ABC3: Active Bayesian Causal Inference with Cohn Criteria in Randomized Experiments

Donghun Lee; Taehun Cha

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

ABC3: Active Bayesian Causal Inference with Cohn Criteria in Randomized Experiments

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A Bayesian active-learning rule that picks the next subject and treatment by minimizing integrated Gaussian-process posterior variance is equivalent to minimizing expected error in conditional average treatment effect estimation, and the…

desk verdict ABC3 is a useful active-learning method with a correct core equivalence, but the imbalance-minimization claim doesn't follow from the stated bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11104 v1 pith:RREECN36 submitted 2024-12-15 cs.LG cs.AIstat.ME

Taehun Cha , Donghun Lee This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AIstat.ME

keywords activelearningcausalinferencerandomizedexperimentsGaussianprocessconditionalaveragetreatmenteffectCohncriteriamaximummeandiscrepancyexperimentaldesign

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Randomized experiments are expensive and the researcher can often choose which subjects to enroll or treat; this paper asks how to make that choice efficiently. It establishes that, for Gaussian-process models of the two potential outcomes, minimizing the expected error of the estimated conditional average treatment effect is equivalent to minimizing the integrated posterior variance of the two outcome models. That equivalence turns experiment design into a variance-reduction problem and yields a practical acquisition rule, ABC3, that selects the next subject and treatment assignment without needing observed outcomes, so it respects the randomization assumption. The paper further proves that the same rule minimizes an upper bound on treatment-control imbalance and on type-1 error under the sharp null, and the experiments show it reaches lower CATE error than existing sampling policies with fewer observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the integrated posterior variance of two independent Gaussian processes, one for each potential outcome. The paper shows the CATE estimation error, measured against the all-potential-outcomes oracle, decomposes exactly into this variance term; therefore the acquisition rule is the Cohn criterion: query the (subject, treatment) pair that maximally reduces integrated predictive variance. The proof also leans on the fact that posterior variance in a Gaussian process does not depend on observed outcomes, which is what keeps the policy compatible with the randomization assumption. For the balance result, the machinery is maximum mean discrepancy and a Bayesian-quadrature bound that connects group imbalance to the same integrated-variance target.

What would settle it

On a small synthetic subject pool with two independent GP priors and known potential outcomes, enumerate every possible next (subject, treatment) pair, compute the exact expected squared error from the oracle estimator after observing each pair, and check whether the pair minimizing that error always coincides with the pair minimizing integrated posterior variance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 4.1: under two independent Gaussian-process priors for the potential outcomes, choosing the next subject and treatment to minimize the expected squared distance between the current CATE estimator and the oracle estimator trained on all potential outcomes is equivalent to choosing the pair that minimizes the integrated posterior variance $\int_{\mathcal{X}} V_t[Y^1(x)] + V_t[Y^0(x)]\,dP(x)$. The paper names the resulting acquisition rule ABC3, an adaptation of the Cohn active-learning criterion to causal inference, and derives a closed-form score (Proposition 4.2) that avoids recomputing an inverse covariance matrix for every candidate. On top of this equivalence it proves an upper bound on the maximum mean discrepancy between treatment and control groups and an upper bound on integrated type-1 error under Fisher's sharp null, and it reports experiments on four real-world benchmarks showing ABC3 reaches lower PEHE than random sampling, variance-only sampling, leverage-based sampling, and a covariance-maximizing baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The balance guarantee relies on an unproven condition relating average kernel values within any sampled subset to the full covariate set; the paper validates it only empirically, so the guarantee could fail for other kernels or covariate distributions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 4.1 holds, any experimenter using Gaussian-process models can replace expensive exhaustive searches by the closed-form ABC3 score and still achieve the oracle-optimal query in the Bayesian sense.
Because the acquisition score uses only covariates and the GP prior, ABC3 does not peek at outcomes, so it preserves the randomization assumption that makes causal estimates unbiased.
The MMD bound implies that as observations accumulate, the treatment and control covariate distributions converge, which tightens previously known generalization and type-S error bounds.
The type-1 error bound implies that under the sharp null the policy does not inflate false positives relative to the variance-minimizing benchmark at each step.
The experiments indicate the efficiency gain is large enough that ABC3 reaches with half the data the error other policies reach with full data on several benchmarks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper leaves implicit that the variance-error equivalence in Theorem 4.1 does not use the kernel structure beyond tractable posterior variance, so similar acquisition rules could likely be derived for other Bayesian models with closed-form variance, such as Bayesian linear regression.
The balance guarantee should be read as kernel- and prior-dependent: the pivotal condition $\epsilon_*(I_n) \le 2\delta_*(I_n)$ is not proven for arbitrary kernels, and a practitioner switching to a non-RBF kernel or a different covariate distribution should re-check it before relying on the MMD bound.
The paper bounds per-step type-1 error, not the family-wise error rate across a sequential testing schedule; controlling the latter would require an additional multiple-testing correction.
A testable extension would run ABC3 with the same GP prior but different kernels and lengthscales, then check whether the empirical ordering of MMD matches the bound's predictions; this would isolate how much of the balance gain comes from the criterion versus the kernel choice.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take on ABC3. The paper does something useful and mostly right: it transfers the Cohn criterion for GP regression to two independent GPs for treatment and control, shows that one-step expected PEHE minimization is exactly integrated posterior variance minimization, and gives an efficient acquisition rule. That equivalence (Theorem 4.1) is standard but correctly derived, and the experiments on IHDP, Boston, ACIC, and Lalonde are decent. The code is public, which I appreciate.

