跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确比较用于因果推断的 TMLE 与交叉验证 TMLE,并讨论正值性条件。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者

交叉验证目标最大似然估计的表现

研究问题
在小样本、数据稀疏及接近正值性违反的情形下,交叉验证 TMLE 能否改善灵活学习器带来的覆盖率和推断问题?
方法与思路
作者开展 Monte Carlo 实验,比较 TMLE 与交叉验证 TMLE,并改变超级学习器库是否包含回归树等灵活候选方法。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称交叉验证 TMLE 改善区间覆盖且未损害偏差,并降低对学习器库选择的敏感性;这些比较来自所述模拟设定。
阅读关注点
应核对交叉验证程序及模拟条件,并检查摘要关于一类错误膨胀、覆盖不足和保守区间的表述在全文中是否一致。
阅读边界
这是预印本,同行评审及期刊接收未核实;摘要未给出覆盖数值,不能据此认为交叉验证消除了正值性或其他识别要求。

原文摘要

Background: Advanced methods for causal inference, such as targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE), require certain conditions for statistical inference. However, in situations where there is not differentiability due to data sparsity or near-positivity violations, the Donsker class condition is violated. In such situations, TMLE variance can suffer from inflation of the type I error and poor coverage, leading to conservative confidence intervals. Cross-validation of the TMLE algorithm (CVTMLE) has been suggested to improve on performance compared to TMLE in settings of positivity or Donsker class violations. We aim to investigate the performance of CVTMLE compared to TMLE in various settings. Methods: We utilised the data-generating mechanism as described in Leger et al. (2022) to run a Monte Carlo experiment under different Donsker class violations. Then, we evaluated the respective statistical performances of TMLE and CVTMLE with different super learner libraries, with and without regression tree methods. Results: We found that CVTMLE vastly improves confidence interval coverage without adversely affecting bias, particularly in settings with small sample sizes and near-positivity violations. Furthermore, incorporating regression trees using standard TMLE with ensemble super learner-based initial estimates increases bias and variance leading to invalid statistical inference. Conclusions: It has been shown that when using CVTMLE the Donsker class condition is no longer necessary to obtain valid statistical inference when using regression trees and under either data sparsity or near-positivity violations. We show through simulations that CVTMLE is much less sensitive to the choice of the super learner library and thereby provides better estimation and inference in cases where the super learner library uses more flexible candidates and is prone to overfitting.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文