1
$\begingroup$

I am currrently working on a paper where we have two datasets, where I wish to impute variables from one dataset onto the other. The way that I have been currently thinking about this is to use machine learning. The case is as follows:

Dataset 1: Linkable, randomly drawn and representative survey data (firm level)

Dataset 2: Linkable, high dimension, administrative total population data (firm level)

Within Dataset 1, we have a binary variable of interest (Collaborative innovation) which we wish to impute for the entire population in Dataset 2. The strategy that I have applied for this so far is to use LASSO, where a wide array of variables from Dataset 2 have been used to create a predictive model.

The problem, however, is that the outcome, "Collaborative innovation" is too rare for the LASSO to stick, despite rich data. My question is hence:

Are there other contending techniques (machine learning or otherwise) that could be used to impute these outcomes? Could perhaps Generative Adverserial Networks be applied? (i.e., create a "fake" outcome based on supplementary data).

I hope I have expressed myself sufficiently clear.

Thank you for your time.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Are the variables in the two datasets the same, apart from the one to be imputed? $\endgroup$
    – Davide ND
    Commented Jan 8, 2020 at 9:10
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. We can match all variables from Dataset 2 onto Dataset 1, and then the variable that needs to be imputed is the only one missing. $\endgroup$
    – user216262
    Commented Jan 8, 2020 at 9:17
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, good. Also, what do you mean by "the outcome is too rare"? $\endgroup$
    – Davide ND
    Commented Jan 8, 2020 at 9:22
  • $\begingroup$ It occurs only both rarely and across quite different types of firms, so there is no particular characteristic, e.g., industry, firm size, etc, that seems to be able to explain the outcome very well. I suspect that if we simply had more observations, the LASSO would be able to pick up a pattern $\endgroup$
    – user216262
    Commented Jan 8, 2020 at 9:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I though that imputing the outcome is a very bad idea (because your ML model just learns the imputation technique...) , and went looking for a question that would give a better explanation than that - and lo and behold, it appears that imputing the outcome is considered legitimate, and discussed here: stats.stackexchange.com/questions/46226/… and here: stats.stackexchange.com/questions/349959/… $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2020 at 10:20

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Judging by the data that you present, it does not look like an inputation problem, but rather a prediction one. If I am not mistaken, you have a first representative dataset containing your target variable, and a second dataset where you want to insert it. This can be seen as a supervised learning problem (and indeed, LASSO is a supervised learning algorithm).

You can use any algorithm for supervised classification, I suggest Random Forests given the balance between performance on structured data and ease of use, but anything you are comfortable with will do it.

Also, you mention that you target variable is very "rare", which in a classification setting means you have unbalanced classes. Some algorithm implementations allow to take this into account by setting up a ratio between the classes, other approaches can be oversampling of the minority class or undersampling of the majority one (I don't suggest the last one unless you have a lot of data). Finally, try to score your model using a metric that is more sensitive to unbalanced data, such as pAUC.

if you are interested, I suggest this paper on the use of Random Forests for unbalanced data. Reading the beginning can give you an idea of the approaches to deal with the unbalance.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for all your help Davide! I will look into your recommendation. $\endgroup$
    – user216262
    Commented Jan 8, 2020 at 13:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Update: Davide's solution to use a weighted random forest classifier worked great. Using RF, we are able to gain over 90% prediction accuracy, whereas LASSO with equivalent data gave an R-squared of 0.10. $\endgroup$
    – user216262
    Commented Jan 31, 2020 at 7:59
  • $\begingroup$ Glad it worked! $\endgroup$
    – Davide ND
    Commented Jan 31, 2020 at 8:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.