Instability of Inverse Probability Weighting Methods and a Remedy for Nonignorable Missing Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverse probability weighting (IPW) methods are commonly used to analyze nonignorable missing data (NIMD) under the assumption of a logistic model for the missingness probability. However, solving IPW equations numerically may involve nonconvergence problems when the sample size is moderate and the missingness probability is high. Moreover, those equations often have multiple roots, and identifying the best root is challenging. Therefore, IPW methods may have low efficiency or even produce biased results. We identify the pitfall in these methods pathologically: they involve the estimation of a moment-generating function (MGF), and such functions are notoriously unstable in general. As a remedy, we model the outcome distribution given the covariates of the completely observed individuals semiparametrically. After forming an induced logistic regression (LR) model for the missingness status of the outcome and covariate, we develop a maximum conditional likelihood method to estimate the underlying parameters. The proposed method circumvents the estimation of an MGF and hence overcomes the instability of IPW methods. Our theoretical and simulation results show that the proposed method outperforms existing competitors greatly. Two real data examples are analyzed to illustrate the advantages of our method. We conclude that if only a parametric LR is assumed but the outcome regression model is left arbitrary, then one has to be cautious in using any of the existing statistical methods in problems involving NIMD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".