Nber Working Paper Series Human Decisions And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES HUMAN DECISIONS AND MACHINE PREDICTIONS Jon Kleinberg Himabindu Lakkaraju Jure Leskovec Jens Ludwig Sendhil Mullainathan Working Paper 23180 http://www.nber.org/papers/w23180 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 February 2017 We are immensely grateful to Mike Riley for meticulously and tirelessly spearheading the data analytics, with effort well above and beyond the call of duty. Thanks to David Abrams, Matt Alsdorf, Molly Cohen, Alexander Crohn, Gretchen Ruth Cusick, Tim Dierks, John Donohue, Mark DuPont, Meg Egan, Elizabeth Glazer, Judge Joan Gottschall, Nathan Hess, Karen Kane, Leslie Kellam, Angela LaScala-Gruenewald, Charles Loeffler, Anne Milgram, Lauren Raphael, Chris Rohlfs, Dan Rosenbaum, Terry Salo, Andrei Shleifer, Aaron Sojourner, James Sowerby, Cass Sunstein, Michele Sviridoff, Emily Turner, and Judge John Wasilewski for valuable assistance and comments, to Binta Diop, Nathan Hess, and Robert Webberfor help with the data, to David Welgus and Rebecca Wei for outstanding work on the data analysis, to seminar participants at Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, Michigan, the National Bureau of Economic Research, New York University, Northwestern, Stanford and the University of Chicago for helpful comments, to the Simons Foundation for its support of Jon Kleinberg's research, to the Stanford Data Science Initiative for its support of Jure Leskovec’s research, to the Robert Bosch Stanford Graduate Fellowship for its support of Himabindu Lakkaraju and to Tom Dunn, Ira Handler, and the MacArthur, McCormick and Pritzker foundations for their support of the University of Chicago Crime Lab and Urban Labs. The main data we analyze are provided by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), and the Office of Court Administration. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not those of DCJS. Neither New York State nor DCJS assumes liability for its contents or use thereof. The paper also includes analysis of data obtained from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research at the University of Michigan. Any errors and all opinions are our own. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2017 by Jon Kleinberg, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Jure Leskovec, Jens Ludwig, and Sendhil Mullainathan. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Human Decisions and Machine Predictions Jon Kleinberg, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Jure Leskovec, Jens Ludwig, and Sendhil Mullainathan NBER Working Paper No. 23180 February 2017 JEL No. C01,C54,C55,D8,H0,K0 ABSTRACT We examine how machine learning can be used to improve and understand human decision- making. In particular, we focus on a decision that has important policy consequences. Millions of times each year, judges must decide where defendants will await trial—at home or in jail. By law, this decision hinges on the judge’s prediction of what the defendant would do if released. This is a promising machine learning application because it is a concrete prediction task for which there is a large volume of data available. Yet comparing the algorithm to the judge proves complicated. First, the data are themselves generated by prior judge decisions. We only observe crime outcomes for released defendants, not for those judges detained. This makes it hard to evaluate counterfactual decision rules based on algorithmic predictions. Second, judges may have a broader set of preferences than the single variable that the algorithm focuses on; for instance, judges may care about racial inequities or about specific crimes (such as violent crimes) rather than just overall crime risk. We deal with these problems using different econometric strategies, such as quasi-random assignment of cases to judges. Even accounting for these concerns, our results suggest potentially large welfare gains: a policy simulation shows crime can be reduced by up to 24.8% with no change in jailing rates, or jail populations can be reduced by 42.0%with no increase in crime rates. Moreover, we see reductions in all categories of crime, including violent ones. Importantly, such gains can be had while also significantly reducing the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics in jail. We find similar results in a national dataset as well. In addition, by focusing the algorithm on predicting judges’ decisions, rather than defendant behavior, we gain some insight into decision-making: a key problem appears to be that judges to respond to ‘noise’ as if it were signal. These results suggest that while machine learning can be valuable, realizing this value requires integrating these tools into an economic framework: being clear about the link between predictions and decisions; specifying the scope of payoff functions; and constructing unbiased decision counterfactuals. Jon Kleinberg Jens Ludwig Department of Computer Science University of Chicago Department of Information Science 1155 East 60th Street Cornell University Chicago, IL 60637 Ithaca, NY 14853 and NBER [email protected] [email protected] Himabindu Lakkaraju Sendhil Mullainathan Stanford University Department of Economics Littauer M-18 Gates Computer Science Building Harvard University 353 Serra Mall Cambridge, MA 02138 Stanford, CA 94305 and NBER [email protected] [email protected] Jure Leskovec Stanford University Gates Computer Science Building 353 Serra Mall Stanford, CA 94305 [email protected] R AMi`Q/m+iBQM J+?BM2 H2`MBM; Bb bm`T`BbBM;Hv 2z2+iBp2 i rB/2 p`B2iv Q7 ibFb i`/BiBQMHHv bbQ+Bi2/ rBi? ?mKM BMi2HHB;2M+2- 7`QK `2+Q;MBxBM; 7+2b BM T?QiQb iQ b+Q`BM; r`Bii2M 2bbvbX A7 i?2b2 iQQHb +M #2 TTHB2/ bm++2bb7mHHv iQ #bB+ ibFb BMpQHpBM; ?mKM pBbBQM M/ HM;m;2- r?v MQi iQ KQ`2 +QKTH2t ?mKM /2+BbBQMb b r2HH\ q2 2tKBM2 i?2 T`QKBb2 M/ i?2 TBi7HHb Q7 bm+? iQQHb rBi?BM i?2 +QMi2ti Q7 M BKTQ`iMi Dm/B+BH /2+BbBQM, 1p2`v v2` BM i?2 lMBi2/ aii2b- i?2 TQHB+2 ``2bi Qp2` Ry KBHHBQM T2QTH2 U6"A- kyReVX aQQM 7i2` ``2bi- Dm/;2b /2+B/2 