Finding the Optimal Number of Splits and Repetitions in Double Cross‐Fitting Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flexible machine learning algorithms are increasingly utilized in real-world data analyses. When integrated within double robust methods, such as the Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimator (TMLE), complex estimators can result in significant undercoverage-an issue that is even more pronounced in singly robust methods. The Double Cross-Fitting (DCF) procedure complements these methods by enabling the use of diverse machine learning estimators, yet optimal guidelines for the number of data splits and repetitions remain unclear. This study aims to explore the effects of varying the number of splits and repetitions in DCF on TMLE estimators through statistical simulations and a data analysis. We discuss two generalizations of DCF beyond the conventional three splits and apply a range of splits to fit the TMLE estimator, incorporating a super learner without transforming covariates. The statistical properties of these configurations are compared across two sample sizes (3000 and 5000) and two DCF generalizations (equal splits and full data use). Additionally, we conduct a real-world analysis using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2017-18 cycle to illustrate the practical implications of varying DCF splits, focusing on the association between obesity and the risk of developing diabetes. Our simulation study reveals that five splits in DCF yield satisfactory bias, variance, and coverage across scenarios. In the real-world application, the DCF TMLE method showed consistent risk difference estimates over a range of splits, though standard errors increased with more splits in one generalization, suggesting potential drawbacks to excessive splitting. This research underscores the importance of judicious selection of the number of splits and repetitions in DCF TMLE methods to achieve a balance between computational efficiency and accurate statistical inference. Optimal performance seems attainable with three to five splits. Among the generalizations considered, using full data for nuisance estimation offered more consistent variance estimation and is preferable for applied use. Additionally, increasing the repetitions beyond 25 did not enhance performance, providing crucial guidance for researchers employing complex machine learning algorithms in causal studies and advocating for cautious split management in DCF procedures.
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 | 0.044 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".