Using a monotone single‐index model to stabilize the propensity score in missing data problems and causal inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The augmented inverse weighting method is one of the most popular methods for estimating the mean of the response in causal inference and missing data problems. An important component of this method is the propensity score. Popular parametric models for the propensity score include the logistic, probit, and complementary log-log models. A common feature of these models is that the propensity score is a monotonic function of a linear combination of the explanatory variables. To avoid the need to choose a model, we model the propensity score via a semiparametric single-index model, in which the score is an unknown monotonic nondecreasing function of the given single index. Under this new model, the augmented inverse weighting estimator (AIWE) of the mean of the response is asymptotically linear, semiparametrically efficient, and more robust than existing estimators. Moreover, we have made a surprising observation. The inverse probability weighting and AIWEs based on a correctly specified parametric model may have worse performance than their counterparts based on a nonparametric model. A heuristic explanation of this phenomenon is provided. A real-data example is used to illustrate the proposed methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".