Adaptive sample splitting for randomization tests
随机化检验的自适应样本分割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。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
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:摘要直接讨论实验数据中的处理效应、条件平均处理效应与亚组随机化检验,因此归入因果推断。
随机化检验的自适应样本分割AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Randomization tests are widely used to generate finite-sample valid $p$-values for causal inference on experimental data. However, when applied to subgroup analysis, these tests may lack power due to small subgroup sizes. Incorporating a shared estimator of the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) can substantially improve power across subgroups but requires sample splitting to preserve validity. To this end, we quantify each unit's contribution to estimation and testing using a certainty score, which measures how certain the unit's treatment assignment is given its covariates and outcome. We show that units with higher certainty scores are more valuable for testing but less important for CATE estimation, since their treatment assignments can be accurately imputed. Building on this insight, we propose AdaSplit, a sample splitting procedure that adaptively allocates units between estimation and testing to maximize their overall contribution across tasks. We evaluate AdaSplit through simulation studies, demonstrating that it yields more powerful randomization tests than baselines that omit CATE estimation or rely on random sample splitting. Finally, we apply AdaSplit to a blood pressure intervention trial, identifying patient subgroups with significant treatment effects.