Guido W. Imbens

Alberto Abadie, Anish Agarwal, Guido Imbens et al.

In an era of data abundance, statistical evidence is increasingly critical for business and policy decisions. Yet, organizations lack empirical tools to assess the value of evidence-based decision making (EBDM), optimize statistical precision, and balance the costs of evidence-gathering strategies against their benefits. To tackle these challenges, this article introduces an empirical framework to estimate the value of EBDM and evaluate the return on investment in statistical precision and project ideation. The framework leverages parametric and nonparametric empirical Bayes methods to account for parameter heterogeneity and measure how statistical precision changes the value of evidence. The value extracted from statistical evidence depends critically on how organizations translate evidence into policy decisions. Commonly used decision rules based on statistical significance can leave substantial value unrealized and, in some cases, generate negative expected value.

Guido Imbens, Chao Qin, Stefan Wager

When an experimenter has the option of running an adaptive trial, is it admissible to ignore this option and run a non-adaptive trial instead? We provide a negative answer to this question in the best-arm identification problem, where the experimenter aims to allocate measurement efforts judiciously to confidently deploy the most effective treatment arm. We find that, whenever there are at least three treatment arms, there exist simple adaptive designs that universally and strictly dominate non-adaptive completely randomized trials. This dominance is characterized by a notion called efficiency exponent, which quantifies a design's statistical efficiency when the experimental sample is large. Our analysis focuses on the class of batched arm elimination designs, which progressively eliminate underperforming arms at pre-specified batch intervals. We characterize simple sufficient conditions under which these designs universally and strictly dominate completely randomized trials. These results resolve the second open problem posed in Qin [2022].

Guido Imbens, Nathan Kallus, Xiaojie Mao et al.

We study the identification and estimation of long-term treatment effects when both experimental and observational data are available. Since the long-term outcome is observed only after a long delay, it is not measured in the experimental data, but only recorded in the observational data. However, both types of data include observations of some short-term outcomes. In this paper, we uniquely tackle the challenge of persistent unmeasured confounders, i.e., some unmeasured confounders that can simultaneously affect the treatment, short-term outcomes and the long-term outcome, noting that they invalidate identification strategies in previous literature. To address this challenge, we exploit the sequential structure of multiple short-term outcomes, and develop three novel identification strategies for the average long-term treatment effect. We further propose three corresponding estimators and prove their asymptotic consistency and asymptotic normality. We finally apply our methods to estimate the effect of a job training program on long-term employment using semi-synthetic data. We numerically show that our proposals outperform existing methods that fail to handle persistent confounders.

Nick Doudchenko, Khashayar Khosravi, Jean Pouget-Abadie et al.

We investigate the optimal design of experimental studies that have pre-treatment outcome data available. The average treatment effect is estimated as the difference between the weighted average outcomes of the treated and control units. A number of commonly used approaches fit this formulation, including the difference-in-means estimator and a variety of synthetic-control techniques. We propose several methods for choosing the set of treated units in conjunction with the weights. Observing the NP-hardness of the problem, we introduce a mixed-integer programming formulation which selects both the treatment and control sets and unit weightings. We prove that these proposed approaches lead to qualitatively different experimental units being selected for treatment. We use simulations based on publicly available data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics that show improvements in terms of mean squared error and statistical power when compared to simple and commonly used alternatives such as randomized trials.

Sareh Nabi, Houssam Nassif, Joseph Hong et al.

Adding domain knowledge to a learning system is known to improve results. In multi-parameter Bayesian frameworks, such knowledge is incorporated as a prior. On the other hand, various model parameters can have different learning rates in real-world problems, especially with skewed data. Two often-faced challenges in Operation Management and Management Science applications are the absence of informative priors, and the inability to control parameter learning rates. In this study, we propose a hierarchical Empirical Bayes approach that addresses both challenges, and that can generalize to any Bayesian framework. Our method learns empirical meta-priors from the data itself and uses them to decouple the learning rates of first-order and second-order features (or any other given feature grouping) in a Generalized Linear Model. As the first-order features are likely to have a more pronounced effect on the outcome, focusing on learning first-order weights first is likely to improve performance and convergence time. Our Empirical Bayes method clamps features in each group together and uses the deployed model's observed data to empirically compute a hierarchical prior in hindsight. We report theoretical results for the unbiasedness, strong consistency, and optimal frequentist cumulative regret properties of our meta-prior variance estimator. We apply our method to a standard supervised learning optimization problem, as well as an online combinatorial optimization problem in a contextual bandit setting implemented in an Amazon production system. Both during simulations and live experiments, our method shows marked improvements, especially in cases of small traffic. Our findings are promising, as optimizing over sparse data is often a challenge.