The soft spot is the imbalance claim. The stress-test is right: Theorem 4.5 gives an upper bound on MMD that includes 4λ*/n1 + 4λ*/n0 plus the integrated variance term. ABC3 only optimizes the variance term. At a single step, choosing the arm with slightly lower variance reduction can reduce the group-size term more if that arm is smaller, so ABC3 does not actually minimize the upper bound. The paper says 'our active learning policy minimizes the upper bound' in Section 4.2 and repeats the claim in the abstract. That does not follow. The extra assumption ε_* ≤ 2δ_* is also unproven for any kernel; the empirical validation on four datasets is not a guarantee. These are fixable—soften to 'reduces' or 'targets the tightest tractable component'—but as written, the headline theoretical contribution is overstated.

Two more issues, in proportion. First, the deterministic assignment rule ignores positivity: the policy can assign a given subject to only one arm with probability 1, violating Assumption 3.3, which they state is required for unbiasedness. They should at least discuss this or add a randomized tie-breaking. Second, they compare against Naive, Mackay, Leverage, and ACE, but no dedicated covariate-balancing designs like Gram-Schmidt Walk or Pigeonhole design, even though those are cited in the introduction. That matters because the paper claims balance as a key property.

The type 1 error bound via Markov is loose but correct as a bound; it's fine as a secondary result. The experiments are otherwise good—hyperparameter sensitivity, computation time, and the large-data extension are nice.

Bottom line: a mostly sound, practically useful paper whose central theoretical marketing is overstated. With a careful revision that reframes Theorem 4.5 as an upper bound with a partially targeted term, proves or drops the ε_* condition, and adds a positivity discussion plus balancing baselines, it could be a solid contribution. It deserves full review, not desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ABC3, an active learning policy for randomized experiments. The main theoretical result (Theorem 4.1) shows that minimizing the expected Bayesian PEHE relative to a full-data oracle is equivalent to minimizing the integrated posterior variance of the two potential outcome processes, and Proposition 4.2 turns this into a tractable acquisition criterion. The paper further claims that this policy minimizes treatment-control imbalance measured by MMD (Theorem 4.5) and minimizes the upper bound of a type 1 error probability (Theorem 4.7). Experiments on IHDP, Boston, ACIC, and Lalonde compare ABC3 with random, uncertainty-based, leverage-based, and ACE baselines, and appendices provide proofs, an assumption check, and extensions to large data sets and other regressors.

