Machine Learning Who to Nudge: Causal vs Predictive Targeting in a Field Experiment on Student Financial Aid Renewal
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This research paper explores the use of machine learning to target interventions for student financial aid renewal.
- The researchers conducted a field experiment to compare the effectiveness of causal vs. predictive targeting approaches.
- The paper investigates how these different targeting strategies impact student outcomes and the potential biases they may introduce.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers were interested in finding the most effective way to help college students renew their financial aid. They conducted an experiment where they tested two different approaches:
-
Causal Targeting: This approach tries to identify the students who would benefit the most from an intervention, based on an understanding of the causal factors that influence financial aid renewal.
-
Predictive Targeting: This approach uses machine learning to predict which students are most likely to not renew their financial aid, and then targets those students for the intervention.
The researchers wanted to see which approach was more effective at improving student outcomes, and whether either approach introduced any unintended biases.
The paper explores the use of uplift modeling techniques, which aim to identify the individuals who will benefit the most from an intervention. This is an important consideration, as simply predicting who is most likely to drop out may not be the same as identifying who will benefit the most from extra support.
The researchers also discuss the challenge of mitigating algorithmic bias, where machine learning models can amplify existing societal biases. This is a key concern when using predictive models to target interventions, as the model's predictions could lead to unfair or unequal treatment of certain student populations.
Overall, this research provides insights into how data-driven approaches can be used to improve student outcomes, while also highlighting the importance of carefully considering the ethical implications of these techniques.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a field experiment with over 30,000 college students to compare the effectiveness of causal vs. predictive targeting for financial aid renewal interventions.
For the causal targeting approach, the researchers used a gradient-based intervention targeting method to identify the students who would benefit the most from the intervention based on their individual characteristics and circumstances.
In contrast, the predictive targeting approach used machine learning models to predict which students were most likely to not renew their financial aid, and then targeted those students for the intervention.
The researchers evaluated the impact of these two targeting strategies on student outcomes, such as financial aid renewal rates and academic performance. They also analyzed the potential biases introduced by each approach, examining factors like socioeconomic status and race.
The paper also discusses the use of meta-learning techniques to better estimate the heterogeneous treatment effects of the intervention across different student subgroups. This is an important consideration, as the impact of the intervention may vary significantly depending on the individual student's characteristics.
Overall, the findings from this study provide valuable insights into the trade-offs and potential pitfalls of using machine learning for targeted interventions in the context of student financial aid.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several limitations and areas for further research in their paper. For example, they note that the field experiment was conducted at a single university, and the generalizability of the results to other educational contexts may be limited.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the specific machine learning models and algorithms used for the predictive targeting approach. While the researchers describe the general methodology, more details on the model architecture, feature engineering, and hyperparameter tuning would have been helpful for readers to fully understand the technical implementation.
The researchers also highlight the need for further research on the long-term impacts of these targeting strategies, as the immediate effects on financial aid renewal and academic performance may not capture the full scope of the interventions' influence on student outcomes.
Moreover, the paper does not address the potential ethical concerns around the use of predictive models for targeting interventions, such as the risk of perpetuating historical biases or the transparency and interpretability of the models' decision-making processes. These are important considerations when deploying such systems in real-world educational settings.
Overall, while the research provides valuable insights into the comparative effectiveness of causal and predictive targeting approaches, there are opportunities for further investigation and discussion around the ethical implications of these data-driven interventions.
Conclusion
This research paper presents a comparative analysis of causal and predictive targeting strategies for student financial aid renewal interventions. The findings suggest that both approaches can be effective in improving student outcomes, but they also highlight the potential for unintended biases and the importance of carefully considering the ethical implications of these data-driven interventions.
