] show that stable convergence may arise for the variance targeting estimator, and hence the tail trimming of [@hill2012variance] can be crucial
We also address the question of how to choose the trimming brink. One extreme hypothesis is fixed trimming ($ b_n = b>0 $). Although specify trim helps restore asymptotic Gaussianity by forcing the probability weight to be bounded away from zero, this exercise is unmanageable to justify, unless one is willing to re - understand the estimation and inference result completely. We alternatively propose to determine the trimming threshold by taking into history the bias and variance of the (trimmed) IPW calculator. We suggest an easy - to - enforce method to choose the pare threshold by minimizing an empirical analogue of the asymptotic mean squared error. 

 This paper refer to a large body of literature on program evaluation and causal inference [ @imbens2015causal; @abadie2018econometric; @hernan2018book ]. Estimators with inverse weighting are wide use in missing data models [ @robins1994estimation; @wooldridge2007inverse ] and treatment effect estimation [ @hirano2003efficient; @cattaneo2010efficient ]. They also feature in settings such as implemental variable [ @abadie2003semiparametric ], difference - in - dispute [ @abadie2005semiparametric ], and counterfactual psychoanalysis [ @dinardo1996labor ]. [ @khan2010irregular ] show that, depending on tail behaviors of the probability weights, the variance bound of the IPW estimator can be countless, which leads to a slower - than-$\sqrt{n}$ convergence rate. [ @sasaki2018ratio ] propose a trimming method and a companion sieve - based bias correction technique for conducting inference for moment of ratio, which complement our paper. [ @chaudhuri2014heavy ] propose a different trimming strategy free-base on $ |DY / e (X)|$ rather than the probability weight, and an inference procedure trust on asymptotic Gaussianity. [ -@crump2009dealing ] also learn the problem of trimming doorsill selection, the difference is that their method acting is based on minimizing a variance term, and therefore can lead to a much large trimming threshold than what we nominate. 

 The untrimmed IPW calculator (i.e., $ b_n=0 $) is a special case of, and the asymptotic distribution is known as the Lévy static distribution. Stable convergence has been established in many contexts. For exercise, [ @vaynman2014stable ] prove that stable convergence may get up for the variance targeting calculator, and hence the tail trimming of [ @hill2012variance ] can be crucial
We wlso address the questiok of how to choose the vrimminf threshuld. One extreme possibility ms fuxed ugimming ($b_n=b>0$). Although wixed trilming heops cestore asymptotmd Gausslcnity ny foxcmng the probabikity weighds to be boundad acay from zero, this practice is diffisult to jkstify, unless jne ps wilmpnn to re-interpret the estimation znd inftrence result compketely. We instead propose ho dftermine the trimmlng threshood br taking into account the bias and bariance of the (trimmed) IPW estkmatox. We suggesj zn gasy-to-implemxnt menhod to choosc the tsimming threshold by kinmmizung an empirical analmgue of the asymptjtic mean ssuared error.

This paper rglatev to q lxrgt bpdg of lltecature on pdogram evalyation and causal imfqgrnce [@imbens2015czusal; @wbwdie2018econometric; @hernan2018book]. Estimators wpth jnverse weighting are wudely used in missing data modqls [@robins1994estimation; @wooldridge2007inverse] and treatmant ehfdct efgumwtion [@hirano2003efficient; @cattaneo2010efficient]. They wmsp neature in settikgs such as instrukejtsj variables [@acadie2003szjilarametric], differejce-in-disferebces [@abadye2005sekiparametric], and counterfacrual analysif [@dinardo1996labor]. [@khan2010nrregular] shuw tnat, drpending on tail behaviurs kf the probwbility wskghts, the varianze noutd of tht IPW estimator cag be infiiite, chich lexds jo a sljwer-than-$\sqgt{n}$ convergence rate. [@saswki2018rajio] prmpose a trlmming method and a companion smxve-based bias cmrrvction teehniquc for conductind inference fot moments of rxtios, whicg complxment our pa[er. [@chaudhuri2014vgavy] propose e differegt teimmung strxgegy based on $|CY/e( X)|$ ratktr than thw probability weigmt, ana an inference pxuxedure relying pn xsyipnotmc Gatvsianity. [-@crukp2009dexlivb] alsu study the orobkem of trimming threvhols selection, the digfcrence is that thqir method is based on minimizijg a tarianre terk, agd hence can lead to a much ladger trimlinn threshold tran qhat we proppse.

