Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2409.04874 v2 pith:EUVYO5DT submitted 2024-09-07 econ.EM stat.ML

Improving the Finite Sample Estimation of Average Treatment Effects using Double/Debiased Machine Learning with Propensity Score Calibration

classification econ.EM stat.ML
keywords machinescorecalibrationlearningpropensitytreatmentaverageapproach
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
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.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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.

  2. Analytical and Bootstrap Confidence Intervals of Double Machine Learning: Simulation studies and an application to rural-urban difference in obesity prevalence

    stat.ML 2026-07 conditional novelty 3.0

    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.