The study's insights contribute to the growing body of research on the use of machine learning and targeted interventions in educational settings. As educational institutions and policymakers continue to explore ways to support student success, this work underscores the need for a nuanced and thoughtful approach that balances the potential benefits of these techniques with a deep consideration of their societal impact.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Machine Learning Who to Nudge: Causal vs Predictive Targeting in a Field Experiment on Student Financial Aid Renewal
Susan Athey, Niall Keleher, Jann Spiess
In many settings, interventions may be more effective for some individuals than others, so that targeting interventions may be beneficial. We analyze the value of targeting in the context of a large-scale field experiment with over 53,000 college students, where the goal was to use nudges to encourage students to renew their financial-aid applications before a non-binding deadline. We begin with baseline approaches to targeting. First, we target based on a causal forest that estimates heterogeneous treatment effects and then assigns students to treatment according to those estimated to have the highest treatment effects. Next, we evaluate two alternative targeting policies, one targeting students with low predicted probability of renewing financial aid in the absence of the treatment, the other targeting those with high probability. The predicted baseline outcome is not the ideal criterion for targeting, nor is it a priori clear whether to prioritize low, high, or intermediate predicted probability. Nonetheless, targeting on low baseline outcomes is common in practice, for example because the relationship between individual characteristics and treatment effects is often difficult or impossible to estimate with historical data. We propose hybrid approaches that incorporate the strengths of both predictive approaches (accurate estimation) and causal approaches (correct criterion); we show that targeting intermediate baseline outcomes is most effective in our specific application, while targeting based on low baseline outcomes is detrimental. In one year of the experiment, nudging all students improved early filing by an average of 6.4 percentage points over a baseline average of 37% filing, and we estimate that targeting half of the students using our preferred policy attains around 75% of this benefit.
Read more6/4/2024
0
Learning treatment effects while treating those in need
Bryan Wilder, Pim Welle
Many social programs attempt to allocate scarce resources to people with the greatest need. Indeed, public services increasingly use algorithmic risk assessments motivated by this goal. However, targeting the highest-need recipients often conflicts with attempting to evaluate the causal effect of the program as a whole, as the best evaluations would be obtained by randomizing the allocation. We propose a framework to design randomized allocation rules which optimally balance targeting high-need individuals with learning treatment effects, presenting policymakers with a Pareto frontier between the two goals. We give sample complexity guarantees for the policy learning problem and provide a computationally efficient strategy to implement it. We then apply our framework to data from human services in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Optimized policies can substantially mitigate the tradeoff between learning and targeting. For example, it is often possible to obtain 90% of the optimal utility in targeting high-need individuals while ensuring that the average treatment effect can be estimated with less than 2 times the samples that a randomized controlled trial would require. Mechanisms for targeting public services often focus on measuring need as accurately as possible. However, our results suggest that algorithmic systems in public services can be most impactful if they incorporate program evaluation as an explicit goal alongside targeting.
Read more7/11/2024
0
Causal Fine-Tuning and Effect Calibration of Non-Causal Predictive Models
Carlos Fern'andez-Lor'ia, Yanfang Hou, Foster Provost, Jennifer Hill
This paper proposes techniques to enhance the performance of non-causal models for causal inference using data from randomized experiments. In domains like advertising, customer retention, and precision medicine, non-causal models that predict outcomes under no intervention are often used to score individuals and rank them according to the expected effectiveness of an intervention (e.g, an ad, a retention incentive, a nudge). However, these scores may not perfectly correspond to intervention effects due to the inherent non-causal nature of the models. To address this limitation, we propose causal fine-tuning and effect calibration, two techniques that leverage experimental data to refine the output of non-causal models for different causal tasks, including effect estimation, effect ordering, and effect classification. They are underpinned by two key advantages. First, they can effectively integrate the predictive capabilities of general non-causal models with the requirements of a causal task in a specific context, allowing decision makers to support diverse causal applications with a foundational scoring model. Second, through simulations and an empirical example, we demonstrate that they can outperform the alternative of building a causal-effect model from scratch, particularly when the available experimental data is limited and the non-causal scores already capture substantial information about the relative sizes of causal effects. Overall, this research underscores the practical advantages of combining experimental data with non-causal models to support causal applications.
Read more6/17/2024
0
Uplift Modeling Under Limited Supervision
George Panagopoulos, Daniele Malitesta, Fragkiskos D. Malliaros, Jun Pang
Estimating causal effects in e-commerce tends to involve costly treatment assignments which can be impractical in large-scale settings. Leveraging machine learning to predict such treatment effects without actual intervention is a standard practice to diminish the risk. However, existing methods for treatment effect prediction tend to rely on training sets of substantial size, which are built from real experiments and are thus inherently risky to create. In this work we propose a graph neural network to diminish the required training set size, relying on graphs that are common in e-commerce data. Specifically, we view the problem as node regression with a restricted number of labeled instances, develop a two-model neural architecture akin to previous causal effect estimators, and test varying message-passing layers for encoding. Furthermore, as an extra step, we combine the model with an acquisition function to guide the creation of the training set in settings with extremely low experimental budget. The framework is flexible since each step can be used separately with other models or treatment policies. The experiments on real large-scale networks indicate a clear advantage of our methodology over the state of the art, which in many cases performs close to random, underlining the need for models that can generalize with limited supervision to reduce experimental risks.
Read more9/4/2024