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:摘要的具体比较对象是无混杂条件下的平均处理效应估计量,直接对应因果推断方向。

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
Susan Athey
Guido Imbens
Jonas Metzger
Evan Munro

利用 Wasserstein 生成对抗网络设计蒙特卡洛模拟

研究问题
如何生成贴近实际经济数据的模拟样本,减少研究者选择模拟设计的自由度,并评估特定场景下估计方法的表现?
方法与思路
作者使用 Wasserstein GAN 学习真实数据特征,在对应三个实际数据集的场景中比较无混杂条件下的平均处理效应估计。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,三个场景中没有统一占优的估计量,并提出结果稳健性评估方法,展示系统模拟对场景化方法选择的帮助。
阅读关注点
核对生成数据保留了哪些特征、模拟中的真实处理效应如何设定,以及训练误差、设计选择和稳健性检查如何影响比较。
阅读边界
所给版本为 arXiv 预印本,同行评审或期刊接收未核实;摘要未提供具体性能数值,隐私保证也不能视为该应用已实现。

原文摘要

When researchers develop new econometric methods it is common practice to compare the performance of the new methods to those of existing methods in Monte Carlo studies. The credibility of such Monte Carlo studies is often limited because of the freedom the researcher has in choosing the design. In recent years a new class of generative models emerged in the machine learning literature, termed Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) that can be used to systematically generate artificial data that closely mimics real economic datasets, while limiting the degrees of freedom for the researcher and optionally satisfying privacy guarantees with respect to their training data. In addition if an applied researcher is concerned with the performance of a particular statistical method on a specific data set (beyond its theoretical properties in large samples), she may wish to assess the performance, e.g., the coverage rate of confidence intervals or the bias of the estimator, using simulated data which resembles her setting. Tol illustrate these methods we apply Wasserstein GANs (WGANs) to compare a number of different estimators for average treatment effects under unconfoundedness in three distinct settings (corresponding to three real data sets) and present a methodology for assessing the robustness of the results. In this example, we find that (i) there is not one estimator that outperforms the others in all three settings, so researchers should tailor their analytic approach to a given setting, and (ii) systematic simulation studies can be helpful for selecting among competing methods in this situation.

笔记与分组