Guillaume W. Basse

Analyzing two-stage experiments in the presence of interference*

ABSTRACT Two-stage randomization is a powerful design for estimating treatment effects in the presence of interference; that is, when one individual’s treatment assignment affects another individual’s outcomes. Our motivating example is a two-stage randomized trial evaluating an intervention to reduce student absenteeism in the School District of Philadelphia. In that experiment, households with multiple students were first assigned to treatment or control; then, in treated households, one student was randomly assigned to treatment. Using this example, we highlight key considerations for analyzing two-stage experiments in practice. Our first contribution is to address additional complexities that arise when household sizes vary; in this case, researchers must decide between assigning equal weight to households or equal weight to individuals. We propose unbiased estimators for a broad class of individual- and household-weighted estimands, with corresponding theoretical and estimated variances. Our second contribution is to connect two common approaches for analyzing two-stage designs: linear regression and randomization inference. We show that, with suitably chosen standard errors, these two approaches yield identical point and variance estimates, which is somewhat surprising given the complex randomization scheme. Finally, we explore options for incorporating covariates to improve precision. We confirm our analytic results via simulation studies and apply these methods to the attendance study, finding substantively meaningful spillover effects.

Limitations of Design-based Causal Inference and A/B Testing under Arbitrary and Network Interference

Randomized experiments on a network often involve interference between connected units, namely, a situation in which an individual’s treatment can affect the response of another individual. Current approaches to deal with interference, in theory and in practice, often make restrictive assumptions on its structure—for instance, assuming that interference is local—even when using otherwise nonparametric inference strategies. This reliance on explicit restrictions on the interference mechanism suggests a shared intuition that inference is impossible without any assumptions on the interference structure. In this paper, we begin by formalizing this intuition in the context of a classical nonparametric approach to inference, referred to as design-based inference of causal effects. Next, we show how, always in the context of design-based inference, even parametric structural assumptions that allow the existence of unbiased estimators cannot guarantee a decreasing variance even in the large sample limit. This lack of concentration in large samples is often observed empirically, in randomized experiments in which interference of some form is expected to be present. This result has direct consequences for the design and analysis of large experiments—for instance, in online social platforms—where the belief is that large sample sizes automatically guarantee small variance. More broadly, our results suggest that although strategies for causal inference in the presence of interference borrow their formalism and main concepts from the traditional causal inference literature, much of the intuition from the no-interference case do not easily transfer to the interference setting.