Significance. The core decision-theoretic equivalence in Theorem 4.1 is clean and useful: it connects classical Cohn-style variance reduction to causal inference and yields a principled acquisition rule that does not look at outcomes and therefore respects the randomization assumption. The paper also ships code and the experiments suggest ABC3 is efficient and competitive. However, the two additional headline guarantees—imbalance minimization and type 1 error minimization—are not established at the level claimed in the abstract. The MMD result is only an upper bound whose minimization does not follow from the acquisition rule, and the type 1 error theorem bounds a posterior predictive probability while the experiments measure a frequentist rejection rate. The paper has a sound but narrower core and needs substantial revision before its advertised claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Theorem 4.5 and Section 4.2] The claim that ABC3 minimizes the upper bound in Theorem 4.5 does not follow from the theorem. The bound is MMD(P^1_t,P^0_t,F)^2 <= 4 lambda*/|I^1_t| + 4 lambda*/|I^0_t| + 2 integral (V_t[Y^1(x)] + V_t[Y^0(x)]) dP(x). Adding a unit to arm a decreases the group-size terms by 4 lambda*/(n_a(n_a+1)) for the chosen arm and leaves the other arm's term unchanged, while ABC3's acquisition rule (Proposition 4.2, Algorithm 1) maximizes only the decrease of the variance integral, i.e., the third term. A policy that accepts a slightly smaller variance reduction on the currently smaller arm can have a strictly smaller total bound, so ABC3 does not minimize the right-hand side. The abstract and Section 4.2 present imbalance minimization as a headline contribution; this statement should be replaced by a correct one, such as 'ABC3 minimizes the variance term of the bound' or a proven condition under which the full bound is minimized.
[Theorem 4.5 assumption; Section 5.6 and Appendix B] The condition epsilon_*(I_n) <= 2 delta_*(I_n) for every subset I_n is not proved for any kernel. Appendix B gives an intuitive decomposition but no theorem, and Section 5.6 only checks randomly permuted leading principal submatrices, not all subsets. Because the theorem's inequality depends on this condition, the imbalance result is conditional on an unverified assumption. The paper should either prove the condition for a nontrivial class of kernels or explicitly state the result as conditional and weaken the abstract accordingly.
[Definition 4.6, Theorem 4.7, and Section 5.3] The type 1 error claim conflates two different objects. Definition 4.6 defines a posterior predictive probability P_t[|Y^1(x)-Y^0(x)| > alpha], and Theorem 4.7 bounds this quantity via Markov's inequality. However, Section 5.3 measures a frequentist Z-test rejection rate: for each test point a Z-statistic is formed from the mean and standard deviation of the CATE estimates across 100 experiments, and type 1 error is the fraction of points with |Z| > 1.96. The theorem does not bound this frequentist quantity, so the empirical verification in Figure 3 is not a test of Theorem 4.7. Please align the definitions, for instance by reporting the Bayesian posterior probability or by proving a genuinely frequentist statement.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Section 1] The abstract says ABC3 'minimizes an estimation error' but Theorem 4.1 is an equivalence for the expected oracle error under the GP prior; consider using 'expected' consistently in the abstract and contribution list.
[Section 4.2] The text first says the policy 'approximately minimizes' the upper bound and later says it 'minimizes the upper bound'; these formulations are inconsistent and should be reconciled with what Theorem 4.5 actually proves.
[Section 5.6] The empirical validation of the assumption only reports the minimum of 2delta_* - epsilon_* over random permutations of a leading principal submatrix; this does not establish the condition for all subsets I_n and should be described as a heuristic check rather than a validation.
[Section 5.3] The notation alpha is used both for the decision threshold in Definition 4.6 and for the Z-test critical value 1.96 in Section 5.3; using separate symbols would avoid confusion.
[Figure 2] The MMD comparison reports only ABC3 versus Naive; including at least one dedicated balancing baseline (e.g., a greedy MMD-minimizing policy) would strengthen the empirical support for the balance claim.
[Appendix B] Appendix B refers to 'Section 5.5' for the empirical satisfaction of the assumption, but the relevant empirical section is 5.6; the cross-reference should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: Theorem 4.1 is a genuine variance decomposition, and the MMD and type-1-error results are external quantities bounded by, rather than defined as, the optimization target.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Theorem 4.1) is not circular. The quantity being minimized, epsilon^Omega_PEHE, is defined as the squared difference between the current CATE estimator and a Bayesian oracle trained on the full potential-outcome data set. The proof then uses a conditional-variance decomposition (Lemma A.1) to show that the expected value of this quantity equals an integrated posterior variance up to a term independent of the queried point. This is a substantive mathematical equivalence, not a restatement of a definition, and the oracle term is not fitted or named into the optimization target. Proposition 4.2 is likewise an algebraic reduction of the variance update, not a renaming. The MMD bound in Theorem 4.5 does contain the integrated posterior variance as one term, but MMD itself is an external quantity defined through RKHS embeddings, so bounding it in terms of the policy's objective is a derived inequality, not a definitional identity. The type-1-error bound in Theorem 4.7 follows from Markov's inequality and the same variance quantity; again, type-1 error is externally defined. There are no self-citations used as load-bearing evidence, and no uniqueness theorem or prior-work ansatz is imported from the authors. The paper does have correctness risks that are outside the circularity category: the condition epsilon_*(I_n) <= 2 delta_*(I_n) in Theorem 4.5 is only empirically validated (Section 5.6), and the conclusion that ABC3 'minimizes' the imbalance upper bound is not fully supported because ABC3 optimizes only the variance term while the group-size terms also depend on the arm choice. These are logical-support concerns, not instances of the derivation reducing to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on the GP prior being the truth, independence of the two potential-outcome processes, and an ad hoc condition for the balance theorem. These are the main uncharged assumptions.

