IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/causin/v5y2017i1p23n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Design and Analysis of Experiments in Networks: Reducing Bias from Interference

Author

Listed:
  • Eckles Dean

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, USA)

  • Karrer Brian

    (Facebook, Menlo Park, CA, USA)

  • Ugander Johan

    (Department of Management Science & Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA)

Abstract

Estimating the effects of interventions in networks is complicated due to interference, such that the outcomes for one experimental unit may depend on the treatment assignments of other units. Familiar statistical formalism, experimental designs, and analysis methods assume the absence of this interference, and result in biased estimates of causal effects when it exists. While some assumptions can lead to unbiased estimates, these assumptions are generally unrealistic in the context of a network and often amount to assuming away the interference. In this work, we evaluate methods for designing and analyzing randomized experiments under minimal, realistic assumptions compatible with broad interference, where the aim is to reduce bias and possibly overall error in estimates of average effects of a global treatment. In design, we consider the ability to perform random assignment to treatments that is correlated in the network, such as through graph cluster randomization. In analysis, we consider incorporating information about the treatment assignment of network neighbors. We prove sufficient conditions for bias reduction through both design and analysis in the presence of potentially global interference; these conditions also give lower bounds on treatment effects. Through simulations of the entire process of experimentation in networks, we measure the performance of these methods under varied network structure and varied social behaviors, finding substantial bias reductions and, despite a bias–variance tradeoff, error reductions. These improvements are largest for networks with more clustering and data generating processes with both stronger direct effects of the treatment and stronger interactions between units.

Suggested Citation

  • Eckles Dean & Karrer Brian & Ugander Johan, 2017. "Design and Analysis of Experiments in Networks: Reducing Bias from Interference," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-23, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:causin:v:5:y:2017:i:1:p:23:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/jci-2015-0021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jci-2015-0021
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jci-2015-0021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    2. Blume Lawrence E., 1995. "The Statistical Mechanics of Best-Response Strategy Revision," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 111-145, November.
    3. Susan Athey & Dean Eckles & Guido W. Imbens, 2018. "Exact p-Values for Network Interference," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(521), pages 230-240, January.
    4. Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham & Guido W. Imbens, 2013. "Social Networks and the Identification of Peer Effects," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 253-264, July.
    5. Middleton, Joel A., 2008. "Bias of the regression estimator for experiments using clustered random assignment," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(16), pages 2654-2659, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yann Bramoullé & Habiba Djebbari & Bernard Fortin, 2020. "Peer Effects in Networks: A Survey," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 603-629, August.
    2. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2017. "The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 3-32, Spring.
    3. Zhaonan Qu & Ruoxuan Xiong & Jizhou Liu & Guido Imbens, 2021. "Efficient Treatment Effect Estimation in Observational Studies under Heterogeneous Partial Interference," Papers 2107.12420, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    4. Bryan S. Graham, 2019. "Network Data," Papers 1912.06346, arXiv.org.
    5. Davide Viviano, 2020. "Experimental Design under Network Interference," Papers 2003.08421, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    6. Davide Viviano, 2019. "Policy Targeting under Network Interference," Papers 1906.10258, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    7. Michael P. Leung, 2020. "Treatment and Spillover Effects Under Network Interference," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(2), pages 368-380, May.
    8. Arun Advani & Bansi Malde, 2018. "Methods to identify linear network models: a review," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 154(1), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Gonzalo Vazquez-Bare, 2017. "Identification and Estimation of Spillover Effects in Randomized Experiments," Papers 1711.02745, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    10. H Peyton Young, 2014. "The Evolution of Social Norms," Economics Series Working Papers 726, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    11. Mori, Tomoya & Sakaguchi, Shosei, 2018. "Collaborative knowledge creation: Evidence from Japanese patent data," MPRA Paper 88716, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Guido M. Kuersteiner & Ingmar R. Prucha, 2020. "Dynamic Spatial Panel Models: Networks, Common Shocks, and Sequential Exogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(5), pages 2109-2146, September.
    13. Julie Beugnot & Bernard Fortin & Guy Lacroix & Marie Claire Villeval, 2013. "Social Networks and Peer Effects at Work," Cahiers de recherche 1320, CIRPEE.
    14. Beugnot, Julie & Fortin, Bernard & Lacroix, Guy & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Gender and peer effects on performance in social networks," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 207-224.
    15. Yann Algan & Quoc-Anh Do & Nicolò Dalvit & Alexis Le Chapelain & Yves Zenou, 2015. "How Social Networks Shape Our Beliefs: A Natural Experiment among Future French Politicians," Working Papers hal-03459820, HAL.
    16. Gibbons, Steve & Overman, Henry G. & Patacchini, Eleonora, 2015. "Spatial Methods," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 115-168, Elsevier.
    17. Bolletta, Ugo, 2021. "A model of peer effects in school," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-10.
    18. Chih‐Sheng Hsieh & Lung‐Fei Lee & Vincent Boucher, 2020. "Specification and estimation of network formation and network interaction models with the exponential probability distribution," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(4), pages 1349-1390, November.
    19. Alejandra Agustina Martínez, 2023. "Raise your Voice! Activism and Peer Effects in Online Social Networks," Working Papers 277, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    20. Liza Charroin, 2018. "Homophily, peer effects and dishonesty," Post-Print halshs-01993618, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:causin:v:5:y:2017:i:1:p:23:n:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.