Machine Learning, Prediction Errors, and Causal Inference
Paper Session
Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026 2:30 PM - 4:30 PM (EST)
- Chair: Matthew Gordon, Paris School of Economics
Program Evaluation with Remotely Sensed Outcomes
Abstract
While traditional program evaluations typically rely on surveys to measure outcomes, certain economic outcomes such as living standards or environmental quality may be infeasible or costly to collect. As a result, recent empirical work estimates treatment effects using remotely sensed variables (RSVs), such mobile phone activity or satellite images, instead of ground-truth outcome measurements. Common practice predicts the economic outcome from the RSV, using an auxiliary sample of labeled RSVs, and then uses such predictions as the outcome in the experiment. We prove that this approach leads to biased estimates of treatment effects when the RSV is a post-outcome variable. We nonparametrically identify the treatment effect, using an assumption that reflects the logic of recent empirical research: the conditional distribution of the RSV remains stable across both samples, given the outcome and treatment. Our results do not require researchers to know or consistently estimate the relationship between the RSV, outcome, and treatment, which is typically mis-specified with unstructured data. We form a representation of the RSV for downstream causal inference by predicting the outcome and predicting the treatment, with better predictions leading to more precise causal estimates. We re-evaluate the efficacy of a large-scale public program in India, showing that the program’s measured effects on local consumption and poverty can be replicated using satellite imagery.Inference for Regression with Variables Generated by AI or Machine Learning
Abstract
It has become common practice for researchers to use AI-powered information retrieval algorithms or other machine learning methods to estimate variables of economic interest, then use these estimates as covariates in a regression model. We show both theoretically and empirically that naively treating AI- and ML-generated variables as “data” leads to biased estimates and invalid inference. We propose two methods to correct bias and perform valid inference: (i) an explicit bias correction with bias-corrected confidence intervals, and (ii) joint maximum likelihood estimation of the regression model and the variables of interest. Through several applications, we demonstrate that the common approach generates substantial bias, while both corrections perform well.Prediction-Powered Inference with Imputed Covariates and Nonuniform Sampling
Abstract
Machine learning models are increasingly used to produce predictions that serve as input data in subsequent statistical analyses. For example, computer vision predictions of economic and environmental indicators based on satellite imagery are used in downstream regressions; similarly, language models are widely used to approximate human ratings and opinions in social science research. However, failure to properly account for errors in the machine learning predictions renders standard statistical procedures invalid. Prior work uses what we call the Predict-Then-Debias estimator to give valid confidence intervals when machine learning algorithms impute missing variables, assuming a small complete sample from the population of interest. We expand the scope by introducing bootstrap confidence intervals that apply when the complete data is a nonuniform (i.e., weighted, stratified, or clustered) sample and to settings where an arbitrary subset of features is imputed. Importantly, the method can be applied to many settings without requiring additional calculations. We prove that these confidence intervals are valid under no assumptions on the quality of the machine learning model and are no wider than the intervals obtained by methods that do not use machine learning predictions.Discussant(s)
Sylvia Klosin
,
University of California-Davis
Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham
,
Yale University
Simon Ramirez Amaya
,
University of California-Berkeley
Ed Rubin
,
University of Oregon
JEL Classifications
- C4 - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics
- Q0 - General