Longitudinal Causal Inference with Selective Eligibility
Authors:
Zhichao Jiang,
Eli Ben-Michael,
D. James Greiner,
Ryan Halen,
Kosuke Imai
Abstract:
Dropout poses a significant challenge to causal inference in longitudinal studies with time-varying treatments. However, existing research does not simultaneously address dropout and time-varying treatments. We examine selective eligibility, an important yet overlooked source of non-ignorable dropout in such settings. This problem arises when a unit's prior treatment history influences its eligibi…
▽ More
Dropout poses a significant challenge to causal inference in longitudinal studies with time-varying treatments. However, existing research does not simultaneously address dropout and time-varying treatments. We examine selective eligibility, an important yet overlooked source of non-ignorable dropout in such settings. This problem arises when a unit's prior treatment history influences its eligibility for subsequent treatments, a common scenario in medical and other settings. We propose a general methodological framework for longitudinal causal inference with selective eligibility. By focusing on a subgroup of units who would become eligible for treatment given a specific past treatment sequence, we define the time-specific eligible treatment effect and expected number of outcome events under a treatment sequence of interest. Under a generalized version of sequential ignorability, we derive two nonparametric identification formulae, each leveraging different parts of the observed data distribution. We then derive the efficient influence function of each causal estimand, yielding the corresponding doubly robust estimator. Finally, we apply the proposed methodology to an impact evaluation of a pre-trial risk assessment instrument in the criminal justice system, in which selective eligibility arises due to recidivism.
△ Less
Submitted 15 March, 2025; v1 submitted 23 October, 2024;
originally announced October 2024.
Experimental Evaluation of Algorithm-Assisted Human Decision-Making: Application to Pretrial Public Safety Assessment
Authors:
Kosuke Imai,
Zhichao Jiang,
James Greiner,
Ryan Halen,
Sooahn Shin
Abstract:
Despite an increasing reliance on fully-automated algorithmic decision-making in our day-to-day lives, human beings still make highly consequential decisions. As frequently seen in business, healthcare, and public policy, recommendations produced by algorithms are provided to human decision-makers to guide their decisions. While there exists a fast-growing literature evaluating the bias and fairne…
▽ More
Despite an increasing reliance on fully-automated algorithmic decision-making in our day-to-day lives, human beings still make highly consequential decisions. As frequently seen in business, healthcare, and public policy, recommendations produced by algorithms are provided to human decision-makers to guide their decisions. While there exists a fast-growing literature evaluating the bias and fairness of such algorithmic recommendations, an overlooked question is whether they help humans make better decisions. We develop a statistical methodology for experimentally evaluating the causal impacts of algorithmic recommendations on human decisions. We also show how to examine whether algorithmic recommendations improve the fairness of human decisions and derive the optimal decision rules under various settings. We apply the proposed methodology to preliminary data from the first-ever randomized controlled trial that evaluates the pretrial Public Safety Assessment (PSA) in the criminal justice system. A goal of the PSA is to help judges decide which arrested individuals should be released. On the basis of the preliminary data available, we find that providing the PSA to the judge has little overall impact on the judge's decisions and subsequent arrestee behavior. However, our analysis yields some potentially suggestive evidence that the PSA may help avoid unnecessarily harsh decisions for female arrestees regardless of their risk levels while it encourages the judge to make stricter decisions for male arrestees who are deemed to be risky. In terms of fairness, the PSA appears to increase the gender bias against males while having little effect on any existing racial differences in judges' decision. Finally, we find that the PSA's recommendations might be unnecessarily severe unless the cost of a new crime is sufficiently high.
△ Less
Submitted 11 December, 2021; v1 submitted 4 December, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
