Semi-supervised learning and the question of true versus estimated propensity scores

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.06183v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 04:13:12 GMT
• Title: Semi-supervised learning and the question of true versus estimated propensity scores
• Authors: Andrew Herren, P. Richard Hahn
• Abstract summary: We propose a simple procedure that reconciles the strong intuition that a known propensity functions should be useful for estimating treatment effects. Further, simulation studies suggest that direct regression may be preferable to inverse-propensity weight estimators in many circumstances.
• Score: 0.456877715768796
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: A straightforward application of semi-supervised machine learning to the problem of treatment effect estimation would be to consider data as "unlabeled" if treatment assignment and covariates are observed but outcomes are unobserved. According to this formulation, large unlabeled data sets could be used to estimate a high dimensional propensity function and causal inference using a much smaller labeled data set could proceed via weighted estimators using the learned propensity scores. In the limiting case of infinite unlabeled data, one may estimate the high dimensional propensity function exactly. However, longstanding advice in the causal inference community suggests that estimated propensity scores (from labeled data alone) are actually preferable to true propensity scores, implying that the unlabeled data is actually useless in this context. In this paper we examine this paradox and propose a simple procedure that reconciles the strong intuition that a known propensity functions should be useful for estimating treatment effects with the previous literature suggesting otherwise. Further, simulation studies suggest that direct regression may be preferable to inverse-propensity weight estimators in many circumstances.

Related papers

• Benchmarking Estimators for Natural Experiments: A Novel Dataset and a Doubly Robust Algorithm [12.201705893125775]
  We introduce a novel natural experiment dataset obtained from an early childhood literacy nonprofit. Applying over 20 established estimators to the dataset produces inconsistent results in evaluating the nonprofit's efficacy. We create a benchmark to evaluate estimator accuracy using synthetic outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T15:44:45Z)
• Label Shift Estimators for Non-Ignorable Missing Data [2.605549784939959]
  We consider the problem of estimating the mean of a random variable Y subject to non-ignorable missingness, i.e., where the missingness mechanism depends on Y. We use our approach to estimate disease prevalence using a large health survey, comparing ignorable and non-ignorable approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T16:50:13Z)
• Propensity score models are better when post-calibrated [0.32228025627337864]
  Post-calibration reduces the error in effect estimation for expressive uncalibrated statistical estimators. Given the improvement in effect estimation and that post-calibration is computationally cheap, we recommend it will be adopted when modelling propensity scores with expressive models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-02T16:01:03Z)
• Maximum Likelihood Estimation in Gaussian Process Regression is Ill-Posed [7.018149356115115]
  It remains an open problem to establish the circumstances in which maximum likelihood estimation is well-posed. This article identifies scenarios where the maximum likelihood estimator fails to be well-posed. Although the failure of maximum likelihood estimation is part of Gaussian process folklore, these rigorous theoretical results appear to be the first of their kind.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-17T09:00:39Z)
• Near-optimal inference in adaptive linear regression [60.08422051718195]
  Even simple methods like least squares can exhibit non-normal behavior when data is collected in an adaptive manner. We propose a family of online debiasing estimators to correct these distributional anomalies in at least squares estimation. We demonstrate the usefulness of our theory via applications to multi-armed bandit, autoregressive time series estimation, and active learning with exploration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T21:05:11Z)
• Imputation-Free Learning from Incomplete Observations [73.15386629370111]
  We introduce the importance of guided gradient descent (IGSGD) method to train inference from inputs containing missing values without imputation. We employ reinforcement learning (RL) to adjust the gradients used to train the models via back-propagation. Our imputation-free predictions outperform the traditional two-step imputation-based predictions using state-of-the-art imputation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T12:44:39Z)
• Deconfounding Scores: Feature Representations for Causal Effect Estimation with Weak Overlap [140.98628848491146]
  We introduce deconfounding scores, which induce better overlap without biasing the target of estimation. We show that deconfounding scores satisfy a zero-covariance condition that is identifiable in observed data. In particular, we show that this technique could be an attractive alternative to standard regularizations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-12T18:50:11Z)
• Scalable Marginal Likelihood Estimation for Model Selection in Deep Learning [78.83598532168256]
  Marginal-likelihood based model-selection is rarely used in deep learning due to estimation difficulties. Our work shows that marginal likelihoods can improve generalization and be useful when validation data is unavailable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-11T09:50:24Z)
• Performance metrics for intervention-triggering prediction models do not reflect an expected reduction in outcomes from using the model [71.9860741092209]
  Clinical researchers often select among and evaluate risk prediction models. Standard metrics calculated from retrospective data are only related to model utility under certain assumptions. When predictions are delivered repeatedly throughout time, the relationship between standard metrics and utility is further complicated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-02T16:26:49Z)
• Machine learning for causal inference: on the use of cross-fit estimators [77.34726150561087]
  Doubly-robust cross-fit estimators have been proposed to yield better statistical properties. We conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of several estimators for the average causal effect (ACE) When used with machine learning, the doubly-robust cross-fit estimators substantially outperformed all of the other estimators in terms of bias, variance, and confidence interval coverage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-21T23:09:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.