BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Guillaume Basse

Guillaume Basse contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Methodologymath.STStatistics TheoryApplications

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Causal Framework for Observational Studies of Discrimination

In studies of discrimination, researchers often seek to estimate a causal effect of race or gender on outcomes. For example, in the criminal justice context, one might ask whether arrested individuals would have been subsequently charged or convicted had they been a different race. It has long been known that such counterfactual questions face measurement challenges related to omitted-variable bias, and conceptual challenges related to the definition of causal estimands for largely immutable characteristics. Another concern, which has been the subject of recent debates, is post-treatment bias: many studies of discrimination condition on apparently intermediate outcomes, like being arrested, that themselves may be the product of discrimination, potentially corrupting statistical estimates. There is, however, reason to be optimistic. By carefully defining the estimand -- and by considering the precise timing of events -- we show that a primary causal quantity of interest in discrimination studies can be estimated under an ignorability condition that may hold approximately in some observational settings. We illustrate these ideas by analyzing both simulated data and the charging decisions of a prosecutor's office in a large county in the United States.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Randomization Inference for Composite Experiments with Spillovers and Peer Effects

Group-formation experiments, in which experimental units are randomly assigned to groups, are a powerful tool for studying peer effects in the social sciences. Existing design and analysis approaches allow researchers to draw inference from such experiments without relying on parametric assumptions. In practice, however, group-formation experiments are often coupled with a second, external intervention, that is not accounted for by standard nonparametric approaches. This note shows how to construct Fisherian randomization tests and Neymanian asymptotic confidence intervals for such composite experiments, including in settings where the second intervention exhibits spillovers. We also propose an approach for designing optimal composite experiments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A general theory of identification

What does it mean to say that a quantity is identifiable from the data? Statisticians seem to agree on a definition in the context of parametric statistical models --- roughly, a parameter $θ$ in a model $\mathcal{P} = \{P_θ: θ\in Θ\}$ is identifiable if the mapping $θ\mapsto P_θ$ is injective. This definition raises important questions: Are parameters the only quantities that can be identified? Is the concept of identification meaningful outside of parametric statistics? Does it even require the notion of a statistical model? Partial and idiosyncratic answers to these questions have been discussed in econometrics, biological modeling, and in some subfields of statistics like causal inference. This paper proposes a unifying theory of identification that incorporates existing definitions for parametric and nonparametric models and formalizes the process of identification analysis. The applicability of this framework is illustrated through a series of examples and two extended case studies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Combining Observational and Experimental Datasets Using Shrinkage Estimators

We consider the problem of combining data from observational and experimental sources to make causal conclusions. This problem is increasingly relevant, as the modern era has yielded passive collection of massive observational datasets in areas such as e-commerce and electronic health. These data may be used to supplement experimental data, which is frequently expensive to obtain. In Rosenman et al. (2018), we considered this problem under the assumption that all confounders were measured. Here, we relax the assumption of unconfoundedness. To derive combined estimators with desirable properties, we make use of results from the Stein Shrinkage literature. Our contributions are threefold. First, we propose a generic procedure for deriving shrinkage estimators in this setting, making use of a generalized unbiased risk estimate. Second, we develop two new estimators, prove finite sample conditions under which they have lower risk than an estimator using only experimental data, and show that each achieves a notion of asymptotic optimality. Third, we draw connections between our approach and results in sensitivity analysis, including proposing a method for evaluating the feasibility of our estimators.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Minimax designs for causal effects in temporal experiments with treatment habituation

Randomized experiments are the gold standard for estimating the causal effects of an intervention. In the simplest setting, each experimental unit is randomly assigned to receive treatment or control, and then the outcomes in each treatment arm are compared. In many settings, however, randomized experiments need to be executed over several time periods such that treatment assignment happens at each time period. In such temporal experiments, it has been observed that the effects of an intervention on a given unit may be large when the unit is first exposed to it, but then it often attenuates, or even vanishes, after repeated exposures. This phenomenon is typically due to units' habituation to the intervention, or some other general form of learning, such as when users gradually start to ignore repeated mails sent by a promotional campaign. This paper proposes randomized designs for estimating causal effects in temporal experiments when habituation is present. We show that our designs are minimax optimal in a large class of practical designs. Our analysis is based on the randomization framework of causal inference, and imposes no parametric modeling assumptions on the outcomes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The Generalized Oaxaca-Blinder Estimator

After performing a randomized experiment, researchers often use ordinary-least squares (OLS) regression to adjust for baseline covariates when estimating the average treatment effect. It is widely known that the resulting confidence interval is valid even if the linear model is misspecified. In this paper, we generalize that conclusion to covariate adjustment with nonlinear models. We introduce an intuitive way to use any "simple" nonlinear model to construct a covariate-adjusted confidence interval for the average treatment effect. The confidence interval derives its validity from randomization alone, and when nonlinear models fit the data better than linear models, it is narrower than the usual interval from OLS adjustment.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access