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。

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:摘要直接研究同伴行为影响及观察性混杂,并以随机实验检验高维调整,对应因果推断与网络干扰问题。

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
Dean Eckles
Eytan Bakshy

同伴效应观察性研究中的偏差与高维调整

研究问题
在信息和媒体扩散研究中,利用丰富的既往行为进行高维调整,能否使观察性同伴效应估计接近随机实验结果?
方法与思路
作者以大型随机实验为基准,使用倾向得分模型调整非实验对照组,比较人口特征、相关既往行为及大量行为变量的作用。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称简单观察性估计明显高估同伴效应,而大量既往行为调整大幅降低偏差,结果与实验估计在统计上难以区分。
阅读关注点
应核对实验与观察样本的可比性、同伴暴露和结果定义、倾向得分拟合及重叠情况,以及偏差降低比例的计算方法。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明,不能推断刊本变化;统计上难以区分不等于证明无偏,也不能直接推广至新行为。

原文摘要

Peer effects, in which an individual’s behavior is affected by peers’ behavior, are posited by multiple theories in the social sciences. Randomized field experiments that identify peer effects, however, are often expensive or infeasible, so many studies of peer effects use observational data, which is expected to suffer from confounding. Here we show, in the context of information and media diffusion, that high-dimensional adjustment of a nonexperimental control group (660 million observations) using propensity score models produces estimates of peer effects statistically indistinguishable from those using a large randomized experiment (215 million observations). Compared with the experiment, naive observational estimators overstate peer effects by over 300% and commonly available variables (e.g., demographics) offer little bias reduction. Adjusting for a measure of prior behaviors closely related to the focal behavior reduces this bias by 91%, while models adjusting for over 3700 past behaviors provide additional bias reduction, reducing bias by over 97%, which is statistically indistinguishable from unbiasedness. This demonstrates how detailed records of behavior can improve studies of social influence, information diffusion, and imitation; these results are encouraging for the credibility of some studies but also cautionary for studies of peer effects in rare or new behaviors. More generally, these results show how large, high-dimensional datasets and statistical learning can be used to improve causal inference. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文