REVIEW 2 cited by
Improving the Finite Sample Estimation of Average Treatment Effects using Double/Debiased Machine Learning with Propensity Score Calibration
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Improving the Finite Sample Estimation of Average Treatment Effects using Double/Debiased Machine Learning with Propensity Score Calibration
read the original abstract
In the last decade, machine learning techniques have gained popularity for estimating causal effects. One machine learning approach that can be used for estimating an average treatment effect is Double/debiased machine learning (DML) (Chernozhukov et al., 2018). This approach uses a double-robust score function that relies on the prediction of nuisance functions, such as the propensity score, which is the probability of treatment assignment conditional on covariates. Estimators relying on double-robust score functions are highly sensitive to errors in propensity score predictions. Machine learners increase the severity of this problem as they tend to over- or underestimate these probabilities. Several calibration approaches have been proposed to improve probabilistic forecasts of machine learners. This paper investigates the use of probability calibration approaches within the DML framework. Simulation results demonstrate that calibrating propensity scores may significantly reduces the root mean squared error of DML estimates of the average treatment effect in finite samples. We showcase it in an empirical example and provide conditions under which calibration does not alter the asymptotic properties of the DML estimator.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Model-Agnostic Bounds for Augmented Inverse Probability Weighted Estimators' Wald-Confidence Interval Coverage in Randomized Controlled Trials
First Berry-Esseen-type coverage bounds for AIPW Wald intervals with estimated variance in RCTs show cross-fitting can improve coverage through variance overestimation.
-
Analytical and Bootstrap Confidence Intervals of Double Machine Learning: Simulation studies and an application to rural-urban difference in obesity prevalence
DML confidence-interval coverage is highly sensitive to the nuisance learner, with rates from 0% to 100% across simulations, and bootstrap intervals do not consistently fix under-coverage.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.