Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

An Easy Implementation of CV-TMLE

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

arxiv 1811.04573 v2 pith:XIADKFUN submitted 2018-11-12 stat.ME

An Easy Implementation of CV-TMLE

classification stat.ME
keywords cv-tmleplug-invalidationadvantagefoldparameterproceduretargeting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

In the world of targeted learning, cross-validated targeted maximum likelihood estimators, CV-TMLE [Zheng:2010aa], has a distinct advantage over TMLE [Laan:2006aa] in that one less condition is required of CV-TMLE in order to achieve asymptotic efficiency in the nonparametric or semiparametric settings. CV-TMLE as originally formulated, consists of averaging usually 10 (for 10-fold cross-validation) parameter estimates, each of which is performed on a validation set separate from where the initial fit was trained. The targeting step is usually performed as a pooled regression over all validation folds but in each fold, we separately evaluate any means as well as the parameter estimate. One nice thing about CV-TMLE, is that we average 10 plug-in estimates so the plug-in quality of preserving the natural parameter bounds is respected. Our adjustment of this procedure also preserves the plug-in characteristic as well as avoids the donsker condtion. The advantage of our procedure is the implementation of the targeting is identical to that of a regular TMLE, once all the validation set initial predictions have been formed. In short, we stack the validation set predictions and pretend as if we have a regular TMLE, which is not necessarily quite a plug-in estimator on each fold but overall will perform asymptotically the same and might have some slight advantage, a subject for future research. In the case of average treatment effect, treatment specific mean and mean outcome under a stochastic intervention, the procedure overlaps exactly with the originally formulated CV-TMLE with a pooled regression for the targeting.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Model-Agnostic Bounds for Augmented Inverse Probability Weighted Estimators' Wald-Confidence Interval Coverage in Randomized Controlled Trials

    math.ST 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0

    First Berry-Esseen-type coverage bounds for AIPW Wald intervals with estimated variance in RCTs show cross-fitting can improve coverage through variance overestimation.