Randomized experiments are widely used to estimate causal effects across many domains. However, classical causal inference approaches rely on independence assumptions that are violated by network interference, when the treatment of one individual influences the outcomes of others. All existing approaches require at least approximate knowledge of the network, which may be unavailable or costly to collect. We consider the task of estimating the total treatment effect (TTE), the average difference between the outcomes when the whole population is treated versus when the whole population is untreated. By leveraging a staggered rollout design, in which treatment is incrementally given to random subsets of individuals, we derive unbiased estimators for TTE that do not rely on any prior structural knowledge of the network, as long as the network interference effects are constrained to low-degree interactions among neighbors of an individual. We derive bounds on the variance of the estimators, and we show in experiments that our estimator performs well against baselines on simulated data. Central to our theoretical contribution is a connection between staggered rollout observations and polynomial extrapolation.
more »
« less
Estimating the total treatment effect in randomized experiments with unknown network structure
Randomized experiments are widely used to estimate the causal effects of a proposed treatment in many areas of science, from medicine and healthcare to the physical and biological sciences, from the social sciences to engineering, and from public policy to the technology industry. Here we consider situations where classical methods for estimating the total treatment effect on a target population are considerably biased due to confounding network effects, i.e., the fact that the treatment of an individual may impact its neighbors’ outcomes, an issue referred to as network interference or as nonindividualized treatment response. A key challenge in these situations is that the network is often unknown and difficult or costly to measure. We assume a potential outcomes model with heterogeneous additive network effects, encompassing a broad class of network interference sources, including spillover, peer effects, and contagion. First, we characterize the limitations in estimating the total treatment effect without knowledge of the network that drives interference. By contrast, we subsequently develop a simple estimator and efficient randomized design that outputs an unbiased estimate with low variance in situations where one is given access to average historical baseline measurements prior to the experiment. Our solution does not require knowledge of the underlying network structure, and it comes with statistical guarantees for a broad class of models. Due to their ease of interpretation and implementation, and their theoretical guarantees, we believe our results will have significant impact on the design of randomized experiments.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10437332
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Volume:
- 119
- Issue:
- 44
- ISSN:
- 0027-8424
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Network interference, where the outcome of an individual is affected by the treatment assignment of those in their social network, is pervasive in real-world settings. However, it poses a challenge to estimating causal effects. We consider the task of estimating the total treatment effect (TTE), or the difference between the average outcomes of the population when everyone is treated versus when no one is, under network interference. Under a Bernoulli randomized design, we provide an unbiased estimator for the TTE when network interference effects are constrained to low-order interactions among neighbors of an individual. We make no assumptions on the graph other than bounded degree, allowing for well-connected networks that may not be easily clustered. We derive a bound on the variance of our estimator and show in simulated experiments that it performs well compared with standard estimators for the TTE. We also derive a minimax lower bound on the mean squared error of our estimator, which suggests that the difficulty of estimation can be characterized by the degree of interactions in the potential outcomes model. We also prove that our estimator is asymptotically normal under boundedness conditions on the network degree and potential outcomes model. Central to our contribution is a new framework for balancing model flexibility and statistical complexity as captured by this low-order interactions structure.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)With the increasing adoption of predictive models trained using machine learning across a wide range of high-stakes applications, e.g., health care, security, criminal justice, finance, and education, there is a growing need for effective techniques for explaining such models and their predictions. We aim to address this problem in settings where the predictive model is a black box; That is, we can only observe the response of the model to various inputs, but have no knowledge about the internal structure of the predictive model, its parameters, the objective function, and the algorithm used to optimize the model. We reduce the problem of interpreting a black box predictive model to that of estimating the causal effects of each of the model inputs on the model output, from observations of the model inputs and the corresponding outputs. We estimate the causal effects of model inputs on model output using variants of the Rubin Neyman potential outcomes framework for estimating causal effects from observational data. We show how the resulting causal attribution of responsibility for model output to the different model inputs can be used to interpret the predictive model and to explain its predictions. We present results of experiments that demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach to the interpretation of black box predictive models via causal attribution in the case of deep neural network models trained on one synthetic data set (where the input variables that impact the output variable are known by design) and two real-world data sets: Handwritten digit classification, and Parkinson's disease severity prediction. Because our approach does not require knowledge about the predictive model algorithm and is free of assumptions regarding the black box predictive model except that its input-output responses be observable, it can be applied, in principle, to any black box predictive model.more » « less
-
Randomized A/B tests within online learning platforms represent an exciting direction in learning sciences. With minimal assumptions, they allow causal effect estimation without confounding bias and exact statistical inference even in small samples. However, often experimental samples and/or treatment effects are small, A/B tests are underpowered, and effect estimates are overly imprecise. Recent methodological advances have shown that power and statistical precision can be substantially boosted by coupling design-based causal estimation to machine-learning models of rich log data from historical users who were not in the experiment. Estimates using these techniques remain unbiased and inference remains exact without any additional assumptions. This paper reviews those methods and applies them to a new dataset including over 250 randomized A/B comparisons conducted within ASSISTments, an online learning platform. We compare results across experiments using four novel deep-learning models of auxiliary data and show that incorporating auxiliary data into causal estimates is roughly equivalent to increasing the sample size by 20% on average, or as much as 50-80% in some cases, relative to t-tests, and by about 10% on average, or as much as 30-50%, compared to cutting-edge machine learning unbiased estimates that use only data from the experiments. We show that the gains can be even larger for estimating subgroup effects, hold even when the remnant is unrepresentative of the A/B test sample, and extend to post-stratification population effects estimators.more » « less
-
Randomized A/B tests within online learning platforms represent an exciting direction in learning sciences. With minimal assumptions, they allow causal effect estimation without confounding bias and exact statistical inference even in small samples. However, often experimental samples and/or treatment effects are small, A/B tests are under-powered, and effect estimates are overly imprecise. Recent methodological advances have shown that power and statistical precision can be substantially boosted by coupling design-based causal estimation to machine-learning models of rich log data from historical users who were not in the experiment. Estimates using these techniques remain unbiased and inference remains exact without any additional assumptions. This paper reviews those methods and applies them to a new dataset including over 250 randomized A/B comparisons conducted within ASSISTments, an online learning platform. We compare results across experiments using four novel deep-learning models of auxiliary data, and show that incorporating auxiliary data into causal estimates is roughly equivalent to increasing the sample size by 20% on average, or as much as 50-80% in some cases, relative to t-tests, and by about 10% on average, or as much as 30-50%, compared to cutting-edge machine learning unbiased estimates that use only data from the experiments. We show the gains can be even larger for estimating subgroup effects, that they hold even when the remnant is unrepresentative of the A/B test sample, and extend to post-stratification population effects estimators.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2208975119
