Harvey Barnhard, Giacomo Opocher, Rahul Singh
arXiv 16 Sep 2026 · Econometrics
arXiv:2609.19418 · PDF · Extracted main text
In evidence-based policymaking, typically one experimental sample is observed, then a learned policy recommendation is implemented at scale. Policies learned from the experimental data can perform well in expected welfare, yet random sampling in the experiment can produce recommendations with poor welfare outcomes. In this paper, we ask: how should policy learning algorithms balance expected welfare against sampling risk? Our main contribution is to show that algorithmic stability plays a central role in characterizing and navigating the tradeoff. Intuitively, if a policy learning algorithm's recommendation remains stable when one experimental unit is replaced, then that algorithm has limited sampling risk. We propose a method for policy learning called policy-vote bagging, which learns treatment decisions on many subsamples then averages their votes into treatment probabilities. Relative to using one subsample, averaging across subsamples preserves expected welfare and improves expected utility for a risk-averse researcher. We derive sharp bounds linking estimation accuracy, subsample size, and welfare variation, including an exact guarantee under CARA utility.
appendix boundary found by appendix_command · 40% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.
The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.
| Reference | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | Main text | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | L. Breiman (1996) Bagging predictors | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 2 | Q. Chen, V. Syrgkanis, and M. Austern (2022) Debiased machine learning without sample-splitting for stable estimators | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 3 | V. Chernozhukov, W. K. Newey, R. Singh, and V. Syrgkanis (2026) Adversarial estimation of Riesz representers self | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 4 | T. Denti and L. Pomatto (2022) Model and predictive uncertainty: A foundation for smooth ambiguity preferences | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 5 | A. Elisseeff, T. Evgeniou, and M. Pontil (2005) Stability of randomized learning algorithms | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 6 | T. Kitagawa, S. Lee, and C. Qiu (2026) Treatment choice with nonlinear regret | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 7 | T. Kitagawa and A. Tetenov (2018) Who should be treated? Empirical welfare maximization methods for treatment choice | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 8 | T. Kitagawa and A. Tetenov (2021) Equality-minded treatment choice | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 9 | P. Klibanoff, M. Marinacci, and S. Mukerji (2005) A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 10 | F. Maccheroni, M. Marinacci, and D. Ruffino (2013) Alpha as ambiguity: Robust mean-variance portfolio analysis | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
Showing the top 10 of 50 scored citations.