# Matching Workflows

#### Gilles Colling

#### 2026-05-18

## Overview

Matching is a fundamental technique for creating comparable groups in observational studies. Unlike random assignment, observational data often contain systematic differences between treatment and control groups that confound causal inference. Matching addresses this by pairing similar units based on observed characteristics, creating “apples-to-apples” comparisons.

This vignette follows a complete workflow from raw data to publication-ready results, using a realistic job training evaluation as the running example. You’ll learn to handle the full pipeline: preprocessing, matching, assessment, and reporting.

### Who This Vignette Is For

Audience: Researchers, epidemiologists, economists, data scientists working with observational data

Prerequisites:

- Familiarity with basic `couplr` usage (`vignette("getting-started")`)

- Understanding of causal inference concepts (treatment effects, confounding)

- Basic statistics (means, standard deviations, t-tests)

What You’ll Learn:

- How to match treatment and control units with `match_couples()`

- Automatic preprocessing: scaling, health checks, categorical encoding

- Assessing match quality with `balance_diagnostics()`

- When to use optimal vs greedy matching

- Creating publication-ready balance tables

Time to complete: 30-45 minutes

### Documentation Roadmap

Vignette | Focus | Difficulty
--- | --- | ---
Getting Started | Basic LAP solving, API introduction | Beginner
Algorithms | Mathematical foundations, solver selection | Intermediate
Matching Workflows | Production matching pipelines | Intermediate
Pixel Morphing | Scientific applications, approximations | Advanced

You are here: Matching Workflows

### The Running Example: Job Training Evaluation

Throughout this vignette, we evaluate a job training program’s effect on earnings. The challenge: participants self-selected into the program, so they differ systematically from non-participants in age, education, and prior earnings. Without matching, any earnings difference could be due to these baseline differences rather than the program itself.

Our goal: Create comparable treatment and control groups, assess balance quality, and estimate the treatment effect credibly.

### Key Features

- Automatic preprocessing with health checks and smart scaling

- Optimal matching via linear assignment algorithms

- Fast greedy matching for large datasets (n > 5,000)

- Blocking and stratification support

- Comprehensive balance diagnostics

- Publication-ready output tables

## Problem Definition

### The Matching Problem

Given two groups of units:

- Left group (treatment, exposed, cases): \(n_L\) units

- Right group (control, unexposed, controls): \(n_R\) units

Each unit \(i\) has a covariate vector \(\mathbf{x}_i \in \mathbb{R}^p\) describing characteristics we want to balance (age, income, education, etc.).

Goal: Find one-to-one matches that minimize total distance:

\[ \min_{\pi} \sum_{i=1}^{n} d(\mathbf{x}_i^L, \mathbf{x}_{\pi(i)}^R) \]

where \(d(\cdot, \cdot)\) is a distance function (typically Euclidean or Mahalanobis) and \(\pi\) is a matching assignment.

### Why Matching Matters

Without matching:

- Groups may differ systematically on important covariates

- Treatment effect estimates are confounded by these differences

- Statistical adjustments (regression) rely on untestable assumptions

With matching:

- Create comparable groups that differ primarily in treatment status

- Balance covariates to reduce confounding

- Improve causal inference by mimicking randomized experiments

- Transparent, non-parametric preprocessing step

### Distance Metrics

The quality of matching depends on the distance metric:

Euclidean distance (after scaling): \[ d(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{x}_j) = \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^{p} (x_{ik} - x_{jk})^2} \]

Mahalanobis distance (accounts for correlations): \[ d(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{x}_j) = \sqrt{(\mathbf{x}_i - \mathbf{x}_j)^\top \Sigma^{-1} (\mathbf{x}_i - \mathbf{x}_j)} \]

Propensity score distance (single dimension): \[ d(i, j) = |p_i - p_j| \]

where \(p_i = P(\text{treatment} \mid \mathbf{x}_i)\) is the propensity score.

`couplr` defaults to Euclidean distance with automatic scaling, which works well for most applications.

## Basic Usage

### Creating a Matched Sample

The simplest workflow uses `match_couples()` with automatic preprocessing:

    # Simulate observational data
    set.seed(123)
    n_left <- 100
    n_right <- 150

    # Treatment group (tends to be younger, higher income)
    left_data <- tibble(
      id = 1:n_left,
      age = rnorm(n_left, mean = 45, sd = 10),
      income = rnorm(n_left, mean = 60000, sd = 15000),
      education = sample(c("HS", "BA", "MA"), n_left, replace = TRUE),
      group = "treatment"
    )

    # Control group (older, lower income on average)
    right_data <- tibble(
      id = 1:n_right,
      age = rnorm(n_right, mean = 52, sd = 12),
      income = rnorm(n_right, mean = 50000, sd = 18000),
      education = sample(c("HS", "BA", "MA"), n_right, replace = TRUE),
      group = "control"
    )

    # Perform optimal matching
    result <- match_couples(
      left = left_data,
      right = right_data,
      vars = c("age", "income"),
      auto_scale = TRUE,
      return_diagnostics = TRUE
    )
    #> Auto-selected scaling method: standardize

    # View matched pairs
    head(result$pairs)
    #> # A tibble: 6 × 5
    #>   left_id right_id distance .age_diff .income_diff
    #>   <chr>   <chr>       <dbl>     <dbl>        <dbl>
    #> 1 1       27         0.530   -5.68           2942.
    #> 2 2       37         0.299    3.33            980.
    #> 3 3       15         0.0382  -0.251          -512.
    #> 4 4       11         0.691   -7.19           4587.
    #> 5 5       73         0.425   -4.48           2583.
    #> 6 6       131        0.133    0.00187       -2186.

    # Summary statistics
    result$info
    #> $solver
    #> [1] "jv"
    #>
    #> $n_matched
    #> [1] 100
    #>
    #> $total_distance
    #> [1] 33.77392
    #>
    #> $method
    #> [1] "lap"
    #>
    #> $distance_metric
    #> [1] "euclidean"
    #>
    #> $scaled
    #> [1] TRUE
    #>
    #> $n_left
    #> [1] 100
    #>
    #> $n_right
    #> [1] 150

The result contains:

- `pairs`: Matched pairs with IDs and distances

- `info`: Matching method, counts, total distance

- `left_unmatched`, `right_unmatched`: Units without matches

- `cost_matrix`: Full distance matrix (if `return_diagnostics = TRUE`)

### Understanding the Output

    # How many matched?
    cat("Matched pairs:", result$info$n_matched, "\n")
    #> Matched pairs: 100
    cat("Unmatched left:", nrow(result$left_unmatched), "\n")
    #> Unmatched left:
    cat("Unmatched right:", nrow(result$right_unmatched), "\n")
    #> Unmatched right:

    # Distribution of match distances
    summary(result$pairs$distance)
    #>     Min.  1st Qu.   Median     Mean  3rd Qu.     Max.
    #> 0.002044 0.139855 0.249548 0.337739 0.466174 1.939711

    # Visualize match quality
    ggplot(result$pairs, aes(x = distance)) +
      geom_histogram(bins = 30, fill = "#29abe0", alpha = 0.7) +
      labs(
        title = "Distribution of Match Distances",
        x = "Euclidean Distance (scaled)",
        y = "Count"
      ) +
      theme_minimal() +
      theme(plot.background = element_rect(fill = "transparent", color = NA),
            panel.background = element_rect(fill = "transparent", color = NA),
            panel.grid = element_blank())

Interpretation:

- Lower distances indicate better matches (more similar units)

- Median distance provides typical match quality

- Large distances suggest poor matches (consider caliper constraints)

## Automatic Preprocessing

### Why Preprocessing Matters

Raw covariates often have:

- Different scales: Age in years (20-80), income in dollars (20,000-200,000)

- Different units: Continuous (age), categorical (education), binary (smoker)

- Data quality issues: Missing values, constant variables, extreme outliers

Without preprocessing, high-variance variables dominate distance calculations.