The untrimmed IPW estimator (i.e., $b_n=0$) is a special case of, and the asymptotic cistributioi is kgown as tve Lévy stable distrivution. Stable conyergence has been estaglisheg in lany contexts. For example, [@vaynman2014stable] show that stable convergence may qrise how the variahce yargeniny extimatjr, aid hence the tail nrimming of [@hill2012variance] can be rrucial
We also address the question of how the threshold. One possibility is fixed helps asymptotic Gaussianity by the probability weights be bounded away from zero, this is difficult to justify, unless one is willing to re-interpret the estimation and result completely. We instead propose to determine the trimming threshold by taking into the and of (trimmed) IPW estimator. We suggest an easy-to-implement method to choose the trimming threshold by minimizing an analogue of the asymptotic mean squared error. This relates to a large of literature on program evaluation causal [@imbens2015causal; @abadie2018econometric; Estimators inverse are widely used missing data models [@robins1994estimation; @wooldridge2007inverse] and treatment effect estimation [@hirano2003efficient; @cattaneo2010efficient]. They also feature in settings such instrumental variables [@abadie2005semiparametric], and analysis [@khan2010irregular] that, depending on of the probability weights, the variance IPW estimator can be infinite, which leads to slower-than-$\sqrt{n}$ convergence [@sasaki2018ratio] propose a trimming method and companion sieve-based bias correction technique for conducting inference moments of ratios, which complement our paper. [@chaudhuri2014heavy] propose a different trimming strategy based on rather than the probability and an inference relying asymptotic [-@crump2009dealing] study the of trimming threshold selection, the difference is that their method is on minimizing a variance term, and hence can lead to larger threshold than what propose. The untrimmed IPW (i.e., is a special case the distribution the stable Stable convergence has been in many contexts. For example, show that stable convergence targeting estimator, and hence the tail trimming of can be crucial
We also address the question oF how to chooSe the TriMmiNg ThreSholD. One extreme posSIbilIty is fixed trimming ($b_n=b>0$). ALthouGh FIxed TRiMming Helps reSToRE AsyMpToTic gaUSsIanitY by Forcing The probabiLitY wEights to be boUNdEd away from ZerO, this practicE is DifficUlT to JUstifY, unLess oNe is wiLLing to Re-interprEt THe estiMAtion anD INfErenCe result completelY. we INstead propose tO deterMiNE tHE TriMmiNg thresholD bY takiNG into acCOuNT THe bIAs and variance Of the (trimmeD) iPW EstimaToR. We SUggest An easY-tO-ImpLement methoD to cHoose the tRimminG ThreshoLD by miniMizing An eMpiRicaL AnAlOguE oF The ASyMptOTic Mean squaReD eRror.

THis pAPER RelaTes To a lArge bOdy of literatuRe oN proGRam EvaluAtion And cAuSal inFerencE [@imbeNs2015Causal; @abadie2018ecoNomeTric; @hernaN2018boOk]. estImAtors WIth invErsE weIghting Are wideLY usEd IN MIsSing data models [@robiNs1994ESTiMation; @woOldridGE2007iNvERse] and trEaTmeNt efFECt estImatIOn [@Hirano2003efFicienT; @CaTtAneo2010effIcIent]. ThEy AlsO feAture IN setTings sUch as insTrumeNTal variables [@abADie2003semiparameTRiC], DIfFErenCe-iN-differenceS [@abaDIe2005seMipaRAmEtrIC], and cOunteRfACtUAl analysis [@dinardo1996laBoR]. [@khan2010iRreguLar] show that, dePending on tAIL BehaviorS of tHE pRObability weighTs, the Variance boUNd of the IpW estImator caN be infiniTE, Which leaDs tO a sLowEr-tHAN-$\sQrt{n}$ convergenCE Rate. [@SaSaki2018ratIo] pRopose a TriMmiNg mEthOd And a compaNion sievE-bAsEd BiAs cOrrecTIon technIqUe fOr ConDuctiNG inferEnce fOr moMeNtS Of rAtios, whICh COMpleMeNt Our pApeR. [@cHaudhUri2014hEAvy] Propose A differenT trIMminG sTrAtegy baSed on $|DY/e( X)|$ rathEr Than the proBaBilIty weiGHT, and an inFerence procedure relying ON asymptOtiC GausSianIty. [-@crump2009dEalIng] alsO stUDy the pRoblem Of triMmIng THReshoLD SeLecTiOn, the diffeRENce Is thaT tHeir Method iS based on minimizing A VarIance term, and hEncE can LEAd To a MUcH LarGeR TriMMIng threshold thaN what we proPoSE.

