Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
It was prominently criticized in economics by Robert LaLonde (1986), [7] who compared estimates of treatment effects from an experiment to comparable estimates produced with matching methods and showed that matching methods are biased. Rajeev Dehejia and Sadek Wahba (1999) reevaluated LaLonde's critique and showed that matching is a good ...
The stable matching problem, in its most basic form, takes as input equal numbers of two types of participants (n job applicants and n employers, for example), and an ordering for each participant giving their preference for whom to be matched to among the participants of the other type. A matching pairs each participant of one type with a ...
The participants on one side of the matching (the hospitals) may have a numerical capacity, specifying the number of doctors they are willing to hire. The total number of participants on one side might not equal the total capacity to which they are to be matched on the other side. The resulting matching might not match all of the participants.
where n is the number of pairs. Thus the mean difference between the groups does not depend on whether we organize the data as pairs. Although the mean difference is the same for the paired and unpaired statistics, their statistical significance levels can be very different, because it is easy to overstate the variance of the unpaired statistic.
The matching hypothesis (also known as the matching phenomenon) argues that people are more likely to form and succeed in a committed relationship with someone who is equally socially desirable, typically in the form of physical attraction. [1]
You are confronted with the three apples in pairs without the benefit of a sensitive scale. Therefore, when presented A and B alone, you are indifferent between apple A and apple B; and you are indifferent between apple B and apple C when presented B and C alone. However, when the pair A and C are shown, you prefer C over A.
A matching is a set of n disjoint pairs of participants. A matching M in an instance of SRP is stable if there are no two participants x and y, each of whom prefers the other to their partner in M. Such a pair is said to block M, or to be a blocking pair with respect to M.
Radius matching: all matches within a particular radius are used -- and reused between treatment units. Kernel matching: same as radius matching, except control observations are weighted as a function of the distance between the treatment observation's propesnity score and control match propensity score. One example is the Epanechnikov kernel.