free parameters (2)

Acquisition kernel hyperparameters = length scale 1.0, noise sigma^2_epsilon = 1
The uncertainty-quantifying kernel for ABC3 is set by hand to RBF with lengthscale 1.0 and observation noise 1 (Section 5). The theory assumes this kernel is the true GP kernel; choosing it manually rather than fitting it is a free choice that affects all theoretical guarantees.
Regression GP hyperparameters = optimized by scikit-learn on each dataset
The regressors used to estimate CATE fit the kernel hyperparameters to data (Section 5). This introduces model fitting that is outside the theory, which assumes a fixed, known kernel.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Zero-mean Gaussian process prior for potential outcomes
The paper assumes m(x)=0 for all x in Section 4, and the theory requires that the data are generated by GPs with this prior.
domain assumption Independence of the two potential-outcome GPs (Y1 and Y0)
Assumed in Theorem 4.1 so the variance of the difference splits into the sum of variances. Real potential outcomes are often correlated; the acquisition would be misspecified if they are not independent.
standard math Bounded kernel and outcomes
Assumed in Theorem 4.1 to guarantee epsilon_PEHE is finite and Fubini applies.
ad hoc to paper Condition epsilon_*(I_n) <= 2 delta_*(I_n) for all subsets I_n
This is the key assumption in Theorem 4.5 for the MMD bound. It is not proven for any kernel; the paper validates it empirically in Section 5.6.
domain assumption Fisher's sharp null hypothesis for the type 1 error theorem
Theorem 4.7 is derived under Y^1 = Y^0 for all units; outside the null, the type 1 error definition is not meaningful.
domain assumption Standard causal assumptions (consistency, positivity, randomization)
Assumptions 3.2-3.4 are stated in Section 3. The policy only queries based on covariates, so randomization and consistency are plausibly maintained, but positivity may be violated by deterministic assignment.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ABC3: Active Bayesian Causal Inference with Cohn Criteria in Randomized Experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RREECN36

@misc{pith2026241211104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ABC3: Active Bayesian Causal Inference with Cohn Criteria in Randomized Experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RREECN36}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11104}
}

