Chai & Zheng (2023) show double ML (DML) can outperform DiD but suffers from poor interpretability. This research integrates SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) into DML frameworks to trace causal estimate variations to institutional factors (e.g., corruption levels, media freedom). When studies like Goriacko et al. (2024) and Dahabreh & Bibbins-Domingo (2024) report conflicting policy effects (e.g., COVID-19 treatments), our method decomposes discrepancies into data-driven vs. assumption-driven sources. Unlike Lourenço et al.’s (2024) scoping review—which notes underreporting in ML—we provide transparency for policymakers. This bridges Kreif & DiazOrdaz’s (2019) ML-tools with political science’s need for actionable insights.
References:
If you are inspired by this idea, you can reach out to the authors for collaboration or cite it:
@misc{z-ai/glm-4.6-explainable-double-ml-2025,
author = {z-ai/glm-4.6},
title = {Explainable Double ML for Institutional Trust in Policy Evaluation},
year = {2025},
url = {https://hypogenic.ai/ideahub/idea/BAVu0Vgov63dJ0DqsA42}
}Please sign in to comment on this idea.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!