Uncovering Sociological Effect Heterogeneity Using Tree-Based Machine Learning.

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Sociological Methodology Pub Date : 2021-08-01 Epub Date: 2021-03-04 DOI:10.1177/0081175021993503
Jennie E Brand, Jiahui Xu, Bernard Koch, Pablo Geraldo
{"title":"Uncovering Sociological Effect Heterogeneity Using Tree-Based Machine Learning.","authors":"Jennie E Brand, Jiahui Xu, Bernard Koch, Pablo Geraldo","doi":"10.1177/0081175021993503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Individuals do not respond uniformly to treatments, such as events or interventions. Sociologists routinely partition samples into subgroups to explore how the effects of treatments vary by selected covariates, such as race and gender, on the basis of theoretical priors. Data-driven discoveries are also routine, yet the analyses by which sociologists typically go about them are often problematic and seldom move us beyond our biases to explore new meaningful subgroups. Emerging machine learning methods based on decision trees allow researchers to explore sources of variation that they may not have previously considered or envisaged. In this article, the authors use tree-based machine learning, that is, causal trees, to recursively partition the sample to uncover sources of effect heterogeneity. Assessing a central topic in social inequality, college effects on wages, the authors compare what is learned from covariate and propensity score-based partitioning approaches with recursive partitioning based on causal trees. Decision trees, although superseded by forests for estimation, can be used to uncover subpopulations responsive to treatments. Using observational data, the authors expand on the existing causal tree literature by applying leaf-specific effect estimation strategies to adjust for observed confounding, including inverse propensity weighting, nearest neighbor matching, and doubly robust causal forests. We also assess localized balance metrics and sensitivity analyses to address the possibility of differential imbalance and unobserved confounding. The authors encourage researchers to follow similar data exploration practices in their work on variation in sociological effects and offer a straightforward framework by which to do so.</p>","PeriodicalId":48140,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9897445/pdf/nihms-1849062.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175021993503","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Individuals do not respond uniformly to treatments, such as events or interventions. Sociologists routinely partition samples into subgroups to explore how the effects of treatments vary by selected covariates, such as race and gender, on the basis of theoretical priors. Data-driven discoveries are also routine, yet the analyses by which sociologists typically go about them are often problematic and seldom move us beyond our biases to explore new meaningful subgroups. Emerging machine learning methods based on decision trees allow researchers to explore sources of variation that they may not have previously considered or envisaged. In this article, the authors use tree-based machine learning, that is, causal trees, to recursively partition the sample to uncover sources of effect heterogeneity. Assessing a central topic in social inequality, college effects on wages, the authors compare what is learned from covariate and propensity score-based partitioning approaches with recursive partitioning based on causal trees. Decision trees, although superseded by forests for estimation, can be used to uncover subpopulations responsive to treatments. Using observational data, the authors expand on the existing causal tree literature by applying leaf-specific effect estimation strategies to adjust for observed confounding, including inverse propensity weighting, nearest neighbor matching, and doubly robust causal forests. We also assess localized balance metrics and sensitivity analyses to address the possibility of differential imbalance and unobserved confounding. The authors encourage researchers to follow similar data exploration practices in their work on variation in sociological effects and offer a straightforward framework by which to do so.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用树型机器学习揭示社会学效应异质性。
个人对事件或干预等处理方法的反应并不一致。社会学家通常根据理论先验,将样本划分为不同的子群体,以探讨不同的协变量(如种族和性别)对治疗效果的影响。数据驱动的发现也是例行工作,但社会学家通常采用的分析方法往往存在问题,很少能让我们超越偏见,探索新的有意义的亚群。基于决策树的新兴机器学习方法使研究人员能够探索他们以前可能未曾考虑或设想过的变异来源。在本文中,作者使用基于树的机器学习方法,即因果树,对样本进行递归分区,以发现效应异质性的来源。在评估社会不平等的一个核心主题--大学对工资的影响时,作者比较了基于协变量和倾向得分的分区方法与基于因果树的递归分区方法。决策树虽然在估算中被森林所取代,但仍可用于发现对治疗有反应的亚群。作者利用观察数据,对现有的因果树文献进行了扩展,采用叶片特异性效应估计策略来调整观察到的混杂因素,包括反倾向加权、近邻匹配和双重稳健因果森林。我们还评估了局部平衡指标和敏感性分析,以解决差异不平衡和未观察到的混杂的可能性。作者鼓励研究人员在社会学效应变异的工作中遵循类似的数据探索实践,并提供了一个简单明了的框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Sociological Methodology is a compendium of new and sometimes controversial advances in social science methodology. Contributions come from diverse areas and have something useful -- and often surprising -- to say about a wide range of topics ranging from legal and ethical issues surrounding data collection to the methodology of theory construction. In short, Sociological Methodology holds something of value -- and an interesting mix of lively controversy, too -- for nearly everyone who participates in the enterprise of sociological research.
期刊最新文献
Contextual Embeddings in Sociological Research: Expanding the Analysis of Sentiment and Social Dynamics Using Relative Distribution Methods to Study Economic Polarization across Categories and Contexts Can Human Reading Validate a Topic Model? Question-Order Effect in the Study of Satisfaction with Democracy: Lessons from Three Split-Ballot Experiments Comparing the Robustness of Simple Network Scale-Up Method Estimators
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1