### Smart Scaling with `auto_scale = TRUE`

When `auto_scale = TRUE`, `match_couples()` automatically:

1. Detects problematic variables

   - Constant variables (SD = 0) -> excluded with warning

   - High missingness (>50%) -> warned

   - Extreme skewness (|skew| > 2) -> informed

2. Applies appropriate scaling

   - Continuous variables -> scaled by selected method

   - Binary variables (0/1) -> used as-is

   - Categorical -> converted to numeric if ordered

3. Handles categorical variables

   - Unordered factors -> converted to binary indicators

   - Ordered factors -> converted to numeric ranks

    # Create data with scaling challenges
    set.seed(456)
    challenging_data <- tibble(
      id = 1:50,
      age = rnorm(50, 50, 10),                    # Years (reasonable scale)
      income = rnorm(50, 60000, 20000),           # Dollars (large scale)
      bmi = rnorm(50, 25, 5),                     # Ratio (small scale)
      smoker = sample(0:1, 50, replace = TRUE),   # Binary
      education = factor(
        sample(c("HS", "BA", "MA", "PhD"), 50, replace = TRUE),
        ordered = TRUE,
        levels = c("HS", "BA", "MA", "PhD")
      )
    )

    left_chal <- challenging_data[1:25, ]
    right_chal <- challenging_data[26:50, ]

    # Match WITHOUT auto-scaling (income dominates)
    result_no_scale <- match_couples(
      left_chal, right_chal,
      vars = c("age", "income", "bmi"),
      auto_scale = FALSE
    )

    # Match WITH auto-scaling (all variables contribute)
    result_scaled <- match_couples(
      left_chal, right_chal,
      vars = c("age", "income", "bmi"),
      auto_scale = TRUE,
      scale = "robust"  # Median/MAD scaling (robust to outliers)
    )

    # Compare match quality
    cat("Without scaling - mean distance:", mean(result_no_scale$pairs$distance), "\n")
    #> Without scaling - mean distance: 3572.096
    cat("With scaling - mean distance:", mean(result_scaled$pairs$distance), "\n")
    #> With scaling - mean distance: 0.9784372

### Scaling Methods

Three scaling strategies available via `scale` parameter:

1. Robust scaling (`scale = "robust"`, default): \[ x_{\text{scaled}} = \frac{x - \text{median}(x)}{\text{MAD}(x)} \]

- Uses median and median absolute deviation (MAD)

- Resistant to outliers and skewness

- Best for: Real-world data with potential outliers

2. Standardization (`scale = "standardize"`): \[ x_{\text{scaled}} = \frac{x - \text{mean}(x)}{\text{SD}(x)} \]

- Classical z-score normalization

- Assumes approximate normality

- Best for: Clean, normally-distributed data

3. Range scaling (`scale = "range"`): \[ x_{\text{scaled}} = \frac{x - \min(x)}{\max(x) - \min(x)} \]

- Scales to [0, 1] range

- Preserves exact relationships

- Best for: Bounded variables, visualization

    # Demonstrate scaling methods
    demo_var <- c(10, 20, 25, 30, 100)  # Contains outlier (100)

    # Function to show scaling
    show_scaling <- function(x, method) {
      left_demo <- tibble(id = 1:3, var = x[1:3])
      right_demo <- tibble(id = 1:2, var = x[4:5])

      result <- match_couples(
        left_demo, right_demo,
        vars = "var",
        auto_scale = TRUE,
        scale = method,
        return_diagnostics = TRUE
      )

      # Extract scaled values from cost matrix
      cat(method, "scaling:\n")
      cat("  Original:", x, "\n")
      cat("  Distance matrix diagonal:", diag(result$cost_matrix)[1:2], "\n\n")
    }

    show_scaling(demo_var, "robust")
    #> robust scaling:
    #>   Original: 10 20 25 30 100
    #>   Distance matrix diagonal: NA NA
    show_scaling(demo_var, "standardize")
    #> standardize scaling:
    #>   Original: 10 20 25 30 100
    #>   Distance matrix diagonal: NA NA
    show_scaling(demo_var, "range")
    #> range scaling:
    #>   Original: 10 20 25 30 100
    #>   Distance matrix diagonal: NA NA

### Health Checks and Warnings

The preprocessing system provides informative diagnostics:

    # Create data with issues
    problematic_data <- tibble(
      id = 1:100,
      age = rnorm(100, 50, 10),
      constant_var = 5,                           # No variation - will warn
      mostly_missing = c(rnorm(20, 50, 10), rep(NA, 80)),  # >50% missing
      extreme_skew = rexp(100, rate = 0.1)       # Very skewed
    )

    # Attempt matching - will show warnings
    result <- match_couples(
      problematic_data[1:50, ],
      problematic_data[51:100, ],
      vars = c("age", "constant_var", "mostly_missing", "extreme_skew"),
      auto_scale = TRUE
    )

    # Warning messages will indicate:
    # - "constant_var excluded (SD = 0)"
    # - "mostly_missing has 80% missing values"
    # - "extreme_skew has high skewness (3.2)"

## Optimal vs Greedy Matching

For large datasets (n > 5,000), optimal matching becomes computationally expensive. `couplr` provides fast greedy alternatives.

### When to Use Each Approach

Optimal matching (`method = "optimal"`):

- Minimizes total distance (globally optimal solution)

- Uses linear assignment algorithms (\(O(n^3)\) complexity)

- Suitable for: n < 5,000, when optimality is critical

- Typical runtime: <1 second for n=1,000, ~10 seconds for n=3,000

Greedy matching (`method = "greedy"`):

- Fast approximation (10-100x faster)

- Three strategies: sorted, row_best, pq

- Suitable for: n > 5,000, exploratory analysis, when speed matters

- Typical runtime: <1 second for n=10,000

    # Create moderately large dataset
    set.seed(789)
    n <- 1000
    large_left <- tibble(
      id = 1:n,
      x1 = rnorm(n),
      x2 = rnorm(n),
      x3 = rnorm(n)
    )
    large_right <- tibble(
      id = 1:n,
      x1 = rnorm(n),
      x2 = rnorm(n),
      x3 = rnorm(n)
    )

    # Optimal matching
    time_optimal <- system.time({
      result_optimal <- match_couples(
        large_left, large_right,
        vars = c("x1", "x2", "x3"),
        method = "hungarian"
      )
    })

    # Greedy matching (row_best strategy)
    time_greedy <- system.time({
      result_greedy <- greedy_couples(
        large_left, large_right,
        vars = c("x1", "x2", "x3"),
        strategy = "row_best"
      )
    })

    # Compare
    cat("Optimal matching:\n")
    #> Optimal matching:
    cat("  Time:", round(time_optimal["elapsed"], 3), "seconds\n")
    #>   Time: 1.38 seconds
    cat("  Mean distance:", round(mean(result_optimal$pairs$distance), 4), "\n\n")
    #>   Mean distance: 0.3368

    cat("Greedy matching:\n")
    #> Greedy matching:
    cat("  Time:", round(time_greedy["elapsed"], 3), "seconds\n")
    #>   Time: 0.93 seconds
    cat("  Mean distance:", round(mean(result_greedy$pairs$distance), 4), "\n")
    #>   Mean distance: 0.4667
    cat("  Speedup:", round(time_optimal["elapsed"] / time_greedy["elapsed"], 1), "x\n")
    #>   Speedup: 1.5 x

### Greedy Strategies

Three greedy strategies available via `greedy_couples()`:

1. Sorted (`strategy = "sorted"`):

- Sort all possible pairs by distance

- Assign greedily from best to worst

- Best quality among greedy methods

- Slowest greedy option (still much faster than optimal)

    Algorithm:
    1. Compute all n_L × n_R distances

    2. Sort pairs by distance (ascending)

    3. For each pair in sorted order:

       - If both units unmatched, assign them

    4. Stop when no more matches possible

2. Row-best (`strategy = "row_best"`, default):

- For each left unit, find best available right unit

- Process left units in order

- Fast and simple

- Medium quality

    Algorithm:
    1. For i = 1 to n_L:

       - Find unmatched right unit j with minimum distance to i

       - Assign (i, j)

