IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2405.17225.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantifying the Reliance of Black-Box Decision-Makers on Variables of Interest

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Vebman

Abstract

This paper introduces a framework for measuring how much black-box decision-makers rely on variables of interest. The framework adapts a permutation-based measure of variable importance from the explainable machine learning literature. With an emphasis on applicability, I present some of the framework's theoretical and computational properties, explain how reliance computations have policy implications, and work through an illustrative example. In the empirical application to interruptions by Supreme Court Justices during oral argument, I find that the effect of gender is more muted compared to the existing literature's estimate; I then use this paper's framework to compare Justices' reliance on gender and alignment to their reliance on experience, which are incomparable using regression coefficients.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Vebman, 2024. "Quantifying the Reliance of Black-Box Decision-Makers on Variables of Interest," Papers 2405.17225, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2405.17225
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.17225
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goulette, Natalie & Wooldredge, John & Frank, James & Travis, Lawrence, 2015. "From Initial Appearance to Sentencing: Do Female Defendants Experience Disparate Treatment?," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 406-417.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cadoff, Becca & Wolff, Kevin T. & Chauhan, Preeti, 2021. "Exploring variation in factors associated with increased likelihood of pretrial detention," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Crow, Matthew S. & Goulette, Natalie, 2022. "Judicial diversity and sentencing disparity across U.S. District Courts," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    3. St. Louis, Stacie, 2022. "Bail denied or bail too high? Disentangling cumulative disadvantage by pretrial detention type," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).

    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:2405.17225. 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.