arXiv preprint ·
When Sample-Splitting Choices Matter in TMLE and AIPW: Cross-Fitting, Targeting, and Repetition
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Variants of targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) and augmented inverse-probability weighting (AIPW) with machine-learning nuisance models differ in which observations train them, how bias is corrected, and whether splits are repeated. In known-truth simulations of a binary-outcome average treatment effect, eight headline estimators shared each setting's library, inner folds and truncation bound; coverage differences were judged against a prespecified two-percentage-point margin. With a low-complexity library and good overlap (n = 3000), all but a half-sample baseline covered equivalently (0.928-0.939). With one random forest on the primary data-generating mechanism, estimators fitting the propensity in-sample undercovered severely (0.12-0.48), whereas cross-fitting both nuisances raised coverage to 0.91-1.00, two overcovering. Under near-positivity, every AIPW estimator covered better than every TMLE estimator with the unweighted fluctuation (0.907-0.917 versus 0.656-0.806 at the primary setting, all undercovering); looser truncation widened the gap. At the primary settings, pooled-versus-fold-specific and single-versus-double cross-fit constructions (involving four additional estimators) were usually equivalent; under extreme weights, pooled-targeting estimates were 1.7-1.8 times as dispersed as fold-specific ones. Repetition reduced partition dependence but made several intervals more conservative. Two real-data analyses illustrate these sensitivities. Results support cross-fitting both nuisances when empirical-process conditions cannot be justified, and assessing truncation and AIPW-versus-TMLE sensitivity under poor overlap.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Methodology
Distributional Regression for Arbitrary Response Variables Using ReLU Neural Networks
textGrain watermarking is harder to detect: can sum-tests still do it optimally?
E-Backtesting Expected Shortfall without Value-at-Risk Forecasts under Time-series Models
Online Individualized Treatment Selection under Partial Feedback: False Discovery Control and Minimax Optimality
Linear Regression Beyond Covariance: Latent Slope Spectra from Higher-Order Cumulants
Get the few papers worth your time in Methodology every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.