ScholarGate
アシスタント

手法を比較

選択した手法を並べて確認できます。異なる行はハイライト表示されます。

マッチング手法(CEM / 最適 / ジェネティック)×異質的処置効果(CATE / メタ学習器)×
分野因果推論因果推論
系統Regression modelRegression model
提唱年20122018
提唱者Iacus, King & Porro (CEM); Hansen (optimal/full matching)Wager & Athey (causal forest); Künzel et al. (meta-learners)
種類Matching for causal inferenceCausal machine-learning framework
原典Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2012). Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1-24. DOI ↗Wager, S. & Athey, S. (2018). Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests. Journal of the American Statistical Association. DOI ↗
別名coarsened exact matching, optimal matching, genetic matching, CEMconditional average treatment effect, CATE, meta-learners, causal forest
関連55
概要Matching Methods are a family of causal-inference techniques beyond propensity-score matching that pair treated and control units with similar covariates so that a treatment effect can be read off the balanced sample. The family includes Coarsened Exact Matching (Iacus, King & Porro, 2012), optimal matching, and genetic matching.Heterogeneous Treatment Effects is a machine-learning framework that estimates how a treatment effect varies across individuals — the conditional average treatment effect (CATE). It bundles meta-learner strategies such as the T-Learner, S-Learner, X-Learner and R-Learner alongside the causal forest of Wager and Athey (2018) and Künzel et al. (2019).
ScholarGateデータセット
  1. v1
  2. 2 出典
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 出典
  3. PUBLISHED

検索へ スライドをダウンロード

ScholarGate手法を比較: Matching Methods · Heterogeneous Treatment Effects. 2026-06-17に以下より取得 https://scholargate.app/ja/compare