What is Overlap Weighting, How Has it Evolved, and When to Use It for Causal Inference?

Fuente: arXiv
Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lu, Haidong, Li, Fan, Thomas, Laine E.
Formato: Preprint
Publicado: 2026
Materias:
Acceso en línea:
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
_version_ 1866914265610321920
author Lu, Haidong
Li, Fan
Thomas, Laine E.
Li, Fan
author_facet Lu, Haidong
Li, Fan
Thomas, Laine E.
Li, Fan
contents The growing availability of large health databases has expanded the use of observational studies for comparative effectiveness research. Unlike randomized trials, observational studies must adjust for systematic differences in patient characteristics between treatment groups. Propensity score methods, including matching, weighting, stratification, and regression adjustment, address this issue by creating groups that are comparable with respect to measured covariates. Among these approaches, overlap weighting (OW) has emerged as a principled and efficient method that emphasizes individuals at empirical equipoise, those who could plausibly receive either treatment. By assigning weights proportional to the probability of receiving the opposite treatment, OW targets the Average Treatment Effect in the Overlap population (ATO), achieves exact mean covariate balance under logistic propensity score models, and minimizes asymptotic variance. Over the last decade, the OW method has been recognized as a valuable confounding adjustment tool across the statistical, epidemiologic, and clinical research communities, and is increasingly applied in clinical and health studies. Given the growing interest in using observational data to emulate randomized trials and the capacity of OW to prioritize populations at clinical equipoise while achieving covariate balance (fundamental attributes of randomized studies), this article provides a concise overview of recent methodological developments in OW and practical guidance on when it represents a suitable choice for causal inference.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2601_13535
institution arXiv
publishDate 2026
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle What is Overlap Weighting, How Has it Evolved, and When to Use It for Causal Inference?
Lu, Haidong
Li, Fan
Thomas, Laine E.
Li, Fan
Methodology
Applications
The growing availability of large health databases has expanded the use of observational studies for comparative effectiveness research. Unlike randomized trials, observational studies must adjust for systematic differences in patient characteristics between treatment groups. Propensity score methods, including matching, weighting, stratification, and regression adjustment, address this issue by creating groups that are comparable with respect to measured covariates. Among these approaches, overlap weighting (OW) has emerged as a principled and efficient method that emphasizes individuals at empirical equipoise, those who could plausibly receive either treatment. By assigning weights proportional to the probability of receiving the opposite treatment, OW targets the Average Treatment Effect in the Overlap population (ATO), achieves exact mean covariate balance under logistic propensity score models, and minimizes asymptotic variance. Over the last decade, the OW method has been recognized as a valuable confounding adjustment tool across the statistical, epidemiologic, and clinical research communities, and is increasingly applied in clinical and health studies. Given the growing interest in using observational data to emulate randomized trials and the capacity of OW to prioritize populations at clinical equipoise while achieving covariate balance (fundamental attributes of randomized studies), this article provides a concise overview of recent methodological developments in OW and practical guidance on when it represents a suitable choice for causal inference.
title What is Overlap Weighting, How Has it Evolved, and When to Use It for Causal Inference?
topic Methodology
Applications
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13535