read the original abstract

In causal inference, randomized experiment is a de facto method to overcome various theoretical issues in observational study. However, the experimental design requires expensive costs, so an efficient experimental design is necessary. We propose ABC3, a Bayesian active learning policy for causal inference. We show a policy minimizing an estimation error on conditional average treatment effect is equivalent to minimizing an integrated posterior variance, similar to Cohn criteria \citep{cohn1994active}. We theoretically prove ABC3 also minimizes an imbalance between the treatment and control groups and the type 1 error probability. Imbalance-minimizing characteristic is especially notable as several works have emphasized the importance of achieving balance. Through extensive experiments on real-world data sets, ABC3 achieves the highest efficiency, while empirically showing the theoretical results hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11104 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Mean of ϵP EHE. x-axis represents the observed percentage of the population. We measure ϵP EHE for every 10% observation. After selecting xt+1 and at+1, all policies fit the Gaussian process for regression. We apply feature-wise normalization and y-standardization for all regressors. (except Leverage, which requires item-wise normalization) We fit two Gaussian process models with Constant Kernel * Radial Basis Func… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Mean and standard deviation of MMD between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** ϵP EHE for every kernel and kernel parameter. The numbers in parenthesis are kernel parameters. For IHDP, ACIC, and Boston, Matern and RBF kernels show robust performance along different kernel parameters. However, Sine kernel significantly deteriorates in the three data sets. The result implies no (or week) periodicity in the three data sets. Meanwhile, Sine kernel with a length scale of 0.1 shows the best performa… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Mean of the type 1 error rate. As time proceeds, ABC3 achieves a lower type 1 error rate, as expected in Theorem 4.7. ABC3 consistently shows a lower Type 1 error rate than Naive. However, Mackay shows the highest error rate on Lalonde. The result may again imply the i…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Empirical validation of the assumption ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: ϵP EHE for different σ 0 ϵ : σ 1 ϵ . Measuring Computation Time Here we present the time to sample the whole train data set of Boston data. We compute the mean and standard deviation of the computation time by iterating 10 times. As a result, Leverage shows nearly the…

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Intuitive visualization of the assumption used in Theorem 4.5. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png]

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Standard deviation of ϵP EHE. E Extending ABC3 to Large Data Set Though the majority of randomized experimental data is relatively small by nature, practitioners may want to apply ABC3 to the huge number of covariates. However, computing our target quantity (Equation (…

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Mean and standard deviation of ϵP EHE on large Weather data set. N is the number of utilized samples. maintaining ABC3 policy. It would be beneficial if we achieve lower error by utilizing more sophisticated regressors, like neural networks. We present ϵP EHE for diffe…

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: ϵP EHE for different regressors. Regressors show different trends depending on data sets. For IHDP, NN significantly deteriorates compared to other models. SVM underperforms GP and RF for IHDP. However, for Lalonde, NN significantly outperforms the others. Also, SVM o…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: ϵP EHE for all ACIC test data sets (cont.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: ϵP EHE for all ACIC test data sets. eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests. Machine learning, 45: 5–32. Brooks-Gunn, J.; Liaw, F.-r.; and Klebanov, P. K. 1992. Effects of early intervention on cognitive function of low…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

N.; and Rao, A

Addanki, R.; Arbour, D.; Mai, T.; Musco, C. N.; and Rao, A. 2022. Sample Constrained Treatment Effect Estimation. In Oh, A. H.; Agarwal, A.; Belgrave, D.; and Cho, K., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

work page 2022
[2]

B.; and Zagoraiou, M

Antognini, A. B.; and Zagoraiou, M. 2011. The covariate-adaptive biased coin design for balancing clinical trials in the presence of prognostic factors. Biometrika, 98(3): 519--535

work page 2011
[3]

Atkinson, A. C. 2014. Selecting a Biased-Coin Design. Statistical Science, 29(1): 144 -- 163

work page 2014
[4]

Brooks-Gunn, J.; Liaw, F.-r.; and Klebanov, P. K. 1992. Effects of early intervention on cognitive function of low birth weight preterm infants. The Journal of pediatrics, 120(3): 350--359

work page 1992
[5]

Cohn, D.; Ghahramani, Z.; and Jordan, M. 1994. Active Learning with Statistical Models. In Tesauro, G.; Touretzky, D.; and Leen, T., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 7. MIT Press

work page 1994
[6]

Dai, J.; Gradu, P.; and Harshaw, C. 2023. CLIP-OGD: An Experimental Design for Adaptive Neyman Allocation in Sequential Experiments. In Oh, A.; Naumann, T.; Globerson, A.; Saenko, K.; Hardt, M.; and Levine, S., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, 32235--32269. Curran Associates, Inc

work page 2023
[7]