r?2i?2` /272M/Mib Kmbi rBi BM DBH r?BH2 i?2B` H2;H 7i2 Bb #2BM; /2+B/2/X aBM+2 +b2b +M iF2 b2p2`H KQMi?b QM p2`;2 iQ `2bQHp2- i?Bb Bb +QMb2[m2MiBH /2+BbBQM 7Q` #Qi? /272M/Mib M/ bQ+B2iv b r?QH2XR Cm/;2b `2 #v Hr bmTTQb2/ iQ #b2 i?2B` #BH /2+BbBQM bQH2Hv QM T`2/B+iBQM, r?i rBHH i?2 /272M/Mi /Q B7 `2H2b2/\ qBHH ?2 ~22\ P` +QKKBi MQi?2` +`BK2\ Pi?2` 7+iQ`b- bm+? b r?2i?2` i?2 /272M/Mi Bb ;mBHiv- /Q MQi 2Mi2` i?Bb /2+BbBQMX h?2 `2HBM+2 Q7 i?2 #BH /2+BbBQM QM T`2/B+iBQM KF2b i?Bb M B/2H TTHB+iBQM i?i THvb iQ i?2 bi`2M;i?b Q7 K+?BM2 H2`MBM;Xk 7+2 `2+Q;MBiBQM H;Q`Bi?K- 7Q` 2tKTH2- Bb i`BM2/ QM /ib2i Q7 T?QiQb rBi? M/ rBi?Qmi 7+2bc Bi T`Q/m+2b 7mM+iBQM i?i ǵT`2/B+ibǶ i?2 T`2b2M+2 Q7 7+2 BM ;Bp2M T?QiQX MHQ;QmbHv- r2 TTHv K+?BM2 H2`MBM; H;Q`Bi?Kě bT2+B}+HHv- ;`/B2Mi@#QQbi2/ /2+BbBQM i`22běi`BM2/ QM /272M/Mi +?`+i2`BbiB+b iQ T`2/B+i +`BK2 `BbFX Pm` H;Q`Bi?K KF2b mb2 Q7 /ib2i Q7 758, 027 /272M/Mib r?Q r2`2 ``2bi2/ BM L2r uQ`F *Biv #2ir22M kyy3 M/ kyRjXj q2 ?p2 /2iBH2/ BM7Q`KiBQM #Qmi /272M/Mib- r?2i?2` i?2v r2`2 `2H2b2/ T`2@i`BH- M/ B7 bQ- r?2i?2` i?2v r2Mi QM iQ +QKKBi M2r +`BK2X9 AM i?Bb +b2- i?2 BMTmib Ui?2 MHQ;m2 Q7 i?2 T?QiQ BM 7+2 `2+Q;MBiBQM TTHB+iBQMV `2 i?2 /272M/Mi ii`B#mi2b pBH#H2 iQ Dm/;2b r?2M i?2v /2+B/2, T`BQ` `T b?22i- +m``2Mi Qz2Mb2- M/ bQ QMX h?2 H;Q`Bi?K QmiTmib T`2/B+iBQM Q7 +`BK2 `BbFX8 h?2 ;QH Q7 Qm` TT2` Bb MQi iQ B/2MiB7v M2r rvb Q7 QTiBKBxBM; i?2 K+?BM2 H2`MBM; R6Q` 2tKTH2- i?2 p2`;2 H2M;i? Q7 biv Bb #Qmi irQ KQMi?b BM L2r uQ`F *Bivc b22 `2TQ`iX MMmHBx2/ +Qbib Q7 DBHBM; T2`bQM `2 QM i?2 Q`/2` Q7 0jy-yyyX CBH bT2HHb HbQ BKTQb2 +Qbib QM /272M/Mib BM i2`Kb Q7 HQbi 7`22/QK U#`Kb M/ _Q?H7b- kyRRV- BKT+ib QM 7KBHB2b- ?B;?2` +?M+2 Q7 }M/BM; Q7 ;mBHi- M/ /2+HBM2b BM 7mim`2 2KTHQvK2Mi U.Q##B2 2i HX- kyReVX kh?Bb TTHB+iBQM +QMM2+ib iQ i?2 TBQM22`BM; rQ`F #v _B+?`/ "2`F QM mbBM; K+?BM2 H2`MBM; iQ T`2/B+i +`BK2 `BbFc b22- 7Q` 2tKTH2- i?2 bmKK`v BM "2`F UkyRkVX /Bz2`2Mi bi`M/ Q7 rQ`F BM 2+QMQKB+b 7Q+mb2b QM mbBM; K+?BM2 H2`MBM; iQQHb 7Q` +mbH BM72`2M+2bc b22- 7Q` 2tKTH2- "2HHQMB- *?2`MQx?mFQp M/ >Mb2M UkyR9V M/ i?2v M/ AK#2Mb UkyReVX jb Bb biM/`/- r2 `M/QKHv T`iBiBQM Qm` /i BMiQ i`BMBM; M/ ?QH/@Qmi b2i iQ T`Qi2+i ;BMbi Qp2`@}iiBM;X HH `2bmHib 7Q` i?2 T2`7Q`KM+2 Q7 i?2 H;Q`Bi?K `2 K2bm`2/ BM i?2 ?QH/@Qmi b2iX 9AM KQbi Dm`Bb/B+iBQMb Dm/;2b `2 bF2/ iQ 7Q+mb QM #Qi? i?2 `BbF Q7 7BHBM; iQ TT2` i `2[mB`2/ 7mim`2 +Qm`i /i2 Ur?B+? +M H2/ iQ M2r +`BKBMH +?`;2V M/ `2@``2biX >Qr2p2` mM/2` L2r uQ`F bii2 Hr- Dm/;2b BM #BH ?2`BM;b `2 QMHv bmTTQb2/ iQ +QMbB/2` ~B;?i `BbF U7BHm`2 iQ TT2`- Q` 6hVX lMH2bb Qi?2`rBb2 BM/B+i2/- BM r?i 7QHHQrb- 7Q` +QMp2MB2M+2- r2 mb2 i?2 i2`K Ǵ+`BK2Ǵ iQ `272` iQ 7BHm`2 iQ TT2` BM i?2 L2r uQ`F /i- M/ iQ 2Bi?2` 7BHm`2 iQ TT2` Q` `2@``2bi BM i?2 MiBQMH /iX q2 b?Qr BM a2+iBQM e i?i Qm` `2bmHib 7Q` i?2 `2HiBp2 T2`7Q`KM+2 Q7 i?2 H;Q`Bi?K p2`bmb Dm/;2 /2+BbBQMb +``v i?`Qm;? B``2bT2+iBp2 Q7 i?2 bT2+B}+ /2}MBiBQM Q7 Ǵ+`BK2Ǵ i?i r2 mb2X 8AM r?i 7QHHQrb- #v dz T`2/B+iBQMǴ r2 rBHH Hrvb K2M i?2 QmiTmi Q7 T`Q##BHBiv `i?2` i?M #BM`v Qmi+QK2 b bQK2iBK2b b22M BM +HbbB}+iBQM KQ/2HbX j H;Q`Bi?KX AMbi2/ Qm` ;QH Bb iQ