Ruoxuan Xiong, Susan Athey, Mohsen Bayati et al.

In this paper, we study the design and analysis of experiments conducted on a set of units over multiple time periods where the starting time of the treatment may vary by unit. The design problem involves selecting an initial treatment time for each unit in order to most precisely estimate both the instantaneous and cumulative effects of the treatment. We first consider non-adaptive experiments, where all treatment assignment decisions are made prior to the start of the experiment. For this case, we show that the optimization problem is generally NP-hard, and we propose a near-optimal solution. Under this solution, the fraction entering treatment each period is initially low, then high, and finally low again. Next, we study an adaptive experimental design problem, where both the decision to continue the experiment and treatment assignment decisions are updated after each period's data is collected. For the adaptive case, we propose a new algorithm, the Precision-Guided Adaptive Experiment (PGAE) algorithm, that addresses the challenges at both the design stage and at the stage of estimating treatment effects, ensuring valid post-experiment inference accounting for the adaptive nature of the design. Using realistic settings, we demonstrate that our proposed solutions can reduce the opportunity cost of the experiments by over 50%, compared to static design benchmarks.

Susan Athey, Guido Imbens

We discuss the relevance of the recent Machine Learning (ML) literature for economics and econometrics. First we discuss the differences in goals, methods and settings between the ML literature and the traditional econometrics and statistics literatures. Then we discuss some specific methods from the machine learning literature that we view as important for empirical researchers in economics. These include supervised learning methods for regression and classification, unsupervised learning methods, as well as matrix completion methods. Finally, we highlight newly developed methods at the intersection of ML and econometrics, methods that typically perform better than either off-the-shelf ML or more traditional econometric methods when applied to particular classes of problems, problems that include causal inference for average treatment effects, optimal policy estimation, and estimation of the counterfactual effect of price changes in consumer choice models.

Maria Dimakopoulou, Zhengyuan Zhou, Susan Athey et al.

Contextual bandit algorithms are sensitive to the estimation method of the outcome model as well as the exploration method used, particularly in the presence of rich heterogeneity or complex outcome models, which can lead to difficult estimation problems along the path of learning. We develop algorithms for contextual bandits with linear payoffs that integrate balancing methods from the causal inference literature in their estimation to make it less prone to problems of estimation bias. We provide the first regret bound analyses for linear contextual bandits with balancing and show that our algorithms match the state of the art theoretical guarantees. We demonstrate the strong practical advantage of balanced contextual bandits on a large number of supervised learning datasets and on a synthetic example that simulates model misspecification and prejudice in the initial training data.

Susan Athey, Guido Imbens

In this paper we study estimation of and inference for average treatment effects in a setting with panel data. We focus on the setting where units, e.g., individuals, firms, or states, adopt the policy or treatment of interest at a particular point in time, and then remain exposed to this treatment at all times afterwards. We take a design perspective where we investigate the properties of estimators and procedures given assumptions on the assignment process. We show that under random assignment of the adoption date the standard Difference-In-Differences estimator is is an unbiased estimator of a particular weighted average causal effect. We characterize the proeperties of this estimand, and show that the standard variance estimator is conservative.

Maria Dimakopoulou, Zhengyuan Zhou, Susan Athey et al.

