Testing for arbitrary interference on experimentation platforms
实验平台中任意干扰的检验AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接检验随机实验中的单位间干扰,涉及网络与干扰及实验因果推断两个方向。
实验平台中任意干扰的检验AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Summary Experimentation platforms are essential to large modern technology companies, as they are used to carry out many randomized experiments daily. The classic assumption of no interference among users, under which the outcome for one user does not depend on the treatment assigned to other users, is rarely tenable on such platforms. Here, we introduce an experimental design strategy for testing whether this assumption holds. Our approach is in the spirit of the Durbin–Wu–Hausman test for endogeneity in econometrics, where multiple estimators return the same estimate if and only if the null hypothesis holds. The design that we introduce makes no assumptions on the interference model between units, nor on the network among the units, and has a sharp bound on the variance and an implied analytical bound on the Type I error rate. We discuss how to apply the proposed design strategy to large experimentation platforms, and we illustrate it in the context of an experiment on the LinkedIn platform.