Papers › Are deep learning models superior for missing data imputation in large surveys?...
Are deep learning models superior for missing data imputation in large surveys? Evidence from an empirical comparison
Zhenhua Wang, Olanrewaju Akande, Jason Poulos, Fan Li
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.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections