Loading…
Are deep learning models superior for missing data imputation in large surveys? Evidence from an empirical comparison
Multiple imputation (MI) is a popular approach for dealing with missing data arising from non-response in sample surveys. Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) is one of the most widely used MI algorithms for multivariate data, but it lacks theoretical foundation and is computationally int...
Saved in:
Published in: | arXiv.org 2022-03 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | |
container_start_page | |
container_title | arXiv.org |
container_volume | |
creator | Wang, Zhenhua Akande, Olanrewaju Poulos, Jason Li, Fan |
description | Multiple imputation (MI) is a popular approach for dealing with missing data arising from non-response in sample surveys. Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) is one of the most widely used MI algorithms for multivariate data, but it lacks theoretical foundation and is computationally intensive. Recently, missing data imputation methods based on deep learning models have been developed with encouraging results in small studies. However, there has been limited research on evaluating their performance in realistic settings compared to MICE, particularly in big surveys. We conduct extensive simulation studies based on a subsample of the American Community Survey to compare the repeated sampling properties of four machine learning based MI methods: MICE with classification trees, MICE with random forests, generative adversarial imputation networks, and multiple imputation using denoising autoencoders. We find the deep learning imputation methods are superior to MICE in terms of computational time. However, with the default choice of hyperparameters in the common software packages, MICE with classification trees consistently outperforms, often by a large margin, the deep learning imputation methods in terms of bias, mean squared error, and coverage under a range of realistic settings. |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2502519813</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2502519813</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_25025198133</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNisuKwkAQAIcFQdH8Q8OehWTG-Dgty6L4Ad6lSTrSMi-7M8L-_WbBD_BQ1KHqwyysc816v7F2birVe13XdruzbesWpnwLQU-UwRNK5HiDkHryCloyCSeBYSKw6n_rcUTgkMuII6cIHMGj3Gi65Um_-gXHJ_cUO4JBUgCMQCGzcIceuhQyCmuKKzMb0CtVLy_N5-l4-Tmvs6RHIR2v91QkTulq29q2zWHfOPfe9QfDO01D</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2502519813</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Are deep learning models superior for missing data imputation in large surveys? Evidence from an empirical comparison</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><creator>Wang, Zhenhua ; Akande, Olanrewaju ; Poulos, Jason ; Li, Fan</creator><creatorcontrib>Wang, Zhenhua ; Akande, Olanrewaju ; Poulos, Jason ; Li, Fan</creatorcontrib><description>Multiple imputation (MI) is a popular approach for dealing with missing data arising from non-response in sample surveys. Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) is one of the most widely used MI algorithms for multivariate data, but it lacks theoretical foundation and is computationally intensive. Recently, missing data imputation methods based on deep learning models have been developed with encouraging results in small studies. However, there has been limited research on evaluating their performance in realistic settings compared to MICE, particularly in big surveys. We conduct extensive simulation studies based on a subsample of the American Community Survey to compare the repeated sampling properties of four machine learning based MI methods: MICE with classification trees, MICE with random forests, generative adversarial imputation networks, and multiple imputation using denoising autoencoders. We find the deep learning imputation methods are superior to MICE in terms of computational time. However, with the default choice of hyperparameters in the common software packages, MICE with classification trees consistently outperforms, often by a large margin, the deep learning imputation methods in terms of bias, mean squared error, and coverage under a range of realistic settings.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2331-8422</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</publisher><subject>Classification ; Computing time ; Deep learning ; Machine learning ; Missing data ; Noise reduction ; Performance evaluation ; Performance measurement ; Trees</subject><ispartof>arXiv.org, 2022-03</ispartof><rights>2022. This work is published under http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2502519813?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>780,784,25751,37010,44588</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wang, Zhenhua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akande, Olanrewaju</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poulos, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Fan</creatorcontrib><title>Are deep learning models superior for missing data imputation in large surveys? Evidence from an empirical comparison</title><title>arXiv.org</title><description>Multiple imputation (MI) is a popular approach for dealing with missing data arising from non-response in sample surveys. Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) is one of the most widely used MI algorithms for multivariate data, but it lacks theoretical foundation and is computationally intensive. Recently, missing data imputation methods based on deep learning models have been developed with encouraging results in small studies. However, there has been limited research on evaluating their performance in realistic settings compared to MICE, particularly in big surveys. We conduct extensive simulation studies based on a subsample of the American Community Survey to compare the repeated sampling properties of four machine learning based MI methods: MICE with classification trees, MICE with random forests, generative adversarial imputation networks, and multiple imputation using denoising autoencoders. We find the deep learning imputation methods are superior to MICE in terms of computational time. However, with the default choice of hyperparameters in the common software packages, MICE with classification trees consistently outperforms, often by a large margin, the deep learning imputation methods in terms of bias, mean squared error, and coverage under a range of realistic settings.</description><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Computing time</subject><subject>Deep learning</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Missing data</subject><subject>Noise reduction</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Performance measurement</subject><subject>Trees</subject><issn>2331-8422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNqNisuKwkAQAIcFQdH8Q8OehWTG-Dgty6L4Ad6lSTrSMi-7M8L-_WbBD_BQ1KHqwyysc816v7F2birVe13XdruzbesWpnwLQU-UwRNK5HiDkHryCloyCSeBYSKw6n_rcUTgkMuII6cIHMGj3Gi65Um_-gXHJ_cUO4JBUgCMQCGzcIceuhQyCmuKKzMb0CtVLy_N5-l4-Tmvs6RHIR2v91QkTulq29q2zWHfOPfe9QfDO01D</recordid><startdate>20220319</startdate><enddate>20220319</enddate><creator>Wang, Zhenhua</creator><creator>Akande, Olanrewaju</creator><creator>Poulos, Jason</creator><creator>Li, Fan</creator><general>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</general><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220319</creationdate><title>Are deep learning models superior for missing data imputation in large surveys? Evidence from an empirical comparison</title><author>Wang, Zhenhua ; Akande, Olanrewaju ; Poulos, Jason ; Li, Fan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_25025198133</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Computing time</topic><topic>Deep learning</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Missing data</topic><topic>Noise reduction</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Performance measurement</topic><topic>Trees</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wang, Zhenhua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akande, Olanrewaju</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poulos, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Fan</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wang, Zhenhua</au><au>Akande, Olanrewaju</au><au>Poulos, Jason</au><au>Li, Fan</au><format>book</format><genre>document</genre><ristype>GEN</ristype><atitle>Are deep learning models superior for missing data imputation in large surveys? Evidence from an empirical comparison</atitle><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle><date>2022-03-19</date><risdate>2022</risdate><eissn>2331-8422</eissn><abstract>Multiple imputation (MI) is a popular approach for dealing with missing data arising from non-response in sample surveys. Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) is one of the most widely used MI algorithms for multivariate data, but it lacks theoretical foundation and is computationally intensive. Recently, missing data imputation methods based on deep learning models have been developed with encouraging results in small studies. However, there has been limited research on evaluating their performance in realistic settings compared to MICE, particularly in big surveys. We conduct extensive simulation studies based on a subsample of the American Community Survey to compare the repeated sampling properties of four machine learning based MI methods: MICE with classification trees, MICE with random forests, generative adversarial imputation networks, and multiple imputation using denoising autoencoders. We find the deep learning imputation methods are superior to MICE in terms of computational time. However, with the default choice of hyperparameters in the common software packages, MICE with classification trees consistently outperforms, often by a large margin, the deep learning imputation methods in terms of bias, mean squared error, and coverage under a range of realistic settings.</abstract><cop>Ithaca</cop><pub>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</pub><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | EISSN: 2331-8422 |
ispartof | arXiv.org, 2022-03 |
issn | 2331-8422 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2502519813 |
source | Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3) |
subjects | Classification Computing time Deep learning Machine learning Missing data Noise reduction Performance evaluation Performance measurement Trees |
title | Are deep learning models superior for missing data imputation in large surveys? Evidence from an empirical comparison |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T10%3A36%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=document&rft.atitle=Are%20deep%20learning%20models%20superior%20for%20missing%20data%20imputation%20in%20large%20surveys?%20Evidence%20from%20an%20empirical%20comparison&rft.jtitle=arXiv.org&rft.au=Wang,%20Zhenhua&rft.date=2022-03-19&rft.eissn=2331-8422&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2502519813%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_25025198133%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2502519813&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |