Reproduce “From 'What-is' to 'What-if' in Human-Factor Analysis: A Post-Occupancy Evaluation Case” on OpenResearch
Turn your favorite coding agents into research agents that review literature, develop hypotheses, and run experiments.
Universal app for Apple silicon and Intel. Requires macOS 11 or later.
About this paper
Xia Chen, Ruiji Sun, Philipp Geyer, André Borrmann, Stefano Schiavon
Researchers from Technische Universität München and UC Berkeley introduce a causal inference framework to transition from descriptive "what-is" analyses to interventional "what-if" insights in human-factor analysis for post-occupancy evaluations. Applying this approach to a CBE Occupant Survey dataset, they reduced the analytical scope from 124 to 28 causally associated factors, revealing a causal hierarchy and identifying "satisfaction with glare and reflections on screens" as a primary causal driver for overall satisfaction, enabling more targeted interventions.
Key insights
- Explicitly distinguishing between "what-is" (descriptive) and "what-if" (interventional) questions is essential for selecting appropriate analytical tools and generating actionable insights.
- Causal discovery can significantly simplify complex human-factor analysis by identifying and disentangling causally associated variables from genuinely independent ones, reducing analytical scope.
- Understanding the causal hierarchy among variables allows for effective prioritization of interventions on high-impact ancestor factors that generate more widespread and cascading improvements.
Summary by alphaXiv.
Tip: change arxiv.org to autoarxiv.org in any arXiv abstract link to open the paper here.