    2. Return all assignments

3. Priority queue (`strategy = "pq"`):

- Maintains priority queue of potential matches

- Updates dynamically as assignments made

- Best for very large problems

- Fastest option

    # Compare greedy strategies on same data
    set.seed(101)
    test_left <- tibble(id = 1:200, x = rnorm(200))
    test_right <- tibble(id = 1:200, x = rnorm(200))

    strategies <- c("sorted", "row_best", "pq")
    results <- list()

    for (strat in strategies) {
      time <- system.time({
        result <- greedy_couples(
          test_left, test_right,
          vars = "x",
          strategy = strat
        )
      })

      results[[strat]] <- list(
        time = time["elapsed"],
        mean_dist = mean(result$pairs$distance),
        total_dist = result$info$total_distance
      )
    }

    # Display comparison
    comparison <- do.call(rbind, lapply(names(results), function(s) {
      data.frame(
        strategy = s,
        time_sec = round(results[[s]]$time, 4),
        mean_distance = round(results[[s]]$mean_dist, 4),
        total_distance = round(results[[s]]$total_dist, 2)
      )
    }))

    print(comparison)
    #>          strategy time_sec mean_distance total_distance
    #> elapsed    sorted     0.03        0.0912          18.24
    #> elapsed1 row_best     0.05        0.0968          19.36
    #> elapsed2       pq     0.05        0.0912          18.24

Recommendation:

- Default to `strategy = "row_best"` for good speed/quality balance

- Use `strategy = "sorted"` when quality is important but optimal is too slow

- Use `strategy = "pq"` for n > 10,000

## Caliper Constraints

Calipers impose maximum allowable match distances to ensure minimum quality.

### Why Use Calipers

Without calipers, optimal matching may pair very dissimilar units just to maximize the number of matches. Calipers prevent this by:

- Setting a distance threshold beyond which matches are forbidden

- Reducing the number of matches to improve average quality

- Implementing the “common support” requirement in propensity score matching

    # Create data where some units are far apart
    set.seed(202)
    left_cal <- tibble(
      id = 1:50,
      x = c(rnorm(40, mean = 0, sd = 1), rnorm(10, mean = 5, sd = 0.5))  # Some outliers
    )
    right_cal <- tibble(
      id = 1:50,
      x = rnorm(50, mean = 0, sd = 1)
    )

    # Match without caliper - pairs everything
    result_no_cal <- match_couples(
      left_cal, right_cal,
      vars = "x",
      auto_scale = FALSE
    )

    # Match with caliper - excludes poor matches
    result_with_cal <- match_couples(
      left_cal, right_cal,
      vars = "x",
      max_distance = 1.5,  # Caliper: max distance = 1.5
      auto_scale = FALSE
    )

    cat("Without caliper:\n")
    #> Without caliper:
    cat("  Matched:", result_no_cal$info$n_matched, "\n")
    #>   Matched: 50
    cat("  Mean distance:", round(mean(result_no_cal$pairs$distance), 3), "\n")
    #>   Mean distance: 1.129
    cat("  Max distance:", round(max(result_no_cal$pairs$distance), 3), "\n\n")
    #>   Max distance: 5.788

    cat("With caliper (1.5):\n")
    #> With caliper (1.5):
    cat("  Matched:", result_with_cal$info$n_matched, "\n")
    #>   Matched: 40
    cat("  Mean distance:", round(mean(result_with_cal$pairs$distance), 3), "\n")
    #>   Mean distance: 0.153
    cat("  Max distance:", round(max(result_with_cal$pairs$distance), 3), "\n")
    #>   Max distance: 0.763

    # Visualize caliper effect
    ggplot(result_no_cal$pairs, aes(x = distance)) +
      geom_histogram(aes(fill = "No caliper"), bins = 30, alpha = 0.5) +
      geom_histogram(
        data = result_with_cal$pairs,
        aes(fill = "With caliper"),
        bins = 30,
        alpha = 0.5
      ) +
      geom_vline(xintercept = 1.5, linetype = "dashed", color = "red") +
      labs(
        title = "Caliper Effect on Match Distances",
        x = "Distance",
        y = "Count",
        fill = "Condition"
      ) +
      theme_minimal() +
      theme(plot.background = element_rect(fill = "transparent", color = NA),
            panel.background = element_rect(fill = "transparent", color = NA),
            legend.background = element_rect(fill = "transparent", color = NA),
            panel.grid = element_blank())

### Choosing Caliper Width

Common approaches:

1. Standard deviation rule: Caliper = 0.1 to 0.25 pooled SD

    # Calculate pooled SD
    combined <- bind_rows(
      left_data |> mutate(group = "left"),
      right_data |> mutate(group = "right")
    )

    pooled_sd <- sd(combined$age)  # For single variable
    caliper_width <- 0.2 * pooled_sd

    result <- match_couples(
      left_data, right_data,
      vars = "age",
      max_distance = caliper_width
    )

2. Propensity score rule: 0.1 to 0.25 SD of propensity score logit

3. Empirical rule: Examine distance distribution, exclude extreme tail

    # Fit all matches first
    all_matches <- match_couples(left_cal, right_cal, vars = "x")

    # Choose caliper at 90th percentile
    caliper_90 <- quantile(all_matches$pairs$distance, 0.90)

    # Refit with caliper
    refined_matches <- match_couples(
      left_cal, right_cal,
      vars = "x",
      max_distance = caliper_90
    )

    cat("90th percentile caliper:", round(caliper_90, 3), "\n")
    #> 90th percentile caliper: 4.551
    cat("Matches retained:",
        round(100 * refined_matches$info$n_matched / all_matches$info$n_matched, 1), "%\n")
    #> Matches retained: 100 %

## Blocking and Stratification

Blocking (exact matching on key variables) combined with distance matching on remaining covariates is a powerful strategy.

### Why Use Blocking

Benefits:

- Ensures exact balance on critical variables (site, gender, age category)

- Reduces problem size (smaller within-block matching problems)

- Prevents poor cross-block matches

- Transparent and interpretable

When to use:

- Strong domain knowledge about important stratification variables

- Variables that absolutely must be balanced (e.g., study site in multi-center trials)

- Large datasets where blocking reduces computational burden

### Exact Blocking with `matchmaker()`

    # Create multi-site data
    set.seed(303)
    multi_site <- bind_rows(
      tibble(
        id = 1:100,
        site = sample(c("A", "B", "C"), 100, replace = TRUE),
        age = rnorm(100, 50, 10),
        income = rnorm(100, 55000, 15000),
        group = "treatment"
      ),
      tibble(
        id = 101:250,
        site = sample(c("A", "B", "C"), 150, replace = TRUE),
        age = rnorm(150, 50, 10),
        income = rnorm(150, 55000, 15000),
        group = "control"
      )
    )

    left_site <- multi_site |> filter(group == "treatment")
    right_site <- multi_site |> filter(group == "control")

    # Create exact blocks by site
    blocks <- matchmaker(
      left = left_site,
      right = right_site,
      block_type = "group",
      block_by = "site"
    )

    cat("Blocking structure:\n")
    #> Blocking structure:
    print(blocks$block_summary)
    #> # A tibble: 3 × 3
    #>   block_id n_left n_right
    #>   <chr>     <dbl>   <dbl>
    #> 1 A            36      58
    #> 2 B            26      42
    #> 3 C            38      50

    # Match within blocks
    result_blocked <- match_couples(
      left = blocks$left,
      right = blocks$right,
      vars = c("age", "income"),
      block_id = "block_id",  # Use block IDs from matchmaker
      auto_scale = TRUE
    )
    #> Auto-selected scaling method: standardize

    # Verify exact site balance
    result_blocked$pairs |>
      mutate(left_id = as.integer(left_id), right_id = as.integer(right_id)) |>
      left_join(left_site |> dplyr::select(id, site), by = c("left_id" = "id")) |>
      left_join(right_site |> dplyr::select(id, site), by = c("right_id" = "id"), suffix = c("_left", "_right")) |>
      count(site_left, site_right)
    #> # A tibble: 3 × 3
    #>   site_left site_right     n
    #>   <chr>     <chr>      <int>
    #> 1 A         A             36
    #> 2 B         B             26
    #> 3 C         C             38

