Unveiling Human Bias in Sequential Decision Making: A Causal Inference Approach for Stochastic Service Systems

References

• Alagoz O, Hsu H, Schaefer AJ, Roberts MS (2010) Markov decision processes: A tool for sequential decision making under uncertainty. Medical Decision Making 30(4):474–483.Google Scholar
• Aronow PM, Samii C (2017) Estimating average causal effects under general interference, with application to a social network experiment. Ann. Appl. Statist. 11(4):1932–6157.Google Scholar
• Boruvka A, Almirall D, Witkiewitz K, Murphy SA (2018) Assessing time-varying causal effect moderation in mobile health. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 113(523):1112–1121.Google Scholar
• Chakraborty B, Moodie EE (2013) Statistical Methods for Dynamic Treatment Regimes (Springer, Cham, Switzerland), 189–222.Google Scholar
• Chakraborty B, Murphy SA (2014) Dynamic treatment regimes. Ann. Rev. Statist. Appl. 1(1):447–464.Google Scholar
• Chen DL, Moskowitz TJ, Shue K (2016) Decision making under the gambler’s fallacy: Evidence from asylum judges, loan officers, and baseball umpires. Quart. J. Econom. 131(3):1181–1242.Google Scholar
• Cochran A, Maronge JM, Victory A, Hoel S, McInnis MG, Thomas EB (2023) Mobile acceptance and commitment therapy in bipolar disorder: Microrandomized trial. JMIR Mental Health 10(1):e43164.Google Scholar
• Cox DR (1958) Planning of Experiments. Planning of Experiments (Wiley, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• David Gomez JC, Cochran AL, Patterson BW, Zayas-Cabán G (2024) Evaluation of a split flow model for the emergency department. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 26(3):911–930.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Didelez V (2008) Graphical models for marked point processes based on local independence. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B (Statist. Methodology) 70(1):245–264.Google Scholar
• Didelez V (2015) Causal reasoning for events in continuous time: A decision-theoretic approach. Proc. Workshop Adv. Causal Inference, Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2015), CEUR Workshop Proc., vol. 1504 (CEUR-WS.org., Aachen, Germany), 40–45.Google Scholar
• Gao T, Subramanian D, Bhattacharjya D, Shou X, Mattei N, Bennett KP (2021) Causal inference for event pairs in multivariate point processes. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems 34:17311–17324.Google Scholar
• Garrett JS, Berry C, Wong H, Qin H, Kline JA (2018) The effect of vertical split-flow patient management on emergency department throughput and efficiency. Amer. J. Emergency Medicine 36(9):1581–1584.Google Scholar
• Gill RD, Robins JM (2001) Causal inference for complex longitudinal data: The continuous case. Ann. Statist. 29(6):1785–1811.Google Scholar
• Goldbach C, Sickmann J, Pitz T (2022) Sequential decision bias: Evidence from grading exams. Appl. Econom. 54(32):3727–3739.Google Scholar
• Guo FR, Richardson TS, Robins JM (2021) Discussion of ‘estimating time-varying causal excursion effects in mobile health with binary outcomes’. Biometrika 108(3):541–550.Google Scholar
• Hinderer K, Rieder U, Stieglitz M (2016) Dynamic Optimization (Springer, Berlin).Google Scholar
• Hong G, Raudenbush SW (2006) Evaluating kindergarten retention policy: A case study of causal inference for multilevel observational data. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 101(475):901–910.Google Scholar
• Horvitz DG, Thompson DJ (1952) A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 47(260):663–685.Google Scholar
• Huang J, He X, Ma X, Ren Y, Zhao T, Zeng X, Li H, et al. (2018) Sequential biases on subjective judgments: Evidence from face attractiveness and ringtone agreeableness judgment. PLoS One 13(6):e0198723.Google Scholar
• Hudgens MG, Halloran ME (2008) Toward causal inference with interference. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 103(482):832–842.Google Scholar
• Jacobsen M, Gani J (2006) Point process theory and applications: Marked point and piecewise deterministic processes. Probability and Its Applications (Springer, Berlin).Google Scholar
• Klasnja P, Hekler EB, Shiffman S, Boruvka A, Almirall D, Tewari A, Murphy SA (2015) Micro-randomized trials: An experimental design for developing just-in-time adaptive interventions. Health Psych. 34(0):1220–1228.Google Scholar
• Konrad R, DeSotto K, Grocela A, McAuley P, Wang J, Lyons J, Bruin M (2013) Modeling the impact of changing patient flow processes in an emergency department: Insights from a computer simulation study. Oper. Res. Health Care 2(4):66–74.Google Scholar
• Laber EB, Lizotte DJ, Qian M, Pelham WE, Murphy SA (2014) Dynamic treatment regimes: Technical challenges and applications. Electron. J. Statist. 8(1):1225.Google Scholar
• Lavori PW, Dawson R (2000) A design for testing clinical strategies: Biased adaptive within-subject randomization. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A (Statist. Soc.) 163(1):29–38.Google Scholar
• Lavori PW, Dawson R (2004) Dynamic treatment regimes: Practical design considerations. Clinical Trials 1(1):9–20.Google Scholar
• Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA (2011) Weight trimming and propensity score weighting. PLoS One 6(3):e18174.Google Scholar
• Li F, Thomas LE, Li F (2019) Addressing extreme propensity scores via the overlap weights. Amer. J. Epidemiology 188(1):250–257.Google Scholar
• Li Z, Chen J, Laber E, Liu F, Baumgartner R (2023) Optimal treatment regimes: A review and empirical comparison. Internat. Statist. Rev. 91(3):427–463.Google Scholar
• Malinsky D, Shpitser I, Richardson T (2019) A potential outcomes calculus for identifying conditional path-specific effects. Proc. 22nd Internat. Conf. Artificial Intelligence Statist., vol. 89 (PMLR, New York), 3080–3088.Google Scholar
• Murphy SA (2003) Optimal dynamic treatment regimes. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B (Statist. Methodology) 65(2):331–366.Google Scholar
