Search for: All records

Abstract Post-treatment variables often complicate causal inference. They appear in many scientific problems, including non-compliance, truncation by death, mediation, and surrogate endpoint evaluation. Principal stratification is a strategy to address these challenges by adjusting for the potential values of the post-treatment variables, defined as the principal strata. It allows for characterizing treatment effect heterogeneity across principal strata and unveiling the mechanism of the treatment’s impact on the outcome related to post-treatment variables. However, the existing literature has primarily focused on binary post-treatment variables, leaving the case with continuous post-treatment variables largely unexplored. This gap persists due to the complexity of infinitely many principal strata, which present challenges to both the identification and estimation of causal effects. We fill this gap by providing nonparametric identification and semiparametric estimation theory for principal stratification with continuous post-treatment variables. We propose to use working models to approximate the underlying causal effect surfaces and derive the efficient influence functions of the corresponding model parameters. Based on the theory, we construct doubly robust estimators and implement them in the R package continuousPCE. 

Summary Point processes are probabilistic tools for modelling event data. While there exists a fast-growing literature on the relationships between point processes, how such relationships connect to causal effects remains unexplored. In the presence of unmeasured confounders, parameters from point process models do not necessarily have causal interpretations. We propose an instrumental variable method for causal inference with point process treatment and outcome. We define causal quantities based on potential outcomes and establish nonparametric identification results with a binary instrumental variable. We extend the traditional Wald estimation to deal with point process treatment and outcome, showing that it should be performed after a Fourier transform of the intention-to-treat effects on the treatment and outcome, and thus takes the form of deconvolution. We refer to this approach as generalized Wald estimation and propose an estimation strategy based on well-established deconvolution methods. 

Abstract Despite an increasing reliance on fully-automated algorithmic decision-making in our day-to-day lives, humans still make consequential decisions. While the existing literature focuses on the bias and fairness of algorithmic recommendations, an overlooked question is whether they improve human decisions. We develop a general statistical methodology for experimentally evaluating the causal impacts of algorithmic recommendations on human decisions. We also 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 the first-ever randomized controlled trial that evaluates the pretrial Public Safety Assessment in the United States criminal justice system. Our analysis of the preliminary data shows that providing the PSA to the judge has little overall impact on the judge’s decisions and subsequent arrestee behaviour. 

aihuman is an R package which provides statistical methods for analyzing experimental evaluation of the causal impacts of algorithmic recommendations on human decisions developed by Imai, Jiang, Greiner, Halen, and Shin (2023) . The data used for this paper, and made available here, are interim, based on only half of the observations in the study and (for those observations) only half of the study follow-up period. We use them only to illustrate methods, not to draw substantive conclusions. 

Summary Instrumental variable methods can identify causal effects even when the treatment and outcome are confounded. We study the problem of imperfect measurements of the binary instrumental variable, treatment and outcome. We first consider nondifferential measurement errors, that is, the mismeasured variable does not depend on other variables given its true value. We show that the measurement error of the instrumental variable does not bias the estimate, that the measurement error of the treatment biases the estimate away from zero, and that the measurement error of the outcome biases the estimate toward zero. Moreover, we derive sharp bounds on the causal effects without additional assumptions. These bounds are informative because they exclude zero. We then consider differential measurement errors, and focus on sensitivity analyses in those settings.