Regarding your future work Iād like to see section, maybe Vascoās corpus of cost-effectiveness estimates would be a good starting point. His quantitative modelling spans nearly every category of EA interventions, his models are all methodologically aligned (since itās just him doing them), and theyāre all transparent too (unlike the DCP estimates).
Thanks for the suggestion, Mo! More transparent methodologically aligned estimates:
The Centre for Exploratory Altruism Research (CEARCH) has a sheet with 23 cost-effectiveness estimates across global health and development, global catastrophic risk, and climate change.
They are produced in 3 levels of depth, but they all rely on the same baseline methodology.
Ambitious Impact (AIM) has produced hundreds of cost-effectiveness estimates across global health and development, animal advocacy, and āEA metaā.
They are produced in different levels of depth. I collected 44 regarding the interventions recommended for their incubation programs until 2024[1]. However, they have more public estimates concerning interventions which made it to the last stage (in-depth report), but were not recommended, and way more internal estimates. Not only from in-depth reports of interventions which were not recommended[2], but also from interventions which did not make it to the last stage.
You can reach out to Morgan Fairless, AIMās research director, to know more, and ask for access to AIMās internal estimates.
Estimates from Rethink Prioritiesā cross-cause cost-effectiveness model are also methodologically aligned within each area, but they are not transparent. No information at all is provided about the inputs.
AIMās estimates respecting a given stage of a certain research round[3] will be especially comparable, as AIM often uses them in weighted factor models to inform which ones to move to the next stage or recommend. So I think you had better look into such sets of estimates over one covering all my estimates.
Thanks for the suggestion, Mo! More transparent methodologically aligned estimates:
The Centre for Exploratory Altruism Research (CEARCH) has a sheet with 23 cost-effectiveness estimates across global health and development, global catastrophic risk, and climate change.
They are produced in 3 levels of depth, but they all rely on the same baseline methodology.
You can reach out to @Joel Tanšø to know more.
Ambitious Impact (AIM) has produced hundreds of cost-effectiveness estimates across global health and development, animal advocacy, and āEA metaā.
They are produced in different levels of depth. I collected 44 regarding the interventions recommended for their incubation programs until 2024[1]. However, they have more public estimates concerning interventions which made it to the last stage (in-depth report), but were not recommended, and way more internal estimates. Not only from in-depth reports of interventions which were not recommended[2], but also from interventions which did not make it to the last stage.
You can reach out to Morgan Fairless, AIMās research director, to know more, and ask for access to AIMās internal estimates.
Estimates from Rethink Prioritiesā cross-cause cost-effectiveness model are also methodologically aligned within each area, but they are not transparent. No information at all is provided about the inputs.
AIMās estimates respecting a given stage of a certain research round[3] will be especially comparable, as AIM often uses them in weighted factor models to inform which ones to move to the next stage or recommend. So I think you had better look into such sets of estimates over one covering all my estimates.
Meanwhile, they have published more recommended for the early 2025 incubation program.
Only in-depth reports of recommeded interventions are necessarily published.
There are 3 research rounds per year. 2 on global health and development, and 1 on animal welfare.