Better experimental design by hybridizing binary matching with imbalance optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a new experimental design procedure that divides a set of experimental units into two groups in order to minimize error in estimating a treatment effect. One concern is the elimination of large covariate imbalance between the two groups before the experiment begins. Another concern is robustness of the design to misspecification in response models. We address both concerns in our proposed design: we first place subjects into pairs using optimal nonbipartite matching, making our estimator robust to complicated nonlinear response models. Our innovation is to keep the matched pairs extant, take differences of the covariate values within each matched pair, and then use the greedy switching heuristic of Krieger et al. (2019) or rerandomization on these differences. This latter step greatly reduces covariate imbalance. Furthermore, our resultant designs are shown to be nearly as random as matching, which is robust to unobserved covariates. When compared to previous designs, our approach exhibits significant improvement in the mean squared error of the treatment effect estimator when the response model is nonlinear and performs at least as well when the response model is linear. Our design procedure can be found as a method in the open source R package available on CRAN called GreedyExperimentalDesign.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".