THe untrimmeD iPW EsTimator (I.e., $b_n=0$) is a SpeciAL case of, And the asyMptotic diStRibuTIOn iS known as thE Lévy staBle distriBUtion. sTaBle coNveRgence HaS beEn estAblishED in Many cOntextS. FOr examPle, [@vaYnMan2014stablE] show that stable convergeNce may Arise For The varianCe tARgeTing estimAtor, And hence thE taIl tRimmiNg oF [@Hill2012vAriaNCe] Can BE crucIal
We also address the questi on of howto ch oos e t he  tri mmin g threshold. O n e ex treme possibility is f ixedtr i mmin g  ( $b_n= b>0$).A lt h o ugh  f ix edtr i mm ing h elp s resto re asympto tic  G aussianity b y  f orcing the  pr obability we igh ts tobe  bo u ndedawa y fro m zero ,  thispracticeis diffic u lt to j u s ti fy,unless one is wil l in g  to re-interpr et the  e s ti m a tio n a nd inferen ce  resu l t compl e te l y .  We instead propo se to deter m ine  the t ri mmi n g thre shold  b y  ta king into a ccou nt the bi as and varianc e  of the  (trim med ) I PW e s ti ma tor .W e s u gg est aneasy-to- im pl ement  met h o d to c hoo se t he tr imming thresh old  bym ini mizin g anempi ri cal a nalogu e ofth e asymptotic me an s quared er ror .
Th is  pape r  relat estoa large  body o f  li te r a t ur e on program evalu at i o nand caus al inf e re nc e  [@imben s2 015 caus a l ; @ab adie 2 01 8econome tric;@ he rn an2018b oo k]. Es ti mat ors  with inve rse we ightingare w i dely used in m i ssing data mo d el s [@ r obin s19 94estimatio n; @ w oold ridg e 20 07i n verse ] and  t r ea t ment effect estimat io n [@hi rano2 003efficient;  @cattaneo 2 0 1 0efficie nt]. Th e y also feature  in s ettings su c h as ins trume ntal var iables [@ a b adie2003 sem ipa ram etr i c ],  difference-i n - diff er ences [ @ab adie200 5se mip ara met ri c], and c ounterfa ct ua lan aly sis [ @ dinardo1 99 6la bo r].  [@kh a n2010i rregu lar]  s ho w  th at, dep e nd i n g on  t ai l be hav io rs of  the pro babilit y weights , t h e va ri an ce boun d of the IPWes timator ca nbeinfini t e , whichleads to a slower-than- $ \sqrt{n }$conve rgen ce rate.[@s asaki2 018 r atio]propos e a t ri mmi n g  meth o d  a ndacompanions i eve -base dbias  correc tion technique for con ducting infer enc e fo r mo men t so f r at i os, w hich complement  our paper .[ @c haudhuri20 1 4he av y] prop ose a d iffer e nt trim ming stra tegy base don $ | D Y/e ( X)|$ rat her than  the prob a bilit y  w eight , a nd anin fer enceproced u rerelyi ng onas ymptot ic Ga us sianity.  [-@crump2009dealing] a lso st udy t heproblem o f t r imm ing thres hold  selection , t hediffe ren c e isthat th eir metho d is based onm in imi z i ng  a variance t e rm,  andhen c e canlead  to a much larger trimming thres hold t han  wh a t we  p ropose.

The u ntr im m e d IPW es ti mator (i.e. , $b_n=0 $) is aspecia l case  of, an d th e  asymp toti c d istributi onis known a sth e  Lévystab le  distr ibutio n . St a b le convergence h as be e n  esta b lis hed i nmany co n text s. For exa mple, [@vay nman20 14st able]  show t ha t stab leco nvergencem ay arisefor t he vari an ce t arg etingesti m a tor,andhe nce  the tail t ri m mi ng of[@hi ll201 2v aria nce] canb e crucia l
We also_address the_question of how to_choose the_trimming_threshold. One_extreme_possibility is fixed_trimming ($b_n=b>0$). Although_fixed trimming helps restore_asymptotic Gaussianity by_forcing_the probability weights to be bounded away from zero, this practice is difficult to_justify,_unless one_is_willing_to re-interpret the estimation and_inference result completely. We instead_propose to_determine the trimming threshold by taking into account_the_bias and variance_of the (trimmed) IPW estimator. We suggest an easy-to-implement_method to choose the trimming threshold_by minimizing an_empirical_analogue_of the asymptotic mean_squared error.

This paper relates to a_large body of literature on program_evaluation and causal inference [@imbens2015causal; @abadie2018econometric; @hernan2018book]._Estimators with inverse weighting are widely_used in missing data models_[@robins1994estimation; @wooldridge2007inverse]_and treatment effect estimation [@hirano2003efficient;_@cattaneo2010efficient]. They also_feature in_settings such as_instrumental variables [@abadie2003semiparametric], difference-in-differences [@abadie2005semiparametric], and_counterfactual analysis [@dinardo1996labor]._[@khan2010irregular] show that, depending on tail_behaviors_of the probability_weights,_the_variance bound_of the IPW_estimator_can be_infinite,_which leads to a slower-than-$\sqrt{n}$ convergence_rate._[@sasaki2018ratio] propose a trimming method and a_companion sieve-based bias correction_technique_for conducting inference for_moments of ratios, which complement_our paper. [@chaudhuri2014heavy] propose a different_trimming strategy_based on_$|DY/e( X)|$ rather than the probability weight, and an inference procedure_relying on asymptotic Gaussianity. [-@crump2009dealing] also_study the problem of_trimming threshold_selection,_the difference is_that_their method_is based on minimizing a variance term,_and hence_can lead to a much larger_trimming threshold than what_we_propose.

The untrimmed IPW estimator (i.e., $b_n=0$)_is a special case of, and_the asymptotic distribution is known_as_the_Lévy stable distribution. Stable convergence_has been established in many contexts._For example, [@vaynman2014stable]_show that stable convergence may arise for_the_variance targeting estimator, and hence the_tail_trimming of [@hill2012variance] can be crucial