An official website of the United States government
Abstract Cluster-randomized experiments are widely used due to their logistical convenience and policy relevance. To analyse them properly, we must address the fact that the treatment is assigned at the cluster level instead of the individual level. Standard analytic strategies are regressions based on individual data, cluster averages and cluster totals, which differ when the cluster sizes vary. These methods are often motivated by models with strong and unverifiable assumptions, and the choice among them can be subjective. Without any outcome modelling assumption, we evaluate these regression estimators and the associated robust standard errors from the design-based perspective where only the treatment assignment itself is random and controlled by the experimenter. We demonstrate that regression based on cluster averages targets a weighted average treatment effect, regression based on individual data is suboptimal in terms of efficiency and regression based on cluster totals is consistent and more efficient with a large number of clusters. We highlight the critical role of covariates in improving estimation efficiency and illustrate the efficiency gain via both simulation studies and data analysis. The asymptotic analysis also reveals the efficiency-robustness trade-off by comparing the properties of various estimators using data at different levels with and without covariate adjustment. Moreover, we show that the robust standard errors are convenient approximations to the true asymptotic standard errors under the design-based perspective. Our theory holds even when the outcome models are misspecified, so it is model-assisted rather than model-based. We also extend the theory to a wider class of weighted average treatment effects.
more »
« less
Design-based theory for cluster rerandomization
Summary Complete randomization balances covariates on average, but covariate imbalance often exists in finite samples. Rerandomization can ensure covariate balance in the realized experiment by discarding the undesired treatment assignments. Many field experiments in public health and social sciences assign the treatment at the cluster level due to logistical constraints or policy considerations. Moreover, they are frequently combined with re-randomization in the design stage. We define cluster rerandomization as a cluster-randomized experiment compounded with rerandomization to balance covariates at the individual or cluster level. Existing asymptotic theory can only deal with rerandomization with treatments assigned at the individual level, leaving that for cluster rerandomization an open problem. To fill the gap, we provide a design-based theory for cluster rerandomization. Moreover, we compare two cluster rerandomization schemes that use prior information on the importance of the covariates: one based on the weighted Euclidean distance and the other based on the Mahalanobis distance with tiers of covariates. We demonstrate that the former dominates the latter with optimal weights and orthogonalized covariates. Last but not least, we discuss the role of covariate adjustment in the analysis stage, and recommend covariate-adjusted procedures that can be conveniently implemented by least squares with the associated robust standard errors.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1945136
- PAR ID:
- 10413618
- Publisher / Repository:
- Oxford University Press
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Biometrika
- Volume:
- 110
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 0006-3444
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 467-483
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)Current approaches to A/B testing in networks focus on limiting interference, the concern that treatment effects can ”spill over” from treatment nodes to control nodes and lead to biased causal effect estimation. Prominent methods for network experiment design rely on two-stage randomization, in which sparsely-connected clusters are identified and cluster randomization dictates the node assignment to treatment and control. Here, we show that cluster randomization does not ensure sufficient node randomization and it can lead to selection bias in which treatment and control nodes represent different populations of users. To address this problem, we propose a principled framework for network experiment design which jointly minimizes interference and selection bias. We introduce the concepts of edge spillover probability and cluster matching and demonstrate their importance for designing network A/B testing. Our experiments on a number of real-world datasets show that our proposed framework leads to significantly lower error in causal effect estimation than existing solutions.more » « less
-
The presence of interference, where the outcome of an individual may depend on the treatment assignment and behavior of neighboring nodes, can lead to biased causal effect estimation. Current approaches to network experiment design focus on limiting interference through cluster-based randomization, in which clusters are identified using graph clustering, and cluster randomization dictates the node assignment to treatment and control. However, cluster-based randomization approaches perform poorly when interference propagates in cascades, whereby the response of individuals to treatment propagates to their multi-hop neighbors. When we have knowledge of the cascade seed nodes, we can leverage this interference structure to mitigate the resulting causal effect estimation bias. With this goal, we propose a cascade-based network experiment design that initiates treatment assignment from the cascade seed node and propagates the assignment to their multi-hop neighbors to limit interference during cascade growth and thereby reduce the overall causal effect estimation error. Our extensive experiments on real-world and synthetic datasets demonstrate that our proposed framework outperforms the existing state-of-the-art approaches in estimating causal effects in network data.more » « less
-
Summary Randomized experiments have been the gold standard for drawing causal inference. The conventional model-based approach has been one of the most popular methods of analysing treatment effects from randomized experiments, which is often carried out through inference for certain model parameters. In this paper, we provide a systematic investigation of model-based analyses for treatment effects under the randomization-based inference framework. This framework does not impose any distributional assumptions on the outcomes, covariates and their dependence, and utilizes only randomization as the reasoned basis. We first derive the asymptotic theory for $ Z $-estimation in completely randomized experiments, and propose sandwich-type conservative covariance estimation. We then apply the developed theory to analyse both average and individual treatment effects in randomized experiments. For the average treatment effect, we consider model-based, model-imputed and model-assisted estimation strategies, where the first two strategies can be sensitive to model misspecification or require specific methods for parameter estimation. The model-assisted approach is robust to arbitrary model misspecification and always provides consistent average treatment effect estimation. We propose optimal ways to conduct model-assisted estimation using generally nonlinear least squares for parameter estimation. For the individual treatment effects, we propose directly modelling the relationship between individual effects and covariates, and discuss the model’s identifiability, inference and interpretation allowing for model misspecification.more » « less
-
Background:When conducting a randomized controlled trial, it is common to specify in advance the statistical analyses that will be used to analyze the data. Typically, these analyses will involve adjusting for small imbalances in baseline covariates. However, this poses a dilemma, as adjusting for too many covariates can hurt precision more than it helps, and it is often unclear which covariates are predictive of outcome prior to conducting the experiment. Objectives:This article aims to produce a covariate adjustment method that allows for automatic variable selection, so that practitioners need not commit to any specific set of covariates prior to seeing the data. Results:In this article, we propose the “leave-one-out potential outcomes” estimator. We leave out each observation and then impute that observation’s treatment and control potential outcomes using a prediction algorithm such as a random forest. In addition to allowing for automatic variable selection, this estimator is unbiased under the Neyman–Rubin model, generally performs at least as well as the unadjusted estimator, and the experimental randomization largely justifies the statistical assumptions made.more » « less
