Literature DB >> 27382151

Improving massive experiments with threshold blocking.

Michael J Higgins1, Fredrik Sävje2, Jasjeet S Sekhon3.   

Abstract

Inferences from randomized experiments can be improved by blocking: assigning treatment in fixed proportions within groups of similar units. However, the use of the method is limited by the difficulty in deriving these groups. Current blocking methods are restricted to special cases or run in exponential time; are not sensitive to clustering of data points; and are often heuristic, providing an unsatisfactory solution in many common instances. We present an algorithm that implements a widely applicable class of blocking-threshold blocking-that solves these problems. Given a minimum required group size and a distance metric, we study the blocking problem of minimizing the maximum distance between any two units within the same group. We prove this is a nondeterministic polynomial-time hard problem and derive an approximation algorithm that yields a blocking where the maximum distance is guaranteed to be, at most, four times the optimal value. This algorithm runs in O(n log n) time with O(n) space complexity. This makes it, to our knowledge, the first blocking method with an ensured level of performance that works in massive experiments. Whereas many commonly used algorithms form pairs of units, our algorithm constructs the groups flexibly for any chosen minimum size. This facilitates complex experiments with several treatment arms and clustered data. A simulation study demonstrates the efficiency and efficacy of the algorithm; tens of millions of units can be blocked using a desktop computer in a few minutes.

Keywords:  big data; blocking; causal inference; experimental design

Year:  2016        PMID: 27382151      PMCID: PMC4941468          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1510504113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  9 in total

1.  Optimal multivariate matching before randomization.

Authors:  Robert Greevy; Bo Lu; Jeffrey H Silber; Paul Rosenbaum
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant.

Authors:  Joseph P Simmons; Leif D Nelson; Uri Simonsohn
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2011-10-17

3.  Simple, efficient estimators of treatment effects in randomized trials using generalized linear models to leverage baseline variables.

Authors:  Michael Rosenblum; Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 0.968

4.  Variance identification and efficiency analysis in randomized experiments under the matched-pair design.

Authors:  Kosuke Imai
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Testing for imbalance of covariates in controlled experiments.

Authors:  T Permutt
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  The precision medicine initiative: a new national effort.

Authors:  Euan A Ashley
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects.

Authors:  Susan Athey; Guido Imbens
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Lasso adjustments of treatment effect estimates in randomized experiments.

Authors:  Adam Bloniarz; Hanzhong Liu; Cun-Hui Zhang; Jasjeet S Sekhon; Bin Yu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Using regression models to analyze randomized trials: asymptotically valid hypothesis tests despite incorrectly specified models.

Authors:  Michael Rosenblum; Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2009-02-04       Impact factor: 2.571

  9 in total
  2 in total

1.  Asymptotic theory of rerandomization in treatment-control experiments.

Authors:  Xinran Li; Peng Ding; Donald B Rubin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Drawing causal inference from Big Data.

Authors:  Richard M Shiffrin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 11.205

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.