Learning Exposure Mapping Functions for Inferring Heterogeneous Peer Effects
March 03, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Shishir Adhikari, Sourav Medya, Elena Zheleva
arXiv ID
2503.01722
Category
cs.AI: Artificial Intelligence
Cross-listed
cs.LG,
cs.SI
Citations
1
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
In causal inference, interference refers to the phenomenon in which the actions of peers in a network can influence an individual's outcome. Peer effect refers to the difference in counterfactual outcomes of an individual for different levels of peer exposure, the extent to which an individual is exposed to the treatments, actions, or behaviors of peers. Estimating peer effects requires deciding how to represent peer exposure. Typically, researchers define an exposure mapping function that aggregates peer treatments and outputs peer exposure. Most existing approaches for defining exposure mapping functions assume peer exposure based on the number or fraction of treated peers. Recent studies have investigated more complex functions of peer exposure which capture that different peers can exert different degrees of influence. However, none of these works have explicitly considered the problem of automatically learning the exposure mapping function. In this work, we focus on learning this function for the purpose of estimating heterogeneous peer effects, where heterogeneity refers to the variation in counterfactual outcomes for the same peer exposure but different individual's contexts. We develop EgoNetGNN, a graph neural network (GNN)-based method, to automatically learn the appropriate exposure mapping function allowing for complex peer influence mechanisms that, in addition to peer treatments, can involve the local neighborhood structure and edge attributes. We show that GNN models that use peer exposure based on the number or fraction of treated peers or learn peer exposure naively face difficulty accounting for such influence mechanisms. Our comprehensive evaluation on synthetic and semi-synthetic network data shows that our method is more robust to different unknown underlying influence mechanisms when estimating heterogeneous peer effects when compared to state-of-the-art baselines.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Artificial Intelligence
π
π
The Cartographer
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Machine Learning: Concept and Applications
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
DeepAR: Probabilistic Forecasting with Autoregressive Recurrent Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Rainbow: Combining Improvements in Deep Reinforcement Learning
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted