Machine learning for causal inference: on the use of cross-fit estimators
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Modern causal inference methods allow machine learning to be used to weaken parametric modeling assumptions. However, the use of machine learning may result in complications for inference. Doubly-robust cross-fit estimators have been proposed to yield better statistical properties. We conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of several different estimators for the average causal effect (ACE). The data generating mechanisms for the simulated treatment and outcome included log-transforms, polynomial terms, and discontinuities. We compared singly-robust estimators (g-computation, inverse probability weighting) and doubly-robust estimators (augmented inverse probability weighting, targeted maximum likelihood estimation). Nuisance functions were estimated with parametric models and ensemble machine learning, separately. We further assessed doubly-robust cross-fit estimators. With correctly specified parametric models, all of the estimators were unbiased and confidence intervals achieved nominal coverage. When used with machine learning, the doubly-robust cross-fit estimators substantially outperformed all of the other estimators in terms of bias, variance, and confidence interval coverage. Due to the difficulty of properly specifying parametric models in high dimensional data, doubly-robust estimators with ensemble learning and cross-fitting may be the preferred approach for estimation of the ACE in most epidemiologic studies. However, these approaches may require larger sample sizes to avoid finite-sample issues.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 21 Apr 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 2; 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
10 papers.
- 2024Efficient adjustment for complex covariates: Gaining efficiency with DOPEcited by 5
- 2022Meta-Learners for Estimation of Causal Effects: Finite Sample Cross-Fit Performancecited by 4
- 2024Graph Machine Learning based Doubly Robust Estimator for Network Causal Effectscited by 4
- 2023Application of targeted maximum likelihood estimation in public health and epidemiological studies: a systematic reviewcited by 3
- 2025Generalized coarsened confounding for causal effects: a large-sample frameworkcited by 1
- 2021Causal Bias Quantification for Continuous Treatmentscited by 0
- 2022Policy learning for many outcomes of interest: Combining optimal policy trees with multi-objective Bayesian optimisationcited by 0
- 2024Performance of Cross-Validated Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimationcited by 0
- 2026When Prediction Error Is Not Enough: Evaluating Nuisance-Function Prediction for Causal Estimationcited by 0
- 2026Three Routes to One Answer: Reconciling AIPW, TMLE, and Double Machine Learning for Applied Researcherscited by 0
- 2026When Prediction Error Is Not Enough: Evaluating Nuisance-Function Prediction for Causal Estimation30 Aug 2026
- 2026Three Routes to One Answer: Reconciling AIPW, TMLE, and Double Machine Learning for Applied Researchers8 Aug 2026
- 2025Generalized coarsened confounding for causal effects: a large-sample framework6 Jan 2025
- 2024Performance of Cross-Validated Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation17 Sep 2024
- 2024Graph Machine Learning based Doubly Robust Estimator for Network Causal Effects17 Mar 2024
- 2024Efficient adjustment for complex covariates: Gaining efficiency with DOPE20 Feb 2024
- 2023Application of targeted maximum likelihood estimation in public health and epidemiological studies: a systematic review13 Mar 2023
- 2022Policy learning for many outcomes of interest: Combining optimal policy trees with multi-objective Bayesian optimisation13 Dec 2022
- 2022Meta-Learners for Estimation of Causal Effects: Finite Sample Cross-Fit Performance30 Jan 2022
- 2021Causal Bias Quantification for Continuous Treatments17 Jun 2021