Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3178876.3186151acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free access

Learning Causal Effects From Many Randomized Experiments Using Regularized Instrumental Variables

Published: 23 April 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Scientific and business practices are increasingly resulting in large collections of randomized experiments. Analyzed together multiple experiments can tell us things that individual experiments cannot. We study how to learn causal relationships between variables from the kinds of collections faced by modern data scientists: the number of experiments is large, many experiments have very small effects, and the analyst lacks metadata (e.g., descriptions of the interventions). We use experimental groups as instrumental variables (IV) and show that a standard method (two-stage least squares) is biased even when the number of experiments is infinite. We show how a sparsity-inducing l0 regularization can (in a reversal of the standard bias--variance tradeoff) reduce bias (and thus error) of interventional predictions. We are interested in estimating causal effects, rather than just predicting outcomes, so we also propose a modified cross-validation procedure (IVCV) to feasibly select the regularization parameter. We show, using a trick from Monte Carlo sampling, that IVCV can be done using summary statistics instead of raw data. This makes our full procedure simple to use in many real-world applications.

References

[1]
Joshua D Angrist, Guido W Imbens, and Donald B Rubin. 1996. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. Vol. 91, 434 (1996), 444--455.
[2]
Joshua D Angrist and Alan B Krueger. 1995. Split-sample instrumental variables estimates of the return to schooling. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics Vol. 13, 2 (1995), 225--235.
[3]
Joshua D Angrist and Jörn-Steffen Pischke. 2008. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton university press.
[4]
Susan Athey and Guido Imbens. 2016. Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, 27 (2016), 7353--7360.
[5]
E. Bakshy, D. Eckles, and M. S. Bernstein. 2014. Designing and Deploying Online Field Experiments. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM conference on the World Wide Web. ACM.
[6]
Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo. 2012. Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. PublicAffairs.
[7]
Paul A Bekker. 1994. Alternative approximations to the distributions of instrumental variable estimators. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1994), 657--681.
[8]
Alexandre Belloni, Daniel Chen, Victor Chernozhukov, and Christian Hansen. 2012. Sparse models and methods for optimal instruments with an application to eminent domain. Econometrica, Vol. 80, 6 (2012), 2369--2429.
[9]
Léon Bottou. 2014. From machine learning to machine reasoning. Machine Learning, Vol. 94, 2 (2014), 133--149.
[10]
Léon Bottou, Jonas Peters, Joaquin Quinonero Candela, Denis Xavier Charles, Max Chickering, Elon Portugaly, Dipankar Ray, Patrice Y Simard, and Ed Snelson. 2013. Counterfactual reasoning and learning systems: The example of computational advertising. Journal of Machine Learning Research Vol. 14, 1 (2013), 3207--3260.
[11]
Bob Carpenter, Andrew Gelman, Matt Hoffman, Daniel Lee, Ben Goodrich, Michael Betancourt, Michael A Brubaker, Jiqiang Guo, Peter Li, and Allen Riddell. 2016. Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software (2016).
[12]
Gary Chamberlain and Guido Imbens. 2004. Random effects estimators with many instrumental variables. Econometrica, Vol. 72, 1 (2004), 295--306.
[13]
Dean Eckles, René F Kizilcec, and Eytan Bakshy. 2016. Estimating peer effects in networks with peer encouragement designs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, 27 (2016), 7316--7322.
[14]
Ziv Epstein, Alexander Peysakhovich, and David G Rand. 2016. The good, the bad, and the unflinchingly selfish: Cooperative decision-making can be predicted with high accuracy when using only three behavioral types Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. ACM, 547--559.
[15]
John C Gittins. 1979. Bandit processes and dynamic allocation indices. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) (1979), 148--177.
[16]
Mathew Goldman and Justin M Rao. 2014. Experiments as Instruments: Heterogeneous Position Effects in Sponsored Search Auctions. Available at SSRN 2524688 (2014).
[17]
Donald P Green, Shang E Ha, and John G Bullock. 2010. Enough already about “black box” experiments: Studying mediation is more difficult than most scholars suppose. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 628, 1 (2010), 200--208.
[18]
Justin Grimmer, Solomon Messing, and Sean J Westwood. 2014. Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects and the effects of heterogeneous treatments with ensemble methods. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (2014).
[19]
Christian Hansen and Damian Kozbur. 2014. Instrumental variables estimation with many weak instruments using regularized JIVE. Journal of Econometrics Vol. 182, 2 (2014), 290--308.
[20]
Jason Hartford, Greg Lewis, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Matt Taddy. 2016. Counterfactual Prediction with Deep Instrumental Variables Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.09596 (2016).
[21]
Lars G Hemkens, Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis, and John PA Ioannidis. 2016. Agreement of treatment effects for mortality from routinely collected data and subsequent randomized trials: Meta-epidemiological survey. British Medical Journal Vol. 352 (2016).
[22]
Kosuke Imai, Dustin Tingley, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2013. Experimental designs for identifying causal mechanisms. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), Vol. 176, 1 (2013), 5--51.
[23]
Guido Imbens, Joshua Angrist, and Alan Krueger. 1999. Jackknife Instrumental Variables Estimation. Journal of Applied Econometrics Vol. 14, 1 (1999).
[24]
Jongbin Jung, Connor Concannon, Ravi Shroff, Sharad Goel, and Daniel G Goldstein. 2017. Simple rules for complex decisions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.04690 (2017).
[25]
Ron Kohavi, Alex Deng, Brian Frasca, Toby Walker, Ya Xu, and Nils Pohlmann. 2013. Online controlled experiments at large scale. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 1168--1176.
[26]
Robert J LaLonde. 1986. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. The American Economic Review (1986), 604--620.
[27]
Finnian Lattimore, Tor Lattimore, and Mark D Reid. 2016. Causal Bandits: Learning Good Interventions via Causal Inference Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1181--1189.
[28]
Lihong Li, Wei Chu, John Langford, and Robert E Schapire. 2010. A contextual-bandit approach to personalized news article recommendation Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. ACM, 661--670.
[29]
Michelle N Meyer. 2015. Two cheers for corporate experimentation: The A/B illusion and the virtues of data-driven innovation. J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. Vol. 13 (2015), 273.
[30]
Art B. Owen. 2016. Monte Carlo Theory, Methods and Examples. http://statweb.stanford.edu/ owen/mc/
[31]
Judea Pearl. 2009. Causality. Cambridge University Press.
[32]
Alexander Peysakhovich and Jeffrey Naecker. 2017. Using methods from machine learning to evaluate behavioral models of choice under risk and ambiguity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Vol. 133 (2017), 373--384.
[33]
Olav Reiersöl. 1945. Confluence analysis by means of instrumental sets of variables. Ph.D. Dissertation. bibinfoschoolStockholm College.
[34]
Uri Shalit, Fredrik Johansson, and David Sontag. 2016. Bounding and Minimizing Counterfactual Error. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03976 (2016).
[35]
Douglas Staiger and James H Stock. 1997. Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments. Econometrica (1997), 557--586.
[36]
James H Stock, Jonathan H Wright, and Motohiro Yogo. 2012. A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (2012).
[37]
James H Stock and Motohiro Yogo. 2005. Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. Identification and Inference for Econometric Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg. Cambridge University Press, 80--108.
[38]
Richard S Sutton and Andrew G Barto. 1998. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Vol. Vol. 1. MIT press Cambridge.
[39]
Hal Varian. 2016. Intelligent Technology. Finance and Development Vol. 53, 3 (2016).
[40]
Jeffrey M Wooldridge. 2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press.
[41]
Philip Green Wright. 1928. The Tariff on Animal and Vegetable Oils. The Macmillan Co.
[42]
Ya Xu, Nanyu Chen, Addrian Fernandez, Omar Sinno, and Anmol Bhasin. 2015. From infrastructure to culture: A/B testing challenges in large scale social networks Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 2227--2236.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Can Gender-Blind Algorithmic Pricing Eliminate the Gender Gap?SSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4780217Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Learning the Covariance of Treatment Effects Across Many Weak ExperimentsProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3672034(153-162)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024
  • (2024)Metric Decomposition in A/B TestsProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3671556(4885-4895)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Learning Causal Effects From Many Randomized Experiments Using Regularized Instrumental Variables

