Three Routes to One Answer: Reconciling AIPW, TMLE, and Double Machine Learning for Applied Researchers
Abstract
Augmented inverse-probability weighting (AIPW), targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE), and double/debiased machine learning (DML) are three routes to the same efficient influence function for the average treatment effect --- settled theory we treat as background. This tutorial's contribution is its worked, shared-nuisance reconciliation on real data: what a practitioner must actually match for the routes, and the software packages, to agree. Working the effect of smoking cessation on weight change in the open NHEFS data (n=1566) with one shared Super Learner library and identical cross-fitting folds, we build all three estimators by hand from one influence function, in full-sample, cross-fit, and double-cross-fit variants; the six resulting doubly-robust estimates span only 3.32--3.42 kg, consistent with the established benchmark. We then reconcile the same estimand across our engine and the tmle, AIPW, DoubleML, and tmle3 packages. At their defaults the estimates span 3.32--3.49 kg. Once the library and folds are matched and single-split noise is averaged out, the three library-sharing implementations agree to within 0.01 kg --- so the residual spread traces to the nuisance library, folds, and repetitions, not to the estimator label. Because the estimators share one influence function, they agree under good overlap; under a positivity violation the pooled ATE is not identified without additional extrapolation assumptions, and their finite-sample estimates can then diverge sharply. We therefore place a positivity diagnosis ahead of estimator choice, illustrate the failure on a no-overlap example, and close with a reporting checklist. Open-source R code reproduces every number.
Related
- Reconciling Universal and Uniform Learning with Q-Aggregation
- Quantifying Precision in Measurement of Individualized, Evidence-Based Learning Across Sessions in Applied Behavior Analysis Therapy
- A nested factor model for equity markets: reconciling multifractal stock returns and rough index volatilities
- Reconciling fast Hepatitis B evolutionary rates with ancient co-divergence
- Evaluating Machine Learning Models in Nonstandard Settings: An Overview and New Findings
BibTeX
@misc{karim2026three,
title = {{Three Routes to One Answer: Reconciling AIPW, TMLE, and Double Machine Learning for Applied Researchers}},
author = {M. Ehsan Karim},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.26142},
eprint = {2609.26142},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.26142},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Three Routes to One Answer: Reconciling AIPW, TMLE, and Double Machine Learning for Applied Researchers
AU - M. Ehsan Karim
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/01
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.26142
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.26142
AB - Augmented inverse-probability weighting (AIPW), targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE), and double/debiased machine learning (DML) are three routes to the same efficient influence function for the average treatment effect --- settled theory we treat as background. This tutorial's contribution is its worked, shared-nuisance reconciliation on real data: what a practitioner must actually match for the routes, and the software packages, to agree. Working the effect of smoking cessation on weight change in the open NHEFS data (n=1566) with one shared Super Learner library and identical cross-fitting folds, we build all three estimators by hand from one influence function, in full-sample, cross-fit, and double-cross-fit variants; the six resulting doubly-robust estimates span only 3.32--3.42 kg, consistent with the established benchmark. We then reconcile the same estimand across our engine and the tmle, AIPW, DoubleML, and tmle3 packages. At their defaults the estimates span 3.32--3.49 kg. Once the library and folds are matched and single-split noise is averaged out, the three library-sharing implementations agree to within 0.01 kg --- so the residual spread traces to the nuisance library, folds, and repetitions, not to the estimator label. Because the estimators share one influence function, they agree under good overlap; under a positivity violation the pooled ATE is not identified without additional extrapolation assumptions, and their finite-sample estimates can then diverge sharply. We therefore place a positivity diagnosis ahead of estimator choice, illustrate the failure on a no-overlap example, and close with a reporting checklist. Open-source R code reproduces every number.
ER -