### Cluster-Based Blocking

For continuous variables, use k-means clustering to create blocks:

    # Create blocks based on age groups (data-driven)
    cluster_blocks <- matchmaker(
      left = left_site,
      right = right_site,
      block_type = "cluster",
      block_vars = "age",
      n_blocks = 3
    )

    cat("Cluster-based blocks:\n")
    #> Cluster-based blocks:
    print(cluster_blocks$block_summary)
    #> # A tibble: 3 × 4
    #>   block_id  n_left n_right mean_age
    #>   <chr>      <dbl>   <dbl>    <dbl>
    #> 1 cluster_1     37      56     61.2
    #> 2 cluster_2     41      65     48.4
    #> 3 cluster_3     22      29     37.9

    # Match within clusters
    result_clustered <- match_couples(
      left = cluster_blocks$left,
      right = cluster_blocks$right,
      vars = c("age", "income"),
      block_id = "block_id",
      auto_scale = TRUE
    )
    #> Auto-selected scaling method: standardize

    # Show age distribution by cluster
    cluster_blocks$left |>
      group_by(block_id) |>
      summarise(
        n = n(),
        mean_age = mean(age),
        sd_age = sd(age)
      )
    #> # A tibble: 3 × 4
    #>   block_id      n mean_age sd_age
    #>   <chr>     <int>    <dbl>  <dbl>
    #> 1 cluster_1    37     61.2   4.59
    #> 2 cluster_2    41     48.4   3.27
    #> 3 cluster_3    22     37.9   4.42

## Balance Diagnostics

After matching, assess balance quality using `balance_diagnostics()`.

### Key Balance Metrics

1. Standardized differences: \[ \text{Std Diff} = \frac{\bar{x}_{\text{left}} - \bar{x}_{\text{right}}}{\sqrt{(s_{\text{left}}^2 + s_{\text{right}}^2) / 2}} \]

Thresholds:

- < 0.1: Excellent balance

- 0.1 - 0.25: Good balance

- 0.25 - 0.5: Acceptable (may need further adjustment)

- > 0.5: Poor balance (reconsider matching strategy)

2. Variance ratios: \[ \text{VR} = \frac{s_{\text{left}}^2}{s_{\text{right}}^2} \]

Interpretation:

- Close to 1.0: Similar variability (good)

- < 0.5 or > 2.0: Concerning imbalance in spread

3. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests:

- Non-parametric test for distributional differences

- Sensitive to differences beyond mean/variance

- P-value > 0.05 suggests similar distributions

    # Perform matching
    match_result <- match_couples(
      left = left_data,
      right = right_data,
      vars = c("age", "income"),
      auto_scale = TRUE
    )
    #> Auto-selected scaling method: standardize

    # Get matched samples
    matched_left <- left_data |>
      filter(id %in% match_result$pairs$left_id)

    matched_right <- right_data |>
      filter(id %in% match_result$pairs$right_id)

    # Compute balance diagnostics
    balance <- balance_diagnostics(
      result = match_result,
      left = left_data,
      right = right_data,
      vars = c("age", "income")
    )

    # Print balance summary
    print(balance)
    #>
    #> Balance Diagnostics for Matched Pairs
    #> ======================================
    #>
    #> Matching Summary:
    #>   Method: lap
    #>   Matched pairs: 100
    #>   Unmatched left: 0 (of 100)
    #>   Unmatched right: 50 (of 150)
    #>
    #> Variable-level Balance:
    #> # A tibble: 2 × 7
    #>   Variable `Mean Left` `Mean Right` `Mean Diff` `Std Diff` `Var Ratio` `KS Stat`
    #>   <chr>          <dbl>        <dbl>       <dbl>      <dbl>       <dbl>     <dbl>
    #> 1 age             45.9         47.3       -1.43     -0.148       0.891      0.18
    #> 2 income       58387.       56118.      2269.        0.155       0.982      0.09
    #>
    #> Overall Balance:
    #>   Mean |Std Diff|: 0.151 (Good)
    #>   Max |Std Diff|: 0.155
    #>   Vars with |Std Diff| > 0.25: 0.0%
    #>
    #> Balance Interpretation:
    #>   |Std Diff| < 0.10: Excellent balance
    #>   |Std Diff| 0.10-0.25: Good balance
    #>   |Std Diff| 0.25-0.50: Acceptable balance
    #>   |Std Diff| > 0.50: Poor balance

    # Extract balance table for reporting
    balance_table(balance)
    #> # A tibble: 2 × 7
    #>   Variable `Mean Left` `Mean Right` `Mean Diff` `Std Diff` `Var Ratio` `KS Stat`
    #>   <chr>          <dbl>        <dbl>       <dbl>      <dbl>       <dbl>     <dbl>
    #> 1 age             45.9         47.3       -1.43     -0.148       0.891      0.18
    #> 2 income       58387.       56118.      2269.        0.155       0.982      0.09

### How to Interpret Balance Results

The balance diagnostics output tells you whether your match succeeded. Here’s how to read it:

    Balance Diagnostics
    -------------------
    Variables: age, income

    Variable Statistics:
      variable mean_left mean_right std_diff var_ratio ks_stat ks_p
      age      45.2      45.8       -0.08    0.95      0.06    0.89
      income   58000     56500      0.12     1.08      0.09    0.45

Reading each column:

Column | Meaning | Good Values
--- | --- | ---
`std_diff` | Standardized difference in means | |value| < 0.1 excellent, < 0.25 acceptable
`var_ratio` | Ratio of standard deviations | 0.5–2.0 acceptable, closer to 1.0 is better
`ks_stat` | Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic | Smaller is better
`ks_p` | KS test p-value | > 0.05 suggests similar distributions

Quality thresholds for standardized differences:

- < 0.1: Excellent balance (treat as successfully matched)

- 0.1-0.25: Good balance (acceptable for most purposes)

- 0.25-0.5: Marginal (consider refinement or sensitivity analysis)

- > 0.5: Poor balance (matching strategy needs revision)

What to do if balance is poor:

1. Add more matching variables that explain the imbalance

2. Tighten calipers (accept fewer matches but better quality)

3. Try blocking on the problematic variable

4. Report and discuss in limitations section

### Visualizing Balance

    # Before-after balance plot
    # (Requires creating pre-match balance for comparison)

    # For pre-match comparison, just compute summary statistics directly
    pre_match_stats <- tibble(
      variable = c("age", "income"),
      std_diff = c(
        (mean(left_data$age) - mean(right_data$age)) / sqrt((sd(left_data$age)^2 + sd(right_data$age)^2) / 2),
        (mean(left_data$income) - mean(right_data$income)) / sqrt((sd(left_data$income)^2 + sd(right_data$income)^2) / 2)
      ),
      when = "Before"
    )

    # Combine for plotting
    balance_comparison <- bind_rows(
      pre_match_stats,
      balance$var_stats |> dplyr::select(variable, std_diff) |> mutate(when = "After")
    )

    ggplot(balance_comparison, aes(x = variable, y = std_diff, fill = when)) +
      geom_hline(yintercept = c(-0.1, 0.1), linetype = "dashed", color = "#93c54b", linewidth = 0.8) +
      geom_hline(yintercept = c(-0.25, 0.25), linetype = "dashed", color = "#f47c3c", linewidth = 0.8) +
      geom_col(position = "dodge", width = 0.5) +
      geom_label(aes(x = 1.5, y = -0.1, label = "±0.1 excellent"),
                 fill = "#93c54b", color = "white", inherit.aes = FALSE,
                 size = 3, fontface = "bold", label.padding = unit(0.2, "lines")) +
      geom_label(aes(x = 1.5, y = 0.25, label = "±0.25 acceptable"),
                 fill = "#f47c3c", color = "white", inherit.aes = FALSE,
                 size = 3, fontface = "bold", label.padding = unit(0.2, "lines")) +
      labs(
        title = "Covariate Balance Before and After Matching",
        x = "Variable",
        y = "Standardized Difference",
        fill = "Timing"
      ) +
      theme_minimal() +
      theme(plot.background = element_rect(fill = "transparent", color = NA),
            panel.background = element_rect(fill = "transparent", color = NA),
            legend.background = element_rect(fill = "transparent", color = NA),
            panel.grid = element_blank()) +
      coord_flip()
    #> Warning in geom_label(aes(x = 1.5, y = -0.1, label = "±0.1 excellent"), : All aesthetics have length 1, but the data has 4 rows.
    #> ℹ Please consider using `annotate()` or provide this layer with data containing
    #>   a single row.
    #> Warning in geom_label(aes(x = 1.5, y = 0.25, label = "±0.25 acceptable"), : All aesthetics have length 1, but the data has 4 rows.
    #> ℹ Please consider using `annotate()` or provide this layer with data containing
    #>   a single row.