Contextual bandit algorithms are sensitive to the estimation method of the outcome model as well as the exploration method used, particularly in the presence of rich heterogeneity or complex outcome models, which can lead to difficult estimation problems along the path of learning. We study a consideration for the exploration vs. exploitation framework that does not arise in multi-armed bandits but is crucial in contextual bandits; the way exploration and exploitation is conducted in the present affects the bias and variance in the potential outcome model estimation in subsequent stages of learning. We develop parametric and non-parametric contextual bandits that integrate balancing methods from the causal inference literature in their estimation to make it less prone to problems of estimation bias. We provide the first regret bound analyses for contextual bandits with balancing in the domain of linear contextual bandits that match the state of the art regret bounds. We demonstrate the strong practical advantage of balanced contextual bandits on a large number of supervised learning datasets and on a synthetic example that simulates model mis-specification and prejudice in the initial training data. Additionally, we develop contextual bandits with simpler assignment policies by leveraging sparse model estimation methods from the econometrics literature and demonstrate empirically that in the early stages they can improve the rate of learning and decrease regret.

Nikolay Doudchenko, Guido W. Imbens

In a seminal paper Abadie, Diamond, and Hainmueller [2010] (ADH), see also Abadie and Gardeazabal [2003], Abadie et al. [2014], develop the synthetic control procedure for estimating the effect of a treatment, in the presence of a single treated unit and a number of control units, with pre-treatment outcomes observed for all units. The method constructs a set of weights such that selected covariates and pre-treatment outcomes of the treated unit are approximately matched by a weighted average of control units (the synthetic control). The weights are restricted to be nonnegative and sum to one, which is important because it allows the procedure to obtain unique weights even when the number of lagged outcomes is modest relative to the number of control units, a common setting in applications. In the current paper we propose a generalization that allows the weights to be negative, and their sum to differ from one, and that allows for a permanent additive difference between the treated unit and the controls, similar to difference-in-difference procedures. The weights directly minimize the distance between the lagged outcomes for the treated and the control units, using regularization methods to deal with a potentially large number of possible control units.

Susan Athey, Raj Chetty, Guido Imbens et al.

Estimating the long-term effects of treatments is of interest in many fields. A common challenge in estimating such treatment effects is that long-term outcomes are unobserved in the time frame needed to make policy decisions. One approach to overcome this missing data problem is to analyze treatments effects on an intermediate outcome, often called a statistical surrogate, if it satisfies the condition that treatment and outcome are independent conditional on the statistical surrogate. The validity of the surrogacy condition is often controversial. Here we exploit that fact that in modern datasets, researchers often observe a large number, possibly hundreds or thousands, of intermediate outcomes, thought to lie on or close to the causal chain between the treatment and the long-term outcome of interest. Even if none of the individual proxies satisfies the statistical surrogacy criterion by itself, using multiple proxies can be useful in causal inference. We focus primarily on a setting with two samples, an experimental sample containing data about the treatment indicator and the surrogates and an observational sample containing information about the surrogates and the primary outcome. We state assumptions under which the average treatment effect be identified and estimated with a high-dimensional vector of proxies that collectively satisfy the surrogacy assumption, and derive the bias from violations of the surrogacy assumption, and show that even if the primary outcome is also observed in the experimental sample, there is still information to be gained from using surrogates.

Susan Athey, Guido Imbens

In this paper we study the problems of estimating heterogeneity in causal effects in experimental or observational studies and conducting inference about the magnitude of the differences in treatment effects across subsets of the population. In applications, our method provides a data-driven approach to determine which subpopulations have large or small treatment effects and to test hypotheses about the differences in these effects. For experiments, our method allows researchers to identify heterogeneity in treatment effects that was not specified in a pre-analysis plan, without concern about invalidating inference due to multiple testing. In most of the literature on supervised machine learning (e.g. regression trees, random forests, LASSO, etc.), the goal is to build a model of the relationship between a unit's attributes and an observed outcome. A prominent role in these methods is played by cross-validation which compares predictions to actual outcomes in test samples, in order to select the level of complexity of the model that provides the best predictive power. Our method is closely related, but it differs in that it is tailored for predicting causal effects of a treatment rather than a unit's outcome. The challenge is that the "ground truth" for a causal effect is not observed for any individual unit: we observe the unit with the treatment, or without the treatment, but not both at the same time. Thus, it is not obvious how to use cross-validation to determine whether a causal effect has been accurately predicted. We propose several novel cross-validation criteria for this problem and demonstrate through simulations the conditions under which they perform better than standard methods for the problem of causal effects. We then apply the method to a large-scale field experiment re-ranking results on a search engine.