Demistifying Inference after Adaptive Experiments

Aur\'elien Bibaut and Nathan Kallus

Abstract: Adaptive experiments such as multi-arm bandits adapt the treatment-allocation policy and/or the decision to stop the experiment to the data observed so far. This has the potential to improve outcomes for study participants within the experiment, to improve the chance of identifying best treatments after the experiment, and to avoid wasting data. Seen as an experiment (rather than just a continually optimizing system) it is still desirable to draw statistical inferences with frequentist guarantees. The concentration inequalities and union bounds that generally underlie adaptive experimentation algorithms can yield overly conservative inferences, but at the same time the asymptotic normality we would usually appeal to in non-adaptive settings can be imperiled by adaptivity. In this article we aim to explain why, how, and when adaptivity is in fact an issue for inference and, when it is, understand the various ways to fix it: reweighting to stabilize variances and recover asymptotic normality, always-valid inference based on joint normality of an asymptotic limiting sequence, and characterizing and inverting the non-normal distributions induced by adaptivity.

Date: 2024-05
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ecm and nep-exp
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.01281 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:2405.01281

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().