Synthetic Survival Control: Extending Synthetic Controls for "When-If" Decision

Estimating causal effects on time-to-event outcomes from observational data is particularly challenging due to censoring, limited sample sizes, and non-random treatment assignment. The need for answering such "when-if" questions--how the timing of an event would change under a specified intervention--commonly arises in real-world settings with heterogeneous treatment adoption and confounding. To address these challenges, we propose Synthetic Survival Control (SSC) to estimate counterfactual hazard trajectories in a panel data setting where multiple units experience potentially different treatments over multiple periods. In such a setting, SSC estimates the counterfactual hazard trajectory for a unit of interest as a weighted combination of the observed trajectories from other units. To provide formal justification, we introduce a panel framework with a low-rank structure for causal survival analysis. Indeed, such a structure naturally arises under classical parametric survival models. Within this framework, for the causal estimand of interest, we establish identification and finite sample guarantees for SSC. We validate our approach using a multi-country clinical dataset of cancer treatment outcomes, where the staggered introduction of new therapies creates a quasi-experimental setting. Empirically, we find that access to novel treatments is associated with improved survival, as reflected by lower post-intervention hazard trajectories relative to their synthetic counterparts. Given the broad relevance of survival analysis across medicine, economics, and public policy, our framework offers a general and interpretable tool for counterfactual survival inference using observational data.

A Causal Framework to Evaluate Racial Bias in Law Enforcement Systems

We are interested in developing a data-driven method to evaluate race-induced biases in law enforcement systems. While the recent works have addressed this question in the context of police-civilian interactions using police stop data, they have two key limitations. First, bias can only be properly quantified if true criminality is accounted for in addition to race, but it is absent in prior works. Second, law enforcement systems are multi-stage and hence it is important to isolate the true source of bias within the "causal chain of interactions" rather than simply focusing on the end outcome; this can help guide reforms. In this work, we address these challenges by presenting a multi-stage causal framework incorporating criminality. We provide a theoretical characterization and an associated data-driven method to evaluate (a) the presence of any form of racial bias, and (b) if so, the primary source of such a bias in terms of race and criminality. Our framework identifies three canonical scenarios with distinct characteristics: in settings like (1) airport security, the primary source of observed bias against a race is likely to be bias in law enforcement against innocents of that race; (2) AI-empowered policing, the primary source of observed bias against a race is likely to be bias in law enforcement against criminals of that race; and (3) police-civilian interaction, the primary source of observed bias against a race could be bias in law enforcement against that race or bias from the general public in reporting against the other race. Through an extensive empirical study using police-civilian interaction data and 911 call data, we find an instance of such a counter-intuitive phenomenon: in New Orleans, the observed bias is against the majority race and the likely reason for it is the over-reporting (via 911 calls) of incidents involving the minority race by the general public.