IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssb/v84y2022i3p657-685.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assumption‐lean inference for generalised linear model parameters

Author

Listed:
  • Stijn Vansteelandt
  • Oliver Dukes

Abstract

Inference for the parameters indexing generalised linear models is routinely based on the assumption that the model is correct and a priori specified. This is unsatisfactory because the chosen model is usually the result of a data‐adaptive model selection process, which may induce excess uncertainty that is not usually acknowledged. Moreover, the assumptions encoded in the chosen model rarely represent some a priori known, ground truth, making standard inferences prone to bias, but also failing to give a pure reflection of the information that is contained in the data. Inspired by developments on assumption‐free inference for so‐called projection parameters, we here propose novel nonparametric definitions of main effect estimands and effect modification estimands. These reduce to standard main effect and effect modification parameters in generalised linear models when these models are correctly specified, but have the advantage that they continue to capture respectively the (conditional) association between two variables, or the degree to which two variables interact in their association with outcome, even when these models are misspecified. We achieve an assumption‐lean inference for these estimands on the basis of their efficient influence function under the nonparametric model while invoking flexible data‐adaptive (e.g. machine learning) procedures.

Suggested Citation

  • Stijn Vansteelandt & Oliver Dukes, 2022. "Assumption‐lean inference for generalised linear model parameters," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(3), pages 657-685, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssb:v:84:y:2022:i:3:p:657-685
    DOI: 10.1111/rssb.12504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12504
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssb.12504?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2018. "Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 1-68, February.
    2. Angrist, Joshua D. & Krueger, Alan B., 1999. "Empirical strategies in labor economics," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 23, pages 1277-1366, Elsevier.
    3. Alan E. Hubbard & Mark J. van der Laan, 2008. "Population intervention models in causal inference," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 95(1), pages 35-47.
    4. van der Laan Mark J. & Rubin Daniel, 2006. "Targeted Maximum Likelihood Learning," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-40, December.
    5. Graham, Bryan S. & Pinto, Cristine Campos de Xavier, 2022. "Semiparametrically efficient estimation of the average linear regression function," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 115-138.
    6. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Ying Wei, 2013. "Honest confidence regions for a regression parameter in logistic regression with a large number of controls," CeMMAP working papers CWP67/13, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    7. Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen & James M. Robins & Andrea Rotnitzky, 2010. "On doubly robust estimation in a semiparametric odds ratio model," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 97(1), pages 171-180.
    8. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    9. Iván Díaz Muñoz & Mark van der Laan, 2012. "Population Intervention Causal Effects Based on Stochastic Interventions," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(2), pages 541-549, June.
    10. Edward H. Kennedy & Scott Lorch & Dylan S. Small, 2019. "Robust causal inference with continuous instruments using the local instrumental variable curve," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 81(1), pages 121-143, February.
    11. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    12. Tan, Zhiqiang, 2019. "On doubly robust estimation for logistic partially linear models," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2006. "Moving the Goalposts: Addressing Limited Overlap in the Estimation of Average Treatment Effects by Changing the Estimand," NBER Technical Working Papers 0330, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Peter M. Aronow & Cyrus Samii, 2016. "Does Regression Produce Representative Estimates of Causal Effects?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(1), pages 250-267, January.
    15. Vansteelandt, Stijn & VanderWeele, Tyler J. & Tchetgen, Eric J. & Robins, James M., 2008. "Multiply Robust Inference for Statistical Interactions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(484), pages 1693-1704.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kelly Van Lancker & Oliver Dukes & Stijn Vansteelandt, 2023. "Ensuring valid inference for Cox hazard ratios after variable selection," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(4), pages 3096-3110, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sloczynski, Tymon, 2020. "Interpreting OLS Estimands When Treatment Effects Are Heterogeneous: Smaller Groups Get Larger Weights," IZA Discussion Papers 13283, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Sloczynski, Tymon, 2018. "A General Weighted Average Representation of the Ordinary and Two-Stage Least Squares Estimands," IZA Discussion Papers 11866, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    4. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2017. "Undergraduate Econometrics Instruction: Through Our Classes, Darkly," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 125-144, Spring.
    5. Marno Verbeek, 2017. "Using linear regression to establish empirical relationships," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 336-336, February.
    6. Tymon S{l}oczy'nski, 2018. "Interpreting OLS Estimands When Treatment Effects Are Heterogeneous: Smaller Groups Get Larger Weights," Papers 1810.01576, arXiv.org, revised May 2020.
    7. Stijn Vansteelandt & Oliver Dukes, 2022. "Authors' reply to the Discussion of ‘Assumption‐lean inference for generalised linear model parameters’ by Vansteelandt and Dukes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(3), pages 729-739, July.
    8. Iván Díaz & Nima S. Hejazi, 2020. "Causal mediation analysis for stochastic interventions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 82(3), pages 661-683, July.
    9. Jonathan Fuhr & Philipp Berens & Dominik Papies, 2024. "Estimating Causal Effects with Double Machine Learning -- A Method Evaluation," Papers 2403.14385, arXiv.org.
    10. Victor Chernozhukov & Juan Carlos Escanciano & Hidehiko Ichimura & Whitney K. Newey & James M. Robins, 2022. "Locally Robust Semiparametric Estimation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(4), pages 1501-1535, July.
    11. John Gibson, 2019. "Are You Estimating the Right Thing? An Editor Reflects," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 329-350.
    12. Lundberg, Ian & Brand, Jennie E. & Jeon, Nanum, 2022. "Researcher reasoning meets computational capacity: Machine learning for social science," SocArXiv s5zc8, Center for Open Science.
    13. Myoung‐jae Lee, 2021. "Instrument residual estimator for any response variable with endogenous binary treatment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(3), pages 612-635, July.
    14. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Zhao, Jun, 2020. "Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 101-122.
    15. Martin Schlotter & Guido Schwerdt & Ludger Woessmann, 2011. "Econometric methods for causal evaluation of education policies and practices: a non-technical guide," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 109-137.
    16. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    17. Kalle Hirvonen & John Hoddinott, 2017. "Agricultural production and children's diets: evidence from rural Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(4), pages 469-480, July.
    18. Alberto Abadie & Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2020. "Sampling‐Based versus Design‐Based Uncertainty in Regression Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(1), pages 265-296, January.
    19. Sung Jae Jun & Sokbae Lee, 2020. "Causal Inference under Outcome-Based Sampling with Monotonicity Assumptions," Papers 2004.08318, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    20. Dennis Shen & Peng Ding & Jasjeet Sekhon & Bin Yu, 2022. "Same Root Different Leaves: Time Series and Cross-Sectional Methods in Panel Data," Papers 2207.14481, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.

    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:bla:jorssb:v:84:y:2022:i:3:p:657-685. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    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.