arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
北美退伍军人节(Veterans Day),12 日无更新
arXiv 2009.06183stat.MEstat.APstat.ML
收藏

半监督学习和真实与估计倾向得分的问题

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

Andrew Herren, P. Richard Hahn

摘要:

半监督机器学习对处理效应估计问题的直接应用是,如果观察到处理分配和协变量,但未观察到结果,则将数据视为“未标记”。根据该公式,可以使用大的未标记数据集来估计高维倾向函数,并且使用小得多的标记数据集的因果推断可以通过使用学习的倾向得分的加权估计器来进行。在无限未标记数据的极限情况下,可以准确地估计高维倾向函数。然而,因果推断界长期以来的建议表明,估计的倾向得分(仅来自标记数据)实际上比真实的倾向得分更可取,这意味着未标记的数据在这种情况下实际上是无用的。在本文中,我们研究这个悖论,并提出了一个简单的程序,调和强烈的直觉,一个已知的倾向函数应该是有用的估计处理效应与以前的文献建议,否则。此外,模拟研究表明,在许多情况下,直接回归可能比逆倾向权重估计更可取。

英文摘要:

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.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