## Real-World Example: Treatment Effect Estimation

Complete workflow for estimating treatment effects in an observational study.

### Scenario

Evaluate the effect of a job training program on earnings. Participants self-selected into the program, creating potential selection bias.

Data:

- Treatment: 200 program participants

- Control: 500 non-participants

- Covariates: age, education, prior earnings, employment status

- Outcome: Earnings one year after program

### Step 1: Data Preparation

    set.seed(404)

    # Simulate realistic scenario with selection bias
    # Program attracts younger, more educated, currently employed individuals
    create_participant <- function(n, is_treatment) {
      if (is_treatment) {
        tibble(
          id = 1:n,
          age = rnorm(n, mean = 35, sd = 8),
          education_years = rnorm(n, mean = 14, sd = 2),
          prior_earnings = rnorm(n, mean = 35000, sd = 10000),
          employed = sample(c(0, 1), n, replace = TRUE, prob = c(0.3, 0.7)),
          treatment = 1
        )
      } else {
        tibble(
          id = (n+1):(n+500),
          age = rnorm(500, mean = 42, sd = 12),
          education_years = rnorm(500, mean = 12, sd = 3),
          prior_earnings = rnorm(500, mean = 30000, sd = 12000),
          employed = sample(c(0, 1), 500, replace = TRUE, prob = c(0.5, 0.5)),
          treatment = 0
        )
      }
    }

    treatment_group <- create_participant(200, TRUE)
    control_group <- create_participant(500, FALSE)

    # Simulate outcome (earnings) with treatment effect
    # True effect: +$5,000, with heterogeneity
    treatment_group <- treatment_group |>
      mutate(
        earnings = prior_earnings +
          5000 +  # True treatment effect
          2000 * rnorm(n()) +  # Random variation
          100 * education_years  # Education effect
      )

    control_group <- control_group |>
      mutate(
        earnings = prior_earnings +
          2000 * rnorm(n()) +
          100 * education_years
      )

    # Examine baseline imbalance
    cat("Pre-matching differences:\n")
    #> Pre-matching differences:
    cat("Age diff:",
        mean(treatment_group$age) - mean(control_group$age), "\n")
    #> Age diff: -5.525329
    cat("Education diff:",
        mean(treatment_group$education_years) - mean(control_group$education_years), "\n")
    #> Education diff: 1.801605
    cat("Prior earnings diff:",
        mean(treatment_group$prior_earnings) - mean(control_group$prior_earnings), "\n")
    #> Prior earnings diff: 5420.931

### Step 2: Perform Matching

    # Match on baseline covariates
    job_match <- match_couples(
      left = treatment_group,
      right = control_group,
      vars = c("age", "education_years", "prior_earnings", "employed"),
      auto_scale = TRUE,
      scale = "robust",
      return_diagnostics = TRUE
    )

    cat("Matching summary:\n")
    #> Matching summary:
    cat("  Treated units:", nrow(treatment_group), "\n")
    #>   Treated units: 200
    cat("  Matched treated:", job_match$info$n_matched, "\n")
    #>   Matched treated: 200
    cat("  Match rate:",
        round(100 * job_match$info$n_matched / nrow(treatment_group), 1), "%\n")
    #>   Match rate: 100 %

### Step 3: Assess Balance

    # Extract matched samples
    matched_treated <- treatment_group |>
      filter(id %in% job_match$pairs$left_id)

    matched_control <- control_group |>
      filter(id %in% job_match$pairs$right_id)

    # Compute balance
    job_balance <- balance_diagnostics(
      result = job_match,
      left = treatment_group,
      right = control_group,
      vars = c("age", "education_years", "prior_earnings", "employed")
    )
    #> Warning in ks.test.default(left_clean, right_clean): p-value will be
    #> approximate in the presence of ties

    print(job_balance)
    #>
    #> Balance Diagnostics for Matched Pairs
    #> ======================================
    #>
    #> Matching Summary:
    #>   Method: lap
    #>   Matched pairs: 200
    #>   Unmatched left: 0 (of 200)
    #>   Unmatched right: 300 (of 500)
    #>
    #> Variable-level Balance:
    #> # A tibble: 4 × 7
    #>   Variable `Mean Left` `Mean Right` `Mean Diff` `Std Diff` `Var Ratio` `KS Stat`
    #>   <chr>          <dbl>        <dbl>       <dbl>      <dbl>       <dbl>     <dbl>
    #> 1 age             35.4       36.0        -0.656     -0.081       0.869     0.1
    #> 2 educati…        13.9       13.5         0.4        0.195       0.93      0.18
    #> 3 prior_e…     35015.     33795.       1219.         0.121       1.01      0.08
    #> 4 employed         0.7        0.635       0.065      0.138       0.952     0.065
    #>
    #> Overall Balance:
    #>   Mean |Std Diff|: 0.134 (Good)
    #>   Max |Std Diff|: 0.195
    #>   Vars with |Std Diff| > 0.25: 0.0%
    #>
    #> Balance Interpretation:
    #>   |Std Diff| < 0.10: Excellent balance
    #>   |Std Diff| 0.10-0.25: Good balance
    #>   |Std Diff| 0.25-0.50: Acceptable balance
    #>   |Std Diff| > 0.50: Poor balance

    # Check overall balance quality
    cat("\nOverall balance:\n")
    #>
    #> Overall balance:
    cat("  Mean |std diff|:", round(job_balance$overall$mean_abs_std_diff, 3), "\n")
    #>   Mean |std diff|: 0.134
    cat("  Max |std diff|:", round(job_balance$overall$max_abs_std_diff, 3), "\n")
    #>   Max |std diff|: 0.195
    cat("  % with |std diff| > 0.1:",
        round(job_balance$overall$pct_large_imbalance, 1), "%\n")
    #>   % with |std diff| > 0.1: 0 %

### Step 4: Estimate Treatment Effect

    # Naive estimate (without matching) - BIASED
    naive_effect <- mean(treatment_group$earnings) - mean(control_group$earnings)

    # Matched estimate - accounts for baseline differences
    matched_effect <- mean(matched_treated$earnings) - mean(matched_control$earnings)

    # Paired t-test for significance
    paired_comparison <- tibble(
      treated = matched_treated$earnings,
      control = matched_control$earnings[match(
        matched_treated$id,
        job_match$pairs$left_id
      )]
    )

    t_test <- t.test(paired_comparison$treated, paired_comparison$control, paired = TRUE)

    # Report results
    cat("Treatment Effect Estimates:\n\n")
    #> Treatment Effect Estimates:
    cat("Naive (unmatched):\n")
    #> Naive (unmatched):
    cat("  Difference: $", round(naive_effect, 0), "\n")
    #>   Difference: $ 10680
    cat("  (Upward biased due to selection)\n\n")
    #>   (Upward biased due to selection)

    cat("Matched estimate:\n")
    #> Matched estimate:
    cat("  Difference: $", round(matched_effect, 0), "\n")
    #>   Difference: $ 6276
    cat("  95% CI: ($", round(t_test$conf.int[1], 0), ", $",
        round(t_test$conf.int[2], 0), ")\n")
    #>   95% CI: ($ 4301 , $ 8252 )
    cat("  P-value:", format.pval(t_test$p.value, digits = 3), "\n")
    #>   P-value: 2.26e-09
    cat("  (Closer to true effect of $5,000)\n")
    #>   (Closer to true effect of $5,000)

