Symmetry, presumptions, and the judges design
Murat C. Mungan
TL;DR
This paper examines the 'judges design' in social sciences and shows how assumptions about judge behavior can be violated under certain conditions, affecting causal inferences.
Contribution
The paper extends the understanding of when average monotonicity is violated in judges' decision-making under symmetric signals and presumptions.
Findings
Judges solving Bayesian decision problems violate average monotonicity with symmetric signals and no strong presumptions.
The violation persists even when judge presumptions are symmetrically distributed.
The analysis provides insights into the plausibility of assumptions in causal effect identification.
Abstract
An instrumental variables approach called ‘the judges design’ used frequently in social sciences relies on an assumption called ‘average monotonicity’. This assumption pertains to how different judges’ (or other classifiers’) decision making processes relate to each other. Violations of it are hard to detect, which raises the importance of it being supported by a plausible theory. Decisions of judges who solve Bayesian decision problems violate average monotonicity as long as the signals they process are symmetric and they do not possess strong presumptions. This result is extended to cases where judge presumptions are symmetrically distributed and may include strong presumptions. The analysis reveals factors that can be considered while discussing the plausibility of an assumption made to identify causal effects whose violations are difficult to detect and has important policy…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 30
Figure 31
Figure 32
Figure 33
Figure 34
Figure 35
Figure 36
Figure 37
Figure 38
Figure 39
Figure 40
Figure 41
Figure 42
Figure 43
Figure 44
Figure 45
Figure 46
Figure 47
Figure 48
Figure 49
Figure 50Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsJudicial and Constitutional Studies · Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research · Jury Decision Making Processes