Deng, K.; Pineau, J.; and Murphy, S. 2011. Active learning for personalizing treatment. In 2011 IEEE Symposium on Adaptive Dynamic Programming and Reinforcement Learning (ADPRL), 32--39

work page 2011
[8]

Efron, B. 1971. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika, 58(3): 403--417

work page 1971

Show all 39 references

[9]

Fisher, R. A. 1970. Statistical methods for research workers. In Breakthroughs in statistics: Methodology and distribution, 66--70. Springer

1970
[10]

N.; and Rao, A

Ghadiri, M.; Arbour, D.; Mai, T.; Musco, C. N.; and Rao, A. 2023. Finite Population Regression Adjustment and Non-asymptotic Guarantees for Treatment Effect Estimation. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

2023
[11]

Gramacy, R. B. 2020. Surrogates: G aussian Process Modeling, Design and \ Optimization for the Applied Sciences . Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman Hall/CRC. http://bobby.gramacy.com/surrogates/

2020
[12]

M.; Rasch, M

Gretton, A.; Borgwardt, K. M.; Rasch, M. J.; Sch \"o lkopf, B.; and Smola, A. 2012. A Kernel Two-Sample Test. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(25): 723--773

2012
[13]

Gruber, S.; Lefebvre, G.; Schuster, T.; ; and Piché, A. 2019. Atlantic Causal Inference Conference Data Challenge, 2019. https://sites.google.com/view/acic2019datachallenge/. Accessed: 2024-07-18

2019
[14]

W.; Bojinov, I.; Lindon, M.; and Tingley, M

Ham, D. W.; Bojinov, I.; Lindon, M.; and Tingley, M. 2023. Design-Based Confidence Sequences: A General Approach to Risk Mitigation in Online Experimentation. arXiv:2210.08639

2023 arXiv
[15]

Harrison, D.; and Rubinfeld, D. L. 1978. Hedonic housing prices and the demand for clean air. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 5(1): 81--102

1978
[16]

Harshaw, C.; Sävje, F.; Spielman, D.; and Zhang, P. 2023. Balancing Covariates in Randomized Experiments with the Gram-Schmidt Walk Design. arXiv:1911.03071

2023 arXiv
[17]

Hensman, J.; Fusi, N.; and Lawrence, N. D. 2013. Gaussian processes for Big data. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI'13, 282–290. Arlington, Virginia, USA: AUAI Press

2013
[18]

Hill, J. L. 2011. Bayesian Nonparametric Modeling for Causal Inference. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 20(1): 217--240

2011
[19]

Jesson, A.; Tigas, P.; van Amersfoort, J.; Kirsch, A.; Shalit, U.; and Gal, Y. 2021. Causal- BALD : Deep Bayesian Active Learning of Outcomes to Infer Treatment-Effects from Observational Data. In Beygelzimer, A.; Dauphin, Y.; Liang, P.; and Vaughan, J. W., eds., Advances in N...

2021
[20]

LaLonde, R. J. 1986. Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data. The American Economic Review, 76(4): 604--620

1986
[21]

MacKay, D. J. C. 1992. Information-Based Objective Functions for Active Data Selection. Neural Computation, 4(4): 590--604

1992
[22]

E.; and Williams, C

Rasmussen, C. E.; and Williams, C. K. I. 2006. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. The MIT Press

2006
[23]

Rubin, D. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66

1974
[24]

Seo, S.; Wallat, M.; Graepel, T.; and Obermayer, K. 2000. Gaussian process regression: active data selection and test point rejection. In Proceedings of the IEEE-INNS-ENNS International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. IJCNN 2000. Neural Computing: New Challenges and Persp...

2000
[25]

Settles, B. 2009. Active learning literature survey

2009
[26]

D.; and Sontag, D

Shalit, U.; Johansson, F. D.; and Sontag, D. 2017. Estimating individual treatment effect: generalization bounds and algorithms. In International conference on machine learning, 3076--3085. PMLR

2017
[27]

Song, D.; Mak, S.; and Wu, C. F. J. 2023. ACE: Active Learning for Causal Inference with Expensive Experiments. arXiv:2306.07480

2023 arXiv
[28]

Sundin, I.; Schulam, P.; Siivola, E.; Vehtari, A.; Saria, S.; and Kaski, S. 2019. Active learning for decision-making from imbalanced observational data. In International conference on machine learning, 6046--6055. PMLR

2019
[29]

Toth, C.; Lorch, L.; Knoll, C.; Krause, A.; Pernkopf, F.; Peharz, R.; and von K\" u gelgen, J. 2022. Active Bayesian Causal Inference. In Koyejo, S.; Mohamed, S.; Agarwal, A.; Belgrave, D.; Cho, K.; and Oh, A., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35...

