IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2310.13240.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Transparency challenges in policy evaluation with causal machine learning -- improving usability and accountability

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Rehill
  • Nicholas Biddle

Abstract

Causal machine learning tools are beginning to see use in real-world policy evaluation tasks to flexibly estimate treatment effects. One issue with these methods is that the machine learning models used are generally black boxes, i.e., there is no globally interpretable way to understand how a model makes estimates. This is a clear problem in policy evaluation applications, particularly in government, because it is difficult to understand whether such models are functioning in ways that are fair, based on the correct interpretation of evidence and transparent enough to allow for accountability if things go wrong. However, there has been little discussion of transparency problems in the causal machine learning literature and how these might be overcome. This paper explores why transparency issues are a problem for causal machine learning in public policy evaluation applications and considers ways these problems might be addressed through explainable AI tools and by simplifying models in line with interpretable AI principles. It then applies these ideas to a case-study using a causal forest model to estimate conditional average treatment effects for a hypothetical change in the school leaving age in Australia. It shows that existing tools for understanding black-box predictive models are poorly suited to causal machine learning and that simplifying the model to make it interpretable leads to an unacceptable increase in error (in this application). It concludes that new tools are needed to properly understand causal machine learning models and the algorithms that fit them.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Rehill & Nicholas Biddle, 2023. "Transparency challenges in policy evaluation with causal machine learning -- improving usability and accountability," Papers 2310.13240, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2310.13240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.13240
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2018. "Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 1-68, February.
    2. Leigh, Andrew & Ryan, Chris, 2008. "Estimating returns to education using different natural experiment techniques," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 149-160, April.
    3. Cockx, Bart & Lechner, Michael & Bollens, Joost, 2023. "Priority to unemployed immigrants? A causal machine learning evaluation of training in Belgium," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    4. Stefan Wager & Susan Athey, 2018. "Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1228-1242, July.
    5. Susan Athey & Stefan Wager, 2021. "Policy Learning With Observational Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(1), pages 133-161, January.
    6. Xinkun Nie & Stefan Wager, 2017. "Quasi-Oracle Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects," Papers 1712.04912, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    7. O'Neill, E. & Weeks, M., 2018. "Causal Tree Estimation of Heterogeneous Household Response to Time-Of-Use Electricity Pricing Schemes," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1865, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    8. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2017. "The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 3-32, Spring.
    9. Arun Rai, 2020. "Explainable AI: from black box to glass box," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 137-141, January.
    10. Chernozhukov, Victor & Kasahara, Hiroyuki & Schrimpf, Paul, 2021. "Causal impact of masks, policies, behavior on early covid-19 pandemic in the U.S," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 220(1), pages 23-62.
    11. Michael Lechner, 2023. "Causal Machine Learning and its use for public policy," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 159(1), pages 1-15, December.
    12. Patrick Rehill & Nicholas Biddle, 2023. "Fairness Implications of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation with Machine Learning Methods in Policy-making," Papers 2309.00805, arXiv.org.
    13. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Statistical Treatment Rules for Heterogeneous Populations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1221-1246, July.
    14. Mr. Andrew J Tiffin, 2019. "Machine Learning and Causality: The Impact of Financial Crises on Growth," IMF Working Papers 2019/228, International Monetary Fund.
    15. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881, September.
    16. Vira Semenova & Victor Chernozhukov, 2021. "Debiased machine learning of conditional average treatment effects and other causal functions," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 24(2), pages 264-289.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patrick Rehill, 2024. "How do applied researchers use the Causal Forest? A methodological review of a method," Papers 2404.13356, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patrick Rehill & Nicholas Biddle, 2023. "Fairness Implications of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation with Machine Learning Methods in Policy-making," Papers 2309.00805, arXiv.org.
    2. Michael Lechner, 2023. "Causal Machine Learning and its use for public policy," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 159(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Michael C Knaus, 2022. "Double machine learning-based programme evaluation under unconfoundedness [Econometric methods for program evaluation]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 25(3), pages 602-627.
    4. Henrika Langen & Martin Huber, 2022. "How causal machine learning can leverage marketing strategies: Assessing and improving the performance of a coupon campaign," Papers 2204.10820, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    5. Phillip Heiler & Michael C. Knaus, 2021. "Effect or Treatment Heterogeneity? Policy Evaluation with Aggregated and Disaggregated Treatments," Papers 2110.01427, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    6. Ganesh Karapakula, 2023. "Stable Probability Weighting: Large-Sample and Finite-Sample Estimation and Inference Methods for Heterogeneous Causal Effects of Multivalued Treatments Under Limited Overlap," Papers 2301.05703, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    7. Kelvin Mulungu & Zewdu Ayalew Abro & Wambui Beatrice Muriithi & Menale Kassie & Miachael Kidoido & Subramanian Sevgan & Samira Mohamed & Chrysantus Tanga & Fathiya Khamis, 2024. "One size does not fit all: Heterogeneous economic impact of integrated pest management practices for mango fruit flies in Kenya—a machine learning approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 261-279, February.
    8. Christopher Adjaho & Timothy Christensen, 2022. "Externally Valid Policy Choice," Papers 2205.05561, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    9. Miruna Oprescu & Vasilis Syrgkanis & Zhiwei Steven Wu, 2018. "Orthogonal Random Forest for Causal Inference," Papers 1806.03467, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    10. Nathan Kallus, 2023. "Treatment Effect Risk: Bounds and Inference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4579-4590, August.
    11. Augustine Denteh & Helge Liebert, 2022. "Who Increases Emergency Department Use? New Insights from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment," Papers 2201.07072, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    12. Valente, Marica, 2023. "Policy evaluation of waste pricing programs using heterogeneous causal effect estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Alejandro Sanchez-Becerra, 2023. "Robust inference for the treatment effect variance in experiments using machine learning," Papers 2306.03363, arXiv.org.
    14. Goller, Daniel & Harrer, Tamara & Lechner, Michael & Wolff, Joachim, 2021. "Active labour market policies for the long-term unemployed: New evidence from causal machine learning," Economics Working Paper Series 2108, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    15. Anna Baiardi & Andrea A. Naghi, 2021. "The Value Added of Machine Learning to Causal Inference: Evidence from Revisited Studies," Papers 2101.00878, arXiv.org.
    16. Anna Baiardi & Andrea A. Naghi, 2021. "The Value Added of Machine Learning to Causal Inference: Evidence from Revisited Studies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-001/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. Joshua B. Gilbert & Zachary Himmelsbach & James Soland & Mridul Joshi & Benjamin W. Domingue, 2024. "Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects with Item-Level Outcome Data: Insights from Item Response Theory," Papers 2405.00161, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    18. Harsh Parikh & Carlos Varjao & Louise Xu & Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, 2022. "Validating Causal Inference Methods," Papers 2202.04208, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    19. Jonathan Fuhr & Philipp Berens & Dominik Papies, 2024. "Estimating Causal Effects with Double Machine Learning -- A Method Evaluation," Papers 2403.14385, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    20. Carlos Fernández-Loría & Foster Provost & Jesse Anderton & Benjamin Carterette & Praveen Chandar, 2023. "A Comparison of Methods for Treatment Assignment with an Application to Playlist Generation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 786-803, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2310.13240. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.