### Step 5: Publication-Ready Output

    # Table 1: Balance table
    balance_publication <- balance_table(job_balance)
    print(balance_publication)

    # Table 2: Sample characteristics
    sample_table <- bind_rows(
      matched_treated |>
        summarise(
          Group = "Treatment",
          N = n(),
          `Age (mean ± SD)` = sprintf("%.1f ± %.1f", mean(age), sd(age)),
          `Education (years)` = sprintf("%.1f ± %.1f", mean(education_years), sd(education_years)),
          `Prior Earnings` = sprintf("$%s ± %s",
                                     format(round(mean(prior_earnings)), big.mark = ","),
                                     format(round(sd(prior_earnings)), big.mark = ",")),
          `Employed (%)` = sprintf("%.1f", 100 * mean(employed))
        ),
      matched_control |>
        summarise(
          Group = "Control",
          N = n(),
          `Age (mean ± SD)` = sprintf("%.1f ± %.1f", mean(age), sd(age)),
          `Education (years)` = sprintf("%.1f ± %.1f", mean(education_years), sd(education_years)),
          `Prior Earnings` = sprintf("$%s ± %s",
                                     format(round(mean(prior_earnings)), big.mark = ","),
                                     format(round(sd(prior_earnings)), big.mark = ",")),
          `Employed (%)` = sprintf("%.1f", 100 * mean(employed))
        )
    )

    print(sample_table)

    # Table 3: Treatment effect
    effect_table <- tibble(
      Method = c("Unmatched", "Matched"),
      `N (Treated)` = c(nrow(treatment_group), nrow(matched_treated)),
      `N (Control)` = c(nrow(control_group), nrow(matched_control)),
      `Effect Estimate` = sprintf("$%s", format(round(c(naive_effect, matched_effect)), big.mark = ",")),
      `95% CI` = c("--", sprintf("($%s, $%s)",
                                format(round(t_test$conf.int[1]), big.mark = ","),
                                format(round(t_test$conf.int[2]), big.mark = ",")))
    )

    print(effect_table)

## Performance Considerations

### Scalability

Optimal matching complexity: \(O(n^3)\) using Jonker-Volgenant

- n = 100: < 0.01 seconds

- n = 500: ~ 0.1 seconds

- n = 1,000: ~ 1 second

- n = 3,000: ~ 10 seconds

- n = 5,000: ~ 30-60 seconds

Greedy matching complexity: \(O(n^2 \log n)\) for sorted, \(O(n^2)\) for row-best

- n = 5,000: ~ 1 second

- n = 10,000: ~ 3-5 seconds

- n = 50,000: ~ 30-60 seconds

### Memory Usage

- Cost matrix: 8n² bytes (for n×n problem)

- n = 1,000: ~ 8 MB

- n = 5,000: ~ 200 MB

- n = 10,000: ~ 800 MB

For very large problems:

1. Use greedy matching to avoid full cost matrix

2. Use blocking to reduce within-block size

3. Consider approximate methods (upcoming vignette)

### Optimization Tips

1. Use blocking for large datasets

    # Instead of matching 10,000 × 10,000:
    # Create 10 blocks of ~1,000 × 1,000 each
    blocks <- matchmaker(
      left_large, right_large,
      block_type = "cluster",
      cluster_vars = "age",
      n_clusters = 10
    )

    # Much faster: 10 * O(1000^3) << O(10000^3)
    result <- match_couples(
      blocks$left, blocks$right,
      vars = covariates,
      block_id = "block_id"
    )

2. Start with greedy, refine if needed

    # Quick greedy match for exploration
    quick <- greedy_couples(
      left_data, right_data,
      vars = covariates,
      strategy = "row_best"
    )

    # Assess balance
    balance_quick <- balance_diagnostics(quick, left_data, right_data, vars = covariates)

    # If balance is acceptable, done!
    # If not, try optimal or add blocking

3. Use calipers to reduce problem size

    # Caliper removes distant pairs from cost matrix
    # Can dramatically reduce effective problem size
    result <- match_couples(
      left_data, right_data,
      vars = covariates,
      max_distance = 0.25,  # Strict caliper
      auto_scale = TRUE
    )

## What Can Go Wrong

Matching doesn’t always succeed. Here are common problems and solutions.

### Problem: Poor Balance Despite Matching

Symptom: `balance_diagnostics()` shows |std_diff| > 0.25 for some variables.

Causes: - Groups are fundamentally too different (weak overlap)

- Important confounders not included in matching variables

- Caliper too loose

Solutions:

    # 1. Add more matching variables
    result <- match_couples(left, right,
                            vars = c("age", "income", "education", "region"),  # Added!
                            auto_scale = TRUE)

    # 2. Tighten caliper (fewer but better matches)
    result <- match_couples(left, right, vars = vars,
                            max_distance = 0.1)  # Was 0.5

    # 3. Block on the problematic variable
    blocks <- matchmaker(left, right, block_type = "group", block_by = "region")
    result <- match_couples(blocks$left, blocks$right, vars = other_vars,
                            block_id = "block_id")

### Problem: Very Few Matches

Symptom: `n_matched` is much smaller than `nrow(left)`.

Causes: - Caliper too strict

- Non-overlapping covariate distributions

- Blocking creates small strata

Diagnosis:

    # Check covariate overlap
    library(ggplot2)
    combined <- bind_rows(
      left |> mutate(group = "treatment"),
      right |> mutate(group = "control")
    )
    ggplot(combined, aes(x = age, fill = group)) +
      geom_density(alpha = 0.5) +
      labs(title = "Check for Overlap")

Solutions: - Relax caliper

- Use coarser blocking categories

- Accept that some treatment units are unmatchable (report this!)

### Problem: Matching Takes Too Long

Symptom: `match_couples()` runs for minutes or doesn’t complete. Cause: \(O(n^3)\) complexity for optimal matching.

Solutions:

    # For n > 3000: use greedy
    result <- greedy_couples(left, right, vars = vars, strategy = "sorted")

    # For n > 5000: add blocking
    blocks <- matchmaker(left, right, block_type = "cluster", n_blocks = 20)
    result <- match_couples(blocks$left, blocks$right, vars = vars,
                            block_id = "block_id")

### Problem: Memory Error

Symptom: R crashes or reports “cannot allocate vector of size X”.

Cause: Full cost matrix doesn’t fit in RAM. A 10,000×10,000 matrix needs ~800 MB.

Solutions: - Use `greedy_couples()` which doesn’t require full matrix

- Use blocking to create smaller sub-problems

- Consider random sampling if sample size permits

## Summary

This vignette walked through a complete matching workflow using the job training evaluation example:

1. Problem framing: Treatment effect estimation with selection bias

2. Matching: Creating comparable groups with `match_couples()`

3. Preprocessing: Automatic scaling and variable health checks

4. Assessment: Balance diagnostics and interpretation

5. Refinement: Calipers, blocking, and greedy alternatives

6. Estimation: Treatment effect with confidence intervals

Key Takeaways:

Concept | Key Point
--- | ---
Preprocessing | Always use `auto_scale = TRUE` unless you have a specific reason not to
Balance | Target |std_diff| < 0.1; accept < 0.25
Calipers | Start loose, tighten if needed for balance
Blocking | Use for exact balance on key categorical variables
Greedy | Use for n > 3000; almost as good, much faster

Recommended Workflow:

## Advanced Matching Techniques

### Full Matching (Variable-Ratio Groups)

Standard one-to-one matching discards unmatched units — a significant loss when control pools are large. Full matching assigns every unit to a matched group with variable ratios (1:k or k:1), maximizing sample size while preserving balance.

    # Full matching: every unit gets assigned to a group
    result_full <- full_match(
      left = left_data,
      right = right_data,
      vars = c("age", "income"),
      method = "optimal"   # min-cost max-flow (default)
    )

    result_full
    #>
    #> Full Matching Result
    #> ====================
    #>
    #>   Groups formed: 100
    #>   Left units:  100 matched, 0 unmatched (of 100)
    #>   Right units: 150 matched, 0 unmatched (of 150)
    #>
    #>   Right units per group: min=1, median=1, max=21

The `method` argument controls the algorithm:

- `"optimal"` (default) — Solves a min-cost max-flow problem that minimizes total distance across all group assignments simultaneously. Uses Dijkstra’s algorithm with Johnson potentials. Guarantees the globally optimal solution.

