Search

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 FROM AUTHOR]

Two‐stage randomized experiments become an increasingly popular experimental design for causal inference when the outcome of one unit may be affected by the treatment assignments of other units in the same cluster. In this paper, we provide a methodological framework for general tools of statistical inference and power analysis for two‐stage randomized experiments. Under the randomization‐based framework, we consider the estimation of a new direct effect of interest as well as the average direct and spillover effects studied in the literature. We provide unbiased estimators of these causal quantities and their conservative variance estimators in a general setting. Using these results, we then develop hypothesis testing procedures and derive sample size formulas. We theoretically compare the two‐stage randomized design with the completely randomized and cluster randomized designs, which represent two limiting designs. Finally, we conduct simulation studies to evaluate the empirical performance of our sample size formulas. For empirical illustration, the proposed methodology is applied to the randomized evaluation of the Indian National Health Insurance Program. An open‐source software package is available for implementing the proposed methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This consideration is critical in our study because judges' decisions can affect individual arrestees. Instead of engaging with this philosophical debate, we examine Dawid's recommendation to use the statistical decision theory for answering the following questions: (1) 'should we present PSA to the judge before she makes her decision, or not? As explained above, to decide on the use of PSA, policy makers need to understand if PSA helps judges achieve their goal of preventing a negative outcome while avoiding unnecessarily harsh decisions. Finally, several commentators asked why our study design did not involve blinding of judges either to the intervention or to the fact of the study. [Extracted from the article]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Causal inference concerns not only the average effect of the treatment on the outcome but also the underlying mechanism through an intermediate variable of interest. Principal stratification characterizes such a mechanism by targeting subgroup causal effects within principal strata, which are defined by the joint potential values of an intermediate variable. Due to the fundamental problem of causal inference, principal strata are inherently latent, rendering it challenging to identify and estimate subgroup effects within them. A line of research leverages the principal ignorability assumption that the latent principal strata are mean independent of the potential outcomes conditioning on the observed covariates. Under principal ignorability, we derive various nonparametric identification formulas for causal effects within principal strata in observational studies, which motivate estimators relying on the correct specifications of different parts of the observed‐data distribution. Appropriately combining these estimators yields triply robust estimators for the causal effects within principal strata. These triply robust estimators are consistent if two of the treatment, intermediate variable and outcome models are correctly specified, and moreover, they are locally efficient if all three models are correctly specified. We show that these estimators arise naturally from either the efficient influence functions in the semiparametric theory or the model‐assisted estimators in the survey sampling theory. We evaluate different estimators based on their finite‐sample performance through simulation and apply them to two observational studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: In social science research, interference between units is the rule rather than the exception. Contagion represents one key causal mechanism of such spillover effects, where one's treatment affects the outcome of another individual indirectly by changing the treated unit's own outcome. Alternatively, the treatment of one individual can affect the outcome of another person through other mechanisms. We consider the identification and sensitivity analysis of contagion effects. We analyse a randomized placebo‐controlled trial of the get out the vote campaign, in which canvassers were sent to randomly selected households with two registered voters but encouraged only one voter within each household to turn out in an upcoming election. To address the problem of non‐compliance, the experiment includes a placebo arm, in which canvassers encourage voters to recycle. We show how to identify and estimate the average contagion and direct effects by decomposing the average spillover effect. Our analysis examines whether canvassing increases the turnout of a non‐contacted voter by altering the vote intention of a contacted voter or through other mechanisms. To address the potential violation of key identification assumptions, we propose non‐parametric and parametric sensitivity analyses. We find robust contagion effects among some households. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Principal stratification is a causal framework to analyse randomized experiments with a post-treatment variable between the treatment and end point variables. Because the principal strata defined by the potential outcomes of the post-treatment variable are not observable, we generally cannot identify the causal effects within principal strata. Motivated by a real data set of phase III adjuvant colon cancer clinical trials, we propose approaches to identifying and estimating the principal causal effects via multiple trials. For the identifiability, we remove the commonly used exclusion restriction assumption by stipulating that the principal causal effects are homogeneous across these trials. To remove another commonly used monotonicity assumption, we give a necessary condition for the local identifiability, which requires at least three trials. Applying our approaches to the data from adjuvant colon cancer clinical trials, we find that the commonly used monotonicity assumption is untenable, and disease-free survival with 3-year follow-up is a valid surrogate end point for overall survival with 5-year follow-up, which satisfies both causal necessity and causal sufficiency. We also propose a sensitivity analysis approach based on Bayesian hierarchical models to investigate the effect of the deviation from the homogeneity assumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]