跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要围绕现场实验中的政策效用、确定性规则下的外推和部分识别展开,直接涉及因果政策评估与学习。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Eli Ben-Michael
D. James Greiner
Kosuke Imai
Zhichao Jiang

通过外推进行安全政策学习:审前风险评估应用

研究问题
当既有审前风险评分与建议由确定性规则产生、常规政策学习缺少随机政策支持时,如何寻找风险受控的政策改进?
方法与思路
作者对政策期望效用进行部分识别,以最大最小稳健优化选择最坏情形效用最高的政策,并分析相关现场实验数据。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称在结果结构假设下限制新政策劣于原政策的概率;应用支持改进部分评估组件,但对其他组件缺乏信息。
阅读关注点
应核对外推所需的结果结构假设、部分识别集合与效用设定,以及统计安全保证如何处理政策选择和估计不确定性。
阅读边界
仅据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要。具体结构假设与安全概率界未说明,改进结论仅涉及部分组件和所考察效用设定。

原文摘要

Algorithmic recommendations and decisions have become ubiquitous in today’s society. Many of these data-driven policies, especially in the realm of public policy, are based on known, deterministic rules to ensure their transparency and interpretability. We examine a particular case of algorithmic pre-trial risk assessments in the US criminal justice system, which provide deterministic classification scores and recommendations to help judges make release decisions. Our goal is to analyze data from a unique field experiment on an algorithmic pre-trial risk assessment to investigate whether the scores and recommendations can be improved. Unfortunately, prior methods for policy learning are not applicable because they require existing policies to be stochastic. We develop a maximin robust optimization approach that partially identifies the expected utility of a policy, and then finds a policy that maximizes the worst-case expected utility. The resulting policy has a statistical safety property, limiting the probability of producing a worse policy than the existing one, under structural assumptions about the outcomes. Our analysis of data from the field experiment shows that we can safely improve certain components of the risk assessment instrument by classifying arrestees as lower risk under a wide range of utility specifications, though the analysis is not informative about several components of the instrument. Supplementary materials for this article are available online, including a standardized description of the materials available for reproducing the work.

笔记与分组