- `"greedy"` — A fast two-pass heuristic: (1) each left unit picks its nearest right unit, (2) remaining right units are assigned to their nearest matched left unit. Faster but not globally optimal.

    # Compare optimal vs greedy
    result_full_greedy <- full_match(
      left = left_data,
      right = right_data,
      vars = c("age", "income"),
      method = "greedy"
    )

    cat("Optimal: ", result_full$info$n_groups, "groups,",
        result_full$info$n_unmatched_left, "unmatched left,",
        result_full$info$n_unmatched_right, "unmatched right\n")
    #> Optimal:  100 groups, 0 unmatched left, 0 unmatched right
    cat("Greedy:  ", result_full_greedy$info$n_groups, "groups,",
        result_full_greedy$info$n_unmatched_left, "unmatched left,",
        result_full_greedy$info$n_unmatched_right, "unmatched right\n")
    #> Greedy:   100 groups, 0 unmatched left, 0 unmatched right

Full matching supports `min_controls` and `max_controls` to constrain group sizes, and `caliper` to exclude poor matches:

    # Constrain: each group gets 2-5 right units, caliper of 1.5
    result_constrained <- full_match(
      left = left_data,
      right = right_data,
      vars = c("age", "income"),
      min_controls = 2,
      max_controls = 5,
      caliper = 1.5
    )

    cat("Groups:", result_constrained$info$n_groups, "\n")
    #> Groups: 0
    cat("Unmatched left:", result_constrained$info$n_unmatched_left, "\n")
    #> Unmatched left: 100
    cat("Unmatched right:", result_constrained$info$n_unmatched_right, "\n")
    #> Unmatched right: 150

The output is an S3 object of class `full_matching_result` with a `groups` tibble containing `group_id`, `id`, `side`, and `weight`. Within each group, right-unit weights sum to the number of left units, enabling unbiased estimation:

    head(result_full$groups, 10)
    #> # A tibble: 10 × 4
    #>    group_id id    side  weight
    #>       <int> <chr> <chr>  <dbl>
    #>  1        1 1     left       1
    #>  2        1 140   right      1
    #>  3        2 2     left       1
    #>  4        2 50    right      1
    #>  5        3 3     left       1
    #>  6        3 62    right      1
    #>  7        4 4     left       1
    #>  8        4 5     right      1
    #>  9        5 5     left       1
    #> 10        5 63    right      1

When to use full matching vs one-to-one:

Criterion | One-to-one (`match_couples`) | Full (`full_match`)
--- | --- | ---
Sample size | Discards excess units | Uses every unit
Estimand | ATT (treatment on treated) | ATT or ATE (with weights)
Group structure | Pairs (1:1) | Variable-ratio groups
Balance | Excellent within pairs | Good overall (weighted)
Precision | Lower (smaller n) | Higher (larger effective n)

### Ratio Matching (k:1)

Sometimes matching multiple controls per treated unit improves precision. Use the `ratio` parameter:

    # Match 2 controls per treated unit
    result_2to1 <- match_couples(
      left = left_data,
      right = right_data,
      vars = c("age", "income"),
      auto_scale = TRUE,
      ratio = 2,
      method = "hungarian"
    )
    #> Auto-selected scaling method: standardize

    result_2to1$pairs
    #> # A tibble: 150 × 5
    #>    left_id right_id distance .age_diff .income_diff
    #>    <chr>   <chr>       <dbl>     <dbl>        <dbl>
    #>  1 3       52        1.07     -11.6          5127.
    #>  2 3       5         0.270     -2.96         1144.
    #>  3 4       100       1.05     -10.8          7159.
    #>  4 4       81        0.121      0.567        1820.
    #>  5 5       3         0.690     -6.78         5721.
    #>  6 5       71        0.469     -3.30         6065.
    #>  7 6       30        1.08     -12.3          1426.
    #>  8 6       25        0.231     -2.50         1139.
    #>  9 7       143       0.735     -5.12         9559.
    #> 10 7       94        0.00653    0.0728        -20.9
    #> # ℹ 140 more rows

Higher ratios increase sample size at the cost of slightly worse individual match quality. A common choice is 2:1 or 3:1.

### With-Replacement Matching

When controls are scarce relative to treated units, allowing replacement lets each control serve as a match for multiple treated units:

    # Allow controls to be reused
    result_wr <- match_couples(
      left = left_data,
      right = right_data,
      vars = c("age", "income"),
      auto_scale = TRUE,
      replace = TRUE,
      method = "hungarian"
    )
    #> Auto-selected scaling method: standardize

    # Some controls may appear multiple times
    n_distinct_controls <- length(unique(result_wr$pairs$right_id))
    cat("Unique controls used:", n_distinct_controls, "out of", nrow(right_data), "\n")
    #> Unique controls used: 52 out of 150

With-replacement matching reduces bias (each treated unit gets its closest match) but increases variance.

### Propensity Score Matching

Instead of matching directly on covariates, you can match on the estimated probability of treatment — the propensity score. `ps_match()` automates this:

    # Combine data for propensity score estimation
    combined <- rbind(
      transform(left_data[, c("id", "age", "income")], treated = 1L),
      transform(right_data[, c("id", "age", "income")], treated = 0L)
    )

    # Match on propensity scores (wider caliper for this example)
    ps_result <- ps_match(
      formula = treated ~ age + income,
      data = combined,
      treatment = "treated",
      caliper_sd = 0.5,
      method = "hungarian"
    )

    ps_result
    #> Matching Result
    #> ===============
    #>
    #> Method: lap
    #> Pairs matched: 99
    #> Unmatched (left): 1
    #> Unmatched (right): 51
    #> Total distance: 9.8133
    #>
    #> Matched pairs:
    #> # A tibble: 99 × 4
    #>    left_id right_id distance .logit_ps_diff
    #>    <chr>   <chr>       <dbl>          <dbl>
    #>  1 1       23        0.164          0.164
    #>  2 2       36        0.0533         0.0533
    #>  3 3       148       0.0121         0.0121
    #>  4 4       49        0.321          0.321
    #>  5 5       68        0.0874         0.0874
    #>  6 6       48        0.00425        0.00425
    #>  7 7       111       0.102          0.102
    #>  8 8       81        0.196          0.196
    #>  9 9       128       0.0692         0.0692
    #> 10 10      110       0.0131         0.0131
    #> # ℹ 89 more rows

The function fits a logistic regression, transforms scores to the logit scale, and calls `match_couples()` with a caliper constraint. The default caliper is 0.2 SD of logit(PS) (Rosenbaum and Rubin recommendation); we use 0.5 here for this small simulated dataset. You can also supply a pre-fitted model via the `ps_model` argument.

### Cardinality Matching

Standard matching minimizes total distance. Cardinality matching instead maximizes the number of matched pairs while enforcing strict balance constraints:

    # Maximize pairs subject to balance threshold
    card_result <- cardinality_match(
      left = left_data,
      right = right_data,
      vars = c("age", "income"),
      max_std_diff = 0.1,  # Excellent balance threshold
      auto_scale = TRUE,
      method = "hungarian"
    )
    #> Auto-selected scaling method: standardize

    cat("Pairs matched:", card_result$info$n_matched, "\n")
    #> Pairs matched: 81
    cat("Pruning iterations:", card_result$info$pruning_iterations, "\n")
    #> Pruning iterations: 2
    cat("Pairs removed:", card_result$info$pairs_removed, "\n")
    #> Pairs removed: 19

This is useful when you need strict balance guarantees and are willing to sacrifice some sample size.

