IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2302.05260.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Policy Learning with Rare Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Hatamyar
  • Noemi Kreif

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) estimates of conditional average treatment effects (CATE) can guide policy decisions, either by allowing targeting of individuals with beneficial CATE estimates, or as inputs to decision trees that optimise overall outcomes. There is limited information available regarding how well these algorithms perform in real-world policy evaluation scenarios. Using synthetic data, we compare the finite sample performance of different policy learning algorithms, machine learning techniques employed during their learning phases, and methods for presenting estimated policy values. For each algorithm, we assess the resulting treatment allocation by measuring deviation from the ideal ("oracle") policy. Our main finding is that policy trees based on estimated CATEs outperform trees learned from doubly-robust scores. Across settings, Causal Forests and the Normalised Double-Robust Learner perform consistently well, while Bayesian Additive Regression Trees perform poorly. These methods are then applied to a case study targeting optimal allocation of subsidised health insurance, with the goal of reducing infant mortality in Indonesia.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Hatamyar & Noemi Kreif, 2023. "Policy Learning with Rare Outcomes," Papers 2302.05260, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2302.05260
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.05260
    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. Toru Kitagawa & Aleksey Tetenov, 2018. "Who Should Be Treated? Empirical Welfare Maximization Methods for Treatment Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 591-616, March.
    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. 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. Lechner, Michael & Smith, Jeffrey, 2007. "What is the value added by caseworkers?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 135-151, April.
    6. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey, 2017. "Double/Debiased/Neyman Machine Learning of Treatment Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 261-265, May.
    7. Keisuke Hirano & Jack R. Porter, 2009. "Asymptotics for Statistical Treatment Rules," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(5), pages 1683-1701, September.
    8. Victor Chernozhukov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Iván Fernández-Val, 2018. "Generic Machine Learning Inference on Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in Randomized Experiments, with an Application to Immunization in India," NBER Working Papers 24678, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. S. A. Murphy, 2003. "Optimal dynamic treatment regimes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 65(2), pages 331-355, May.
    10. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Statistical Treatment Rules for Heterogeneous Populations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1221-1246, July.
    11. Dimitris Bertsimas & Nathan Kallus, 2020. "From Predictive to Prescriptive Analytics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(3), pages 1025-1044, March.
    12. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2016. "Double/Debiased Machine Learning for Treatment and Causal Parameters," Papers 1608.00060, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.
    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. Mark Kattenberg & Bas Scheer & Jurre Thiel, 2023. "Causal forests with fixed effects for treatment effect heterogeneity in difference-in-differences," CPB Discussion Paper 452, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Davide Viviano, 2019. "Policy Targeting under Network Interference," Papers 1906.10258, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    5. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP72/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Guido W. Imbens, 2020. "Potential Outcome and Directed Acyclic Graph Approaches to Causality: Relevance for Empirical Practice in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1129-1179, December.
    7. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2020. "Double Debiased Machine Learning Nonparametric Inference with Continuous Treatments," Papers 2004.03036, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    8. Susan Athey & Stefan Wager, 2021. "Policy Learning With Observational Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(1), pages 133-161, January.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Achim Ahrens & Alessandra Stampi-Bombelli & Selina Kurer & Dominik Hangartner, 2023. "Optimal multi-action treatment allocation: A two-phase field experiment to boost immigrant naturalization," Papers 2305.00545, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    12. David Glynn & John Giardina & Julia Hatamyar & Ankur Pandya & Marta Soares & Noemi Kreif, 2024. "Integrating decision modeling and machine learning to inform treatment stratification," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(8), pages 1772-1792, August.
    13. Ruoxuan Xiong & Allison Koenecke & Michael Powell & Zhu Shen & Joshua T. Vogelstein & Susan Athey, 2021. "Federated Causal Inference in Heterogeneous Observational Data," Papers 2107.11732, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    14. Michael C Knaus & Michael Lechner & Anthony Strittmatter, 2021. "Machine learning estimation of heterogeneous causal effects: Empirical Monte Carlo evidence," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 24(1), pages 134-161.
    15. Anders Bredahl Kock & Martin Thyrsgaard, 2017. "Optimal sequential treatment allocation," Papers 1705.09952, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2018.
    16. Garbero, Alessandra & Sakos, Grayson & Cerulli, Giovanni, 2023. "Towards data-driven project design: Providing optimal treatment rules for development projects," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Miruna Oprescu & Vasilis Syrgkanis & Zhiwei Steven Wu, 2018. "Orthogonal Random Forest for Causal Inference," Papers 1806.03467, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    19. Yuya Sasaki & Takuya Ura & Yichong Zhang, 2022. "Unconditional quantile regression with high‐dimensional data," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), pages 955-978, July.
    20. Jushan Bai & Sung Hoon Choi & Yuan Liao, 2021. "Feasible generalized least squares for panel data with cross-sectional and serial correlations," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 309-326, January.

    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:2302.05260. 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: https://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.