Normalized Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting with Neural Network Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The estimation of average treatment effect (ATE) as a causal parameter is carried out in two steps, where in the first step, the treatment and outcome are modeled to incorporate the potential confounders, and in the second step, the predictions are inserted into the ATE estimators such as the augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) estimator. Due to the concerns regarding the non-linear or unknown relationships between confounders and the treatment and outcome, there has been interest in applying non-parametric methods such as machine learning (ML) algorithms instead. Some of the literature proposes to use two separate neural networks (NNs) where there is no regularization on the network's parameters except the stochastic gradient descent (SGD) in the NN's optimization. Our simulations indicate that the AIPW estimator suffers extensively if no regularization is utilized. We propose the normalization of AIPW (referred to as nAIPW) which can be helpful in some scenarios. nAIPW, provably, has the same properties as AIPW, that is, the double-robustness and orthogonality properties. Further, if the first-step algorithms converge fast enough, under regulatory conditions, nAIPW will be asymptotically normal. We also compare the performance of AIPW and nAIPW in terms of the bias and variance when small to moderate L1 regularization is imposed on the NNs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".