Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2608.15333

Optimal Control Variates for Survey Sampling and Causal Inference

Abstract

We propose a family of control variate estimators for variance reduction in design-based survey sampling and causal inference, with and without interference. In these settings, inverse probability weighting (IPW) estimators are widely used, but may have large variance when sampling, treatment, or exposure probabilities are small. Building on the observation that several common estimators, including the Hajek estimator, the normalized estimator, the augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) estimator, and the targeted maximum likelihood estimator (TMLE), all correct the Horvitz-Thompson estimator by canceling part of its randomness, we provide a unified interpretation of these estimators as special cases of a general control variate estimator. We then construct optimal control variates that can reduce the finite sample variance compared to these common estimators. We parameterize the proposed control variates by their bases and characterize the optimal bases through a stochastic optimization formulation. In survey sampling and causal inference without interference, the optimal bases are characterized by leading eigenvectors of matrices that depend on both the design-based sampling structure and the model-based outcome uncertainty. In causal inference under network interference, the optimal bases solve a nonconvex quadratic optimization problem; we provide a $\frac{1}{2}$-approximate solution and an alternating local search heuristic. We apply the control variate estimators to the Swiss Environmental Panel survey data and the Chinese social network data, and conduct extensive simulations to show that the proposed control variate estimators can achieve substantial variance reduction.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jinglong Zhao. 2026-08-18. Optimal Control Variates for Survey Sampling and Causal Inference. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15333

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Difference-in-Differences with Unpoolable Data

Difference-in-differences (DID) is commonly used to estimate treatment effects but is infeasible in settings where data are unpoolable due to privacy concerns or legal restrictions on data sharing, particularly across jurisdictions. In this study, we identify and relax the assumption of data poolability in DID estimation. We propose an innovative approach to estimate DID with unpoolable data (UN-DID) which can accommodate covariates, multiple groups, and staggered adoption. Through analytical proofs and Monte Carlo simulations, we show that UN-DID and conventional DID estimates of the average treatment effect and standard errors are equal and unbiased in settings without covariates. With covariates, both methods produce estimates that are unbiased, equivalent, and converge to the true value. The estimates differ slightly but the statistical inference and substantive conclusions remain the same. Two empirical examples with real-world data further underscore UN-DID's utility. The UN-DID method allows the estimation of cross-jurisdictional treatment effects with unpoolable data, enabling better counterfactuals to be used and new research questions to be answered.

econ.EM

The Promise of Time-Series Foundation Models for Agricultural Forecasting: Evidence from Commodity Prices

Forecasting agricultural markets remains challenging due to nonlinear dynamics, structural breaks, and sparse data. A long-standing belief holds that simple time-series methods outperform more advanced alternatives. This paper provides the first systematic evidence that this belief no longer holds with modern time-series foundation models (TSFMs). Using USDA ERS monthly commodity price data from 1997-2025, we evaluate 17 forecasting approaches across four model classes, including traditional time-series, machine learning, deep learning, and five state-of-the-art TSFMs (Chronos, Chronos-2, TimesFM 2.5, Time-MoE, Moirai-2), and construct annual marketing year price predictions to compare with USDA's futures-based season-average price (SAP) forecasts. We show that zero-shot foundation models consistently outperform traditional time-series methods, machine learning, and deep learning architectures trained from scratch in both monthly and annual forecasting. Furthermore, foundation models remarkably outperform USDA's futures-based forecasts on three of four major commodities despite USDA's information advantage from forward-looking futures markets. Time-MoE delivers the largest accuracy gains, achieving 54.9% improvement on wheat and 18.5% improvement on corn relative to USDA ERS benchmarks on recent data (2017-2024 excluding COVID). These results point to a paradigm shift in agricultural forecasting.

econ.EM

Testing for Monotone Equilibrium Strategies in Games of Incomplete Information

This paper develops a unified framework for testing monotonicity of Bayesian Nash equilibrium strategies in unobserved types in games of incomplete information. We show that, under symmetric independent private types, monotonicity of differentiable equilibrium strategies is equivalent to monotonicity of a quasi-inverse strategy identified from observed actions. This allows the problem to be reformulated as testing a countable set of moment inequalities involving unconditional expectations. We propose a Cramer-von Mises-type statistic with bootstrap critical values. The method accommodates covariates and game heterogeneity. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate finite-sample performance, and an application to procurement auctions illustrates cartel detection.

econ.EM