Reducing Model Misspecification and Bias in the Estimation of Interactions

IF 4.7 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Analysis Pub Date : 2021-07-23 DOI:10.1017/pan.2021.19
M. Blackwell, Michael Olson
{"title":"Reducing Model Misspecification and Bias in the Estimation of Interactions","authors":"M. Blackwell, Michael Olson","doi":"10.1017/pan.2021.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Analyzing variation in treatment effects across subsets of the population is an important way for social scientists to evaluate theoretical arguments. A common strategy in assessing such treatment effect heterogeneity is to include a multiplicative interaction term between the treatment and a hypothesized effect modifier in a regression model. Unfortunately, this approach can result in biased inferences due to unmodeled interactions between the effect modifier and other covariates, and including these interactions can lead to unstable estimates due to overfitting. In this paper, we explore the usefulness of machine learning algorithms for stabilizing these estimates and show how many off-the-shelf adaptive methods lead to two forms of bias: direct and indirect regularization bias. To overcome these issues, we use a post-double selection approach that utilizes several lasso estimators to select the interactions to include in the final model. We extend this approach to estimate uncertainty for both interaction and marginal effects. Simulation evidence shows that this approach has better performance than competing methods, even when the number of covariates is large. We show in two empirical examples that the choice of method leads to dramatically different conclusions about effect heterogeneity.","PeriodicalId":48270,"journal":{"name":"Political Analysis","volume":"30 1","pages":"495 - 514"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/pan.2021.19","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2021.19","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Abstract Analyzing variation in treatment effects across subsets of the population is an important way for social scientists to evaluate theoretical arguments. A common strategy in assessing such treatment effect heterogeneity is to include a multiplicative interaction term between the treatment and a hypothesized effect modifier in a regression model. Unfortunately, this approach can result in biased inferences due to unmodeled interactions between the effect modifier and other covariates, and including these interactions can lead to unstable estimates due to overfitting. In this paper, we explore the usefulness of machine learning algorithms for stabilizing these estimates and show how many off-the-shelf adaptive methods lead to two forms of bias: direct and indirect regularization bias. To overcome these issues, we use a post-double selection approach that utilizes several lasso estimators to select the interactions to include in the final model. We extend this approach to estimate uncertainty for both interaction and marginal effects. Simulation evidence shows that this approach has better performance than competing methods, even when the number of covariates is large. We show in two empirical examples that the choice of method leads to dramatically different conclusions about effect heterogeneity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
减少相互作用估计中的模型错误指定和偏差
摘要分析不同人群治疗效果的差异是社会科学家评估理论论点的重要途径。评估这种治疗效果异质性的一种常见策略是在回归模型中包括治疗和假设效果修饰因子之间的乘法相互作用项。不幸的是,由于效应修饰符和其他协变量之间未建模的相互作用,这种方法可能会导致有偏差的推断,并且包括这些相互作用可能会由于过拟合而导致不稳定的估计。在本文中,我们探讨了机器学习算法在稳定这些估计方面的有用性,并展示了有多少现成的自适应方法会导致两种形式的偏差:直接和间接正则化偏差。为了克服这些问题,我们使用了后双重选择方法,该方法利用几个套索估计器来选择要包含在最终模型中的交互作用。我们扩展了这种方法来估计相互作用和边际效应的不确定性。仿真证据表明,即使协变量数量很大,这种方法也比竞争方法具有更好的性能。我们在两个实证例子中表明,方法的选择导致了关于效应异质性的截然不同的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Analysis
Political Analysis POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Political Analysis chronicles these exciting developments by publishing the most sophisticated scholarship in the field. It is the place to learn new methods, to find some of the best empirical scholarship, and to publish your best research.
期刊最新文献
Assessing Performance of Martins's and Sampson's Formulae for Calculation of LDL-C in Indian Population: A Single Center Retrospective Study. On Finetuning Large Language Models Explaining Recruitment to Extremism: A Bayesian Hierarchical Case–Control Approach Implementation Matters: Evaluating the Proportional Hazard Test’s Performance Face Detection, Tracking, and Classification from Large-Scale News Archives for Analysis of Key Political Figures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1