Statistical Data Integration in Survey Sampling: A Review

While machine learning (ML) methods have received a lot of attention in recent years, these methods are primarily for prediction. Empirical researchers conducting policy evaluations are, on the other hand, pre-occupied with causal problems, trying to answer counterfactual questions: what would have happened in the absence of a policy? Because these counterfactuals can never be directly observed (described as the "fundamental problem of causal inference") prediction tools from the ML literature cannot be readily used for causal inference. In the last decade, major innovations have taken place incorporating supervised ML tools into estimators for causal parameters such as the average treatment effect (ATE). This holds the promise of attenuating model misspecification issues, and increasing of transparency in model selection. One particularly mature strand of the literature include approaches that incorporate supervised ML approaches in the estimation of the ATE of a binary treatment, und …

Many causal and structural effects depend on regressions. Examples include policy effects, average derivatives, regression decompositions, average treatment effects, causal mediation, and parameters of economic structural models. The regressions may be high‐dimensional, making machine learning useful. Plugging machine learners into identifying equations can lead to poor inference due to bias from regularization and/or model selection. This paper gives automatic debiasing for linear and nonlinear functions of regressions. The debiasing is automatic in using Lasso and the function of interest without the full form of the bias correction. The debiasing can be applied to any regression learner, including neural nets, random forests, Lasso, boosting, and other high‐dimensional methods. In addition to providing the bias correction, we give standard errors that are robust to misspecification, convergence rates for the bias correction, and primitive conditions for asymptotic inference for esti …

Unlike parametric regression, machine learning (ML) methods do not generally require precise knowledge of the true data generating mechanisms. As such, numerous authors have advocated for ML methods to estimate causal effects. Unfortunately, ML algorithmscan perform worse than parametric regression. We demonstrate the performance of ML-based single- and double-robust estimators. We use 100 Monte Carlo samples with sample sizes of 200, 1200, and 5000 to investigate bias and confidence interval coverage under several scenarios. In a simple confounding scenario, confounders were related to the treatment and the outcome via parametric models. In a complex confounding scenario, the simple confounders were transformed to induce complicated nonlinear relationships. In the simple scenario, when ML algorithms were used, double-robust estimators were superior to single-robust estimators. In the complex scenario, single-robust estimators with ML algorithms were at least as biased as estimators us …

We consider the estimation of the average treatment effect in the treated as a function of baseline covariates, where there is a valid (conditional) instrument. We describe two doubly robust (DR) estimators: a locally efficient g-estimator, and a targeted minimum loss-based estimator (TMLE). These two DR estimators can be viewed as generalisations of the two-stage least squares (TSLS) method to semi-parametric models that make weaker assumptions. We exploit recent theoretical results that extend to the g-estimator the use of data-adaptive fits for the nuisance parameters. A simulation study is used to compare standard TSLS with the two DR estimators' finite-sample performance, (1) when fitted using parametric nuisance models, and (2) using data-adaptive nuisance fits, obtained from the Super Learner, an ensemble machine learning method. Data-adaptive DR estimators have lower bias and improved coverage, when compared to incorrectly specified parametric DR estimators and TSLS. When the p …

Summary We consider integrating a non-probability sample with a probability sample which provides high dimensional representative covariate information of the target population. We propose a two-step approach for variable selection and finite population inference. In the first step, we use penalized estimating equations with folded concave penalties to select important variables and show selection consistency for general samples. In the second step, we focus on a doubly robust estimator of the finite population mean and re-estimate the nuisance model parameters by minimizing the asymptotic squared bias of the doubly robust estimator. This estimating strategy mitigates the possible first-step selection error and renders the doubly robust estimator root n consistent if either the sampling probability or the outcome model is correctly specified.