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        WWW '18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference
        April 2018
        2000 pages
        ISBN:9781450356398
        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Sponsors

        • IW3C2: International World Wide Web Conference Committee

        In-Cooperation

        Publisher

        International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

        Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

        Publication History

        Published: 23 April 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions for this article.

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. causality
        2. experimentation
        3. instrumental variables
        4. machine learning

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article

        Conference

        WWW '18
        Sponsor:
        • IW3C2
        WWW '18: The Web Conference 2018
        April 23 - 27, 2018
        Lyon, France

        Acceptance Rates

        WWW '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 170 of 1,155 submissions, 15%;
        Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)405
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)35
        Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)Can Gender-Blind Algorithmic Pricing Eliminate the Gender Gap?SSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4780217Online publication date: 2024
        • (2024)Learning the Covariance of Treatment Effects Across Many Weak ExperimentsProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3672034(153-162)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024
        • (2024)Metric Decomposition in A/B TestsProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3671556(4885-4895)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024
        • (2022)Peer Effects in Product AdoptionAmerican Economic Journal: Applied Economics10.1257/app.2020036714:3(488-526)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2022
        • (2020)Causal Meta-Mediation AnalysisProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining10.1145/3394486.3403313(2625-2635)Online publication date: 23-Aug-2020
        • (2019)Observational Data for Heterogeneous Treatment Effects with Application to Recommender SystemsProceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3328526.3329558(199-213)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2019
        • (2019)Improving Treatment Effect Estimators Through Experiment SplittingThe World Wide Web Conference10.1145/3308558.3313452(285-295)Online publication date: 13-May-2019
        • (2019)The Identification and Estimation of Direct and Indirect Effects in A/B Tests through Causal Mediation AnalysisProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining10.1145/3292500.3330769(2989-2999)Online publication date: 25-Jul-2019
        • (2019)Protecting elections from social media manipulationScience10.1126/science.aaw8243365:6456(858-861)Online publication date: 29-Aug-2019
        • (undefined)Predicting Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in Ranking SystemsSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.3190359

        View Options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format.

        HTML Format

        Login options

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media