• Murphy SA (2005) An experimental design for the development of adaptive treatment strategies. Statist. Medicine 24(19):3179–3194.Google Scholar
• Nahum-Shani I, Smith SN, Spring BJ, Collins LM, Witkiewitz K, Tewari A, Murphy SA (2017) Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: Key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support. Ann. Behav. Medicine 52(6):446–462.Google Scholar
• Neyman J (1923) On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Statist. Sci. 5(4):465–472.Google Scholar
• Pan W (2001) Akaike’s information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics 57(1):120–125.Google Scholar
• Pearl J (2000) Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Pearl J (2015) Conditioning on post-treatment variables. J. Causal Inference 3(1):131–137.Google Scholar
• Qian T, Yoo H, Klasnja P, Almirall D, Murphy SA (2021) Estimating time-varying causal excursion effects in mobile health with binary outcomes. Biometrika 108(3):507–527.Google Scholar
• Richardson TS, Robins JM (2013) Single world intervention graphs (swigs): A unification of the counterfactual and graphical approaches to causality. Working paper, Center for the Statistics and the Social Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
• Robins J (1986) A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—Application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Math. Modeling 7(9–12):1393–1512.Google Scholar
• Robins JM (1994) Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using structural nested mean models. Comm. Statist. Theory Methods 23(8):2379–241.Google Scholar
• Robins JM (1997) Causal inference from complex longitudinal data. Berkane M ed. Latent Variable Modeling and Applications to Causality, Lecture Notes in Statistics (Springer, New York), 69–117.Google Scholar
• Røysland K (2011) A martingale approach to continuous-time marginal structural models. Bernoulli 17(3):895–915.Google Scholar
• Røysland K (2012) Counterfactual analyses with graphical models based on local independence. Ann. Statist. 40(4):2162–2194.Google Scholar
• RTC (2018) 2019 risk adjustment factors and payment rates. Accessed March 23, 2023, https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/MedicareAdvtgSpecRateStats/Downloads/RTC-Dec2018.pdf.Google Scholar
• Rubin DB (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J. Ed. Psych. 66(5):688.Google Scholar
• Rubin DB (1980) Randomization analysis of experimental data: The fisher randomization test comment. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 75(371):591–593.Google Scholar
• Rubin DB (2005) Causal inference using potential outcomes. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 100(469):322–331.Google Scholar
• Saul BC, Hudgens MG (2020) The calculus of m-estimation in R with geex. J. Statist. Software 92(2):1–15.Google Scholar
• Shi J, Wu Z, Dempsey W (2022) Estimating time-varying direct and indirect causal excursion effects with longitudinal binary outcomes. Preprint, submitted December 2, https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.01472.Google Scholar
• Sobel ME (2006) What do randomized studies of housing mobility demonstrate?: Causal inference in the face of interference. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 101(476):1398–1407.Google Scholar
• Sofrygin O, van der Laan MJ (2017) Semi-parametric estimation and inference for the mean outcome of the single time-point intervention in a causally connected population. J. Causal Inference 5(1):20160003.Google Scholar
• Steimle LN, Denton BT (2017) Markov decision processes for screening and treatment of chronic diseases. Markov Decision Processes in Practice 189–222.Google Scholar
• Tauchen G (1985) Diagnostic testing and evaluation of maximum likelihood models. J. Econom. 30(1–2):415–443.Google Scholar
• Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Fulcher IR, Shpitser I (2021) Auto-G-computation of causal effects on a network. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 116(534):833–844.Google Scholar
• Thomas EBK, Sagorac Gruichich T, Maronge JM, Hoel S, Victory A, Stowe ZN, Cochran A (2023) Mobile acceptance and commitment therapy with distressed first-generation college students: Microrandomized trial. JMIR Mental Health 10:e43065.Google Scholar
• Tsiatis AA (2006) Semiparametric Theory and Missing Data, Springer Series in Statistics (Springer, New York).Google Scholar
• Tsiatis AA, Davidian M, Holloway ST, Laber EB (2019) Dynamic Treatment Regimes: Statistical Methods for Precision Medicine (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL).Google Scholar
• Van der Vaart AW (2000) Asymptotic Statistics, vol. 3 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Vansteelandt S, Sjolander A (2016) Revisiting g-estimation of the effect of a time-varying exposure subject to time-varying confounding. Epidemiology Methods 5(1):37–56.Google Scholar
• Verbitsky-Savitz N, Raudenbush SW (2012) Causal inference under interference in spatial settings: A case study evaluating community policing program in Chicago. Epidemiology Methods 1(1):107–130.Google Scholar
• Wang X, Yin L (2020) New G-formula for the sequential causal effect and blip effect of treatment in sequential causal inference. Ann. Statist. 48(1):138–160.Google Scholar
• Wiler JL, Ozkaynak M, Bookman K, Koehler A, Leeret R, Chua-Tuan J, Ginde AA, et al. (2016) Implementation of a front-end split-flow model to promote performance in an urban academic emergency department. Joint Commission J. Quality Patient Safety 42(6):271.Google Scholar
• Yu AJ, Cohen JD (2008) Sequential effects: Superstition or rational behavior? Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems 21:1873–1880.Google Scholar
• Zayas-Cabán G, Xie J, Green LV, Lewis ME (2016) Dynamic control of a tandem system with abandonments. Queueing Systems 84(3):279–293.Google Scholar
• Zhang C, Mohan K, Pearl J (2022) Causal inference with non-IID data using linear graphical models. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems 35:13214–13225.Google Scholar