### Coarsened Exact Matching (CEM)

CEM coarsens continuous variables into bins, then performs exact matching within strata. This avoids model dependence — results don’t rely on a distance function or propensity score model:

    cem_result <- cem_match(
      left = left_data,
      right = right_data,
      vars = c("age", "income"),
      n_bins = "sturges"   # automatic bin width; also "fd", "scott", or an integer
    )

    cem_result
    #>
    #> Coarsened Exact Matching Result
    #> ===============================
    #>
    #>   Strata: 69 total, 32 matched
    #>   Left:   81 matched, 19 pruned
    #>   Right:  103 matched, 47 pruned
    #>   Variables: age, income

    # Strata summary: how many units in each coarsened cell
    head(cem_result$strata_summary)
    #> # A tibble: 6 × 4
    #>   stratum               n_left n_right matched
    #>   <chr>                  <int>   <int> <lgl>
    #> 1 (25,30]|(3e+04,4e+04]      0       1 FALSE
    #> 2 (25,30]|(4e+04,5e+04]      0       1 FALSE
    #> 3 (25,30]|(5e+04,6e+04]      2       0 FALSE
    #> 4 (25,30]|(6e+04,7e+04]      1       2 TRUE
    #> 5 (30,35]|(1e+05, Inf]       1       0 FALSE
    #> 6 (30,35]|(2e+04,3e+04]      0       2 FALSE

You can supply custom cutpoints per variable with the `cutpoints` argument, or pass categorical grouping variables with `grouping`. Each matched unit receives a weight inversely proportional to the stratum size, ensuring balance across strata.

### Subclassification

Subclassification (stratification on the propensity score) divides the sample into strata of similar PS, then computes within-stratum effects. Unlike one-to-one matching, no units are discarded:

    # Combine data
    combined <- rbind(
      transform(left_data[, c("id", "age", "income")], treated = 1L),
      transform(right_data[, c("id", "age", "income")], treated = 0L)
    )

    sub_result <- subclass_match(
      formula = treated ~ age + income,
      data = combined,
      treatment = "treated",
      n_subclasses = 5,
      estimand = "ATT"
    )

    sub_result
    #>
    #> Subclassification Result
    #> ========================
    #>
    #>   Estimand: ATT
    #>   Subclasses: 5
    #>   Treated (left):  100
    #>   Control (right): 150
    #>
    #>   Subclass summary:
    #> # A tibble: 5 × 7
    #>   subclass n_treated n_control mean_ps ps_range_low ps_range_high has_overlap
    #>      <int>     <int>     <int>   <dbl>        <dbl>         <dbl> <lgl>
    #> 1        1         6        44   0.192       0.0902         0.251 TRUE
    #> 2        2        15        35   0.296       0.257          0.348 TRUE
    #> 3        3        20        30   0.391       0.350          0.435 TRUE
    #> 4        4        32        18   0.491       0.438          0.537 TRUE
    #> 5        5        27        23   0.630       0.542          0.843 TRUE
    head(sub_result$subclass_summary)
    #> # A tibble: 5 × 7
    #>   subclass n_treated n_control mean_ps ps_range_low ps_range_high has_overlap
    #>      <int>     <int>     <int>   <dbl>        <dbl>         <dbl> <lgl>
    #> 1        1         6        44   0.192       0.0902         0.251 TRUE
    #> 2        2        15        35   0.296       0.257          0.348 TRUE
    #> 3        3        20        30   0.391       0.350          0.435 TRUE
    #> 4        4        32        18   0.491       0.438          0.537 TRUE
    #> 5        5        27        23   0.630       0.542          0.843 TRUE

### Ecosystem Integration

All couplr result types can be converted to a unified analysis-ready format or to MatchIt-class objects for interoperability with cobalt and marginaleffects.

`match_data()` produces a single data frame with `treatment`, `weights`, `subclass`, and `distance` columns — ready for downstream modelling:

    md <- couplr::match_data(result, left_data, right_data)
    head(md)
    #> # A tibble: 6 × 9
    #>      id   age income education group     treatment weights subclass distance
    #>   <int> <dbl>  <dbl> <chr>     <chr>         <int>   <dbl>    <int>    <dbl>
    #> 1     1  39.4 49344. MA        treatment         1       1        1 0.00324
    #> 2     2  42.7 63853. MA        treatment         1       1        2 0.00455
    #> 3     3  60.6 56300. MA        treatment         1       1        3 0.000900
    #> 4     4  45.7 54787. HS        treatment         1       1        4 0.00685
    #> 5     5  46.3 45726. HS        treatment         1       1        5 0.00447
    #> 6     6  62.2 59325. MA        treatment         1       1        6 0.00389

`as_matchit()` constructs a `matchit`-class object, enabling direct use with `cobalt::bal.tab()`, `cobalt::love.plot()`, and `marginaleffects::avg_comparisons()`:

    mi <- as_matchit(result, left_data, right_data)

    # cobalt balance table
    cobalt::bal.tab(mi)

    # marginaleffects
    marginaleffects::avg_comparisons(model, vcov = "HC3", newdata = match.data(mi))

## Sensitivity Analysis

After matching, a natural question is: how much hidden bias would be needed to invalidate the results? Rosenbaum bounds address this by computing p-values under varying degrees of unobserved confounding.

    # Simulate a modest treatment effect (small enough that hidden bias matters)
    set.seed(99)
    n_sa <- 50
    left_sa <- data.frame(
      id = 1:n_sa,
      x = rnorm(n_sa, 5, 2),
      outcome = rnorm(n_sa, mean = 1.0, sd = 2)
    )
    right_sa <- data.frame(
      id = (n_sa + 1):(2 * n_sa),
      x = rnorm(n_sa, 5, 2),
      outcome = rnorm(n_sa, mean = 0.3, sd = 2)
    )

    # Match on covariate x
    result_sa <- match_couples(
      left = left_sa,
      right = right_sa,
      vars = "x",
      method = "hungarian"
    )

    # How robust is the result to hidden bias?
    sa <- sensitivity_analysis(
      result = result_sa,
      left = left_sa,
      right = right_sa,
      outcome_var = "outcome",
      gamma = seq(1, 2, by = 0.25)
    )

    sa
    #> Rosenbaum Sensitivity Analysis
    #> ==============================
    #>
    #> Matched pairs: 50
    #> Alternative: greater
    #> Test statistic (T+): 850.0
    #>
    #> Gamma    p (upper bound)
    #> -----    ---------------
    #> 1.00     0.0204 *
    #> 1.25     0.0852
    #> 1.50     0.2026
    #> 1.75     0.3510
    #> 2.00     0.5020
    #>
    #> * significant at alpha = 0.05
    #>
    #> Insensitive to hidden bias up to Gamma = 1.00
    #> To explain away the effect, hidden bias would need Gamma >= 1.25

The critical gamma (\(\Gamma\)) is the smallest value at which the upper-bound p-value crosses 0.05. A larger critical gamma means the finding is more robust: a critical gamma of 1.75, for example, means an unobserved confounder would need to change the odds of treatment by a factor of 1.75 to explain away the result.

## Visualizing Results with autoplot

If `ggplot2` is available, `autoplot()` methods produce publication-ready plots:

    if (requireNamespace("ggplot2", quietly = TRUE)) {
      library(ggplot2)

      # Distance distribution
      autoplot(result, type = "histogram")
    }

    if (requireNamespace("ggplot2", quietly = TRUE)) {
      # Balance diagnostics love plot
      bal <- balance_diagnostics(result, left_data, right_data, vars = c("age", "income"))
      autoplot(bal, type = "love")
    }

    if (requireNamespace("ggplot2", quietly = TRUE)) {
      # Sensitivity analysis curve
      autoplot(sa)
    }

All `autoplot()` methods return `ggplot` objects, so you can add layers, themes, and labels as needed.

## See Also

- `vignette("getting-started")` - Basic LAP solving

- `vignette("algorithms")` - Mathematical foundations

- `vignette("comparison")` - How couplr compares to MatchIt, optmatch, designmatch

- `vignette("troubleshooting")` - Common issues and solutions

- `vignette("pixel-morphing")` - Large-scale approximation strategies

- `?match_couples`, `?greedy_couples`, `?full_match`, `?balance_diagnostics`, `?matchmaker`

- `?ps_match`, `?cardinality_match`, `?sensitivity_analysis`, `?cem_match`, `?subclass_match`

- `?match_data`, `?as_matchit` — ecosystem integration