Recursive partitioning on incomplete data using surrogate decisions and multiple imputation
The occurrence of missing data is a major problem in statistical data analysis. All scientific fields and data of all kinds and size are touched by this problem. There is a number of ad-hoc solutions which unfortunately lead to a loss of power, biased inference, underestimation of variability and distorted relationships between variables. A more promising approach of rising popularity is multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) also known as imputation by full conditional specification (FCS). Alternatives to imputation are given by methods with built-in procedures. These include recursive partitioning by classification and regression trees as well as corresponding Random Forests. However there is only few literature comparing the two approaches. Existing evaluations often lack generalizability due to restrictions on data structure and simulation schemes. The application of both methods to several kinds of data and different simulation settings is meant to improve and extend the comparative analyses. Classification and regression studies are examined. Recursive partitioning is executed by two popular tree and one Random Forest implementation. Findings show that multiple imputation produces ambiguous performance results for both, simulated and real life data. Using surrogates instead is a fast and simple way to achieve performances which are only negligible worse and in many cases even superior.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2012)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Strobl, Carolin & Boulesteix, Anne-Laure & Augustin, Thomas, 2007. "Unbiased split selection for classification trees based on the Gini Index," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 483-501, September.
- Horton, Nicholas J. & Kleinman, Ken P., 2007. "Much Ado About Nothing: A Comparison of Missing Data Methods and Software to Fit Incomplete Data Regression Models," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 61, pages 79-90, February.
- Templ, Matthias & Kowarik, Alexander & Filzmoser, Peter, 2011. "Iterative stepwise regression imputation using standard and robust methods," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(10), pages 2793-2806, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:56:y:2012:i:6:p:1552-1565. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.