Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Optimized variance estimation under interference and complex experimental designs

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2112.01709 v2 pith:WARNEDWT submitted 2021-12-03 stat.ME

classification stat.ME
keywords estimatorsvarianceconservativeexperimentersproblemboundcomplexdesigns
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Unbiased and consistent variance estimators generally do not exist for design-based treatment effect estimators because experimenters never observe more than one potential outcome for any unit. The problem is exacerbated by interference and complex experimental designs. Experimenters must accept conservative variance estimators in these settings, but they can strive to minimize conservativeness. In this paper, we show that the task of constructing a minimally conservative variance estimator can be interpreted as an optimization problem that aims to find the lowest estimable upper bound of the true variance given the experimenter's risk preference and knowledge of the potential outcomes. We characterize the set of admissible bounds in the class of quadratic forms, and we demonstrate that the optimization problem is a convex program for many natural objectives. The resulting variance estimators are guaranteed to be conservative regardless of whether the background knowledge used to construct the bound is correct, but the estimators are less conservative if the provided information is reasonably accurate. Numerical results show that the resulting variance estimators can be considerably less conservative than existing estimators, allowing experimenters to draw more informative inferences about treatment effects.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Regression Adjustments for Double Randomization in Two-Sided Marketplaces

    stat.ME 2026-03 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Optimal regression adjustments for MRD marketplace estimators minimize asymptotic variance among linear imputation estimators, are data-estimable without outcome linearity, and improve inference via new CLTs.

  2. On the Foundations of the Design-Based Approach

    stat.ME 2025-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    NURVA, a weaker replacement for SUTVA, supports within-experiment estimates but cannot support causal claims about interventions not actually assigned in the study.

  3. Design-Based Inference under Random Potential Outcomes

    stat.ME 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Design-based estimators can target mechanism-level causal estimands, averages over latent stochastic environments, when local dependence makes cross-sectional averaging ergodic.

Pith tools