ScholarGate
Asystent

Porównaj metody

Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.

Uczenie maszynowe wspomagające ewaluację wpływu kontrfaktycznego×Dopasowanie wyników skłonności×
DziedzinaWnioskowanie przyczynoweStatystyka w badaniach
RodzinaRegression modelProcess / pipeline
Rok powstania2016-20191983
TwórcaChernozhukov et al.; Athey & ImbensPaul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin
TypCausal inference / ML-augmented evaluationMethod
Źródło pierwotneChernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., Demirer, M., Duflo, E., Hansen, C., Newey, W., & Robins, J. (2018). Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. The Econometrics Journal, 21(1), C1-C68. DOI ↗Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. DOI ↗
Inne nazwyML-augmented counterfactual evaluation, ML-CIE, causal ML impact evaluation, double ML counterfactual evaluationPSM, propensity score weighting, covariate balance
Pokrewne53
PodsumowanieMachine learning-augmented counterfactual impact evaluation combines the credibility of potential-outcomes causal inference with the flexibility of modern ML algorithms. Rather than imposing parametric functional forms for confounders, ML learners — such as lasso, random forests, or neural nets — estimate nuisance functions (propensity scores, outcome regressions) that are then used to construct approximately unbiased estimates of causal effects. The canonical instantiation is Double/Debiased Machine Learning (DML), formalized by Chernozhukov et al. (2018).Propensity score matching (PSM) is a method for reducing confounding bias in observational studies by balancing baseline characteristics between treatment groups, simulating randomization. Developed by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983), it estimates the probability of receiving treatment given observed covariates, then matches or weights treated and control individuals with similar treatment probabilities. Widely used in medicine, epidemiology, and policy evaluation when randomized trials are infeasible or unethical, enabling estimation of treatment effects while controlling for selection bias.
ScholarGateZbiór danych
  1. v1
  2. 2 Źródła
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 Źródła
  3. PUBLISHED

Przejdź do wyszukiwania Pobierz slajdy

ScholarGatePorównaj metody: Machine Learning-Augmented Counterfactual Impact Evaluation · Propensity Score Matching. Pobrano 2026-06-18 z https://scholargate.app/pl/compare