IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/amstat/v76y2022i3p292-304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Demystifying Statistical Learning Based on Efficient Influence Functions

Author

Listed:
  • Oliver Hines
  • Oliver Dukes
  • Karla Diaz-Ordaz
  • Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract

Evaluation of treatment effects and more general estimands is typically achieved via parametric modeling, which is unsatisfactory since model misspecification is likely. Data-adaptive model building (e.g., statistical/machine learning) is commonly employed to reduce the risk of misspecification. Naïve use of such methods, however, delivers estimators whose bias may shrink too slowly with sample size for inferential methods to perform well, including those based on the bootstrap. Bias arises because standard data-adaptive methods are tuned toward minimal prediction error as opposed to, for example, minimal MSE in the estimator. This may cause excess variability that is difficult to acknowledge, due to the complexity of such strategies. Building on results from nonparametric statistics, targeted learning and debiased machine learning overcome these problems by constructing estimators using the estimand’s efficient influence function under the nonparametric model. These increasingly popular methodologies typically assume that the efficient influence function is given, or that the reader is familiar with its derivation. In this article, we focus on derivation of the efficient influence function and explain how it may be used to construct statistical/machine-learning-based estimators. We discuss the requisite conditions for these estimators to perform well and use diverse examples to convey the broad applicability of the theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliver Hines & Oliver Dukes & Karla Diaz-Ordaz & Stijn Vansteelandt, 2022. "Demystifying Statistical Learning Based on Efficient Influence Functions," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(3), pages 292-304, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:76:y:2022:i:3:p:292-304
    DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2021.2021984
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00031305.2021.2021984
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00031305.2021.2021984?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abhinandan Dalal & Patrick Blobaum & Shiva Kasiviswanathan & Aaditya Ramdas, 2024. "Anytime-Valid Inference for Double/Debiased Machine Learning of Causal Parameters," Papers 2408.09598, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2024.
    2. Karla DiazOrdaz, 2023. "Discussion on: Instrumented difference‐in‐differences, by Ting Ye, Ashkan Ertefaie, James Flory, Sean Hennessy and Dylan S. Small," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 597-600, June.
    3. Nora Bearth & Michael Lechner, 2024. "Causal Machine Learning for Moderation Effects," Papers 2401.08290, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    4. Benjamin R. Baer & Robert L. Strawderman & Ashkan Ertefaie, 2023. "Discussion on “Instrumental variable estimation of the causal hazard ratio,” by Linbo Wang, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, Torben Martinussen, and Stijn Vansteelandt," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 554-558, June.
    5. Amanda Coston & Edward H. Kennedy, 2022. "The role of the geometric mean in case-control studies," Papers 2207.09016, arXiv.org.
    6. Tyler J. VanderWeele & Stijn Vansteelandt, 2022. "A statistical test to reject the structural interpretation of a latent factor model," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(5), pages 2032-2054, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:76:y:2022:i:3:p:292-304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.