2022
[30]

Q.; and Wilson, A

Wang, K.; Pleiss, G.; Gardner, J.; Tyree, S.; Weinberger, K. Q.; and Wilson, A. G. 2019. Exact Gaussian Processes on a Million Data Points. In Wallach, H.; Larochelle, H.; Beygelzimer, A.; d Alch\' e -Buc, F.; Fox, E.; and Garnett, R., eds., Advances in Neural Information Proc...

2019
[31]

Zhao, J.; and Zhou, Z. 2024. Pigeonhole Design: Balancing Sequential Experiments from an Online Matching Perspective. arXiv:2201.12936

2024 arXiv
[32]

Zhu, H.; Zhang, S.; Su, Y.; Zhao, Z.; and Chen, N. 2024. Integrating Active Learning in Causal Inference with Interference: A Novel Approach in Online Experiments. arXiv:2402.12710

2024 arXiv
[33]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...
[34]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...
[35]

Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests. Machine learning, 45: 5--32

2001
[36]

Budincsevity, N. 2016. Weather in Szeged 2006-2016. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/budincsevity/szeged-weather/data. Accessed: 2024-08-08

2016
[37]

Cristianini, N.; and Scholkopf, B. 2002. Support vector machines and kernel methods: the new generation of learning machines. Ai Magazine, 23(3): 31--31

2002
[38]

K.; and Faddeeva, V

Faddeev, D. K.; and Faddeeva, V. N. 1981. Computational methods of linear algebra. Journal of Soviet Mathematics, 15(5): 531--650

1981
[39]

Kanagawa, M.; Hennig, P.; Sejdinovic, D.; and Sriperumbudur, B. K. 2018. Gaussian Processes and Kernel Methods: A Review on Connections and Equivalences. arXiv:1807.02582

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

N.; and Rao, A

Addanki, R.; Arbour, D.; Mai, T.; Musco, C. N.; and Rao, A. 2022. Sample Constrained Treatment Effect Estimation. In Oh, A. H.; Agarwal, A.; Belgrave, D.; and Cho, K., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

work page 2022

[2] [2]

B.; and Zagoraiou, M

Antognini, A. B.; and Zagoraiou, M. 2011. The covariate-adaptive biased coin design for balancing clinical trials in the presence of prognostic factors. Biometrika, 98(3): 519--535

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Atkinson, A. C. 2014. Selecting a Biased-Coin Design. Statistical Science, 29(1): 144 -- 163

work page 2014

[4] [4]

Brooks-Gunn, J.; Liaw, F.-r.; and Klebanov, P. K. 1992. Effects of early intervention on cognitive function of low birth weight preterm infants. The Journal of pediatrics, 120(3): 350--359

work page 1992

[5] [5]

Cohn, D.; Ghahramani, Z.; and Jordan, M. 1994. Active Learning with Statistical Models. In Tesauro, G.; Touretzky, D.; and Leen, T., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 7. MIT Press

work page 1994

[6] [6]

Dai, J.; Gradu, P.; and Harshaw, C. 2023. CLIP-OGD: An Experimental Design for Adaptive Neyman Allocation in Sequential Experiments. In Oh, A.; Naumann, T.; Globerson, A.; Saenko, K.; Hardt, M.; and Levine, S., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, 32235--32269. Curran Associates, Inc

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Deng, K.; Pineau, J.; and Murphy, S. 2011. Active learning for personalizing treatment. In 2011 IEEE Symposium on Adaptive Dynamic Programming and Reinforcement Learning (ADPRL), 32--39

work page 2011

[8] [8]

Efron, B. 1971. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika, 58(3): 403--417

work page 1971