Graph cluster randomization: network exposure to multiple universes

A/B testing is a standard approach for evaluating the effect of online experiments; the goal is to estimate the `average treatment effect' of a new feature or condition by exposing a sample of the overall population to it. A drawback with A/B testing is that it is poorly suited for experiments involving social interference, when the treatment of individuals spills over to neighboring individuals along an underlying social network. In this work, we propose a novel methodology using graph clustering to analyze average treatment effects under social interference. To begin, we characterize graph-theoretic conditions under which individuals can be considered to be `network exposed' to an experiment. We then show how graph cluster randomization admits an efficient exact algorithm to compute the probabilities for each vertex being network exposed under several of these exposure conditions. Using these probabilities as inverse weights, a Horvitz-Thompson estimator can then provide an effect estimate that is unbiased, provided that the exposure model has been properly specified. Given an estimator that is unbiased, we focus on minimizing the variance. First, we develop simple sufficient conditions for the variance of the estimator to be asymptotically small in n, the size of the graph. However, for general randomization schemes, this variance can be lower bounded by an exponential function of the degrees of a graph. In contrast, we show that if a graph satisfies a restricted-growth condition on the growth rate of neighborhoods, then there exists a natural clustering algorithm, based on vertex neighborhoods, for which the variance of the estimator can be upper bounded by a linear function of the degrees. Thus we show that proper cluster randomization can lead to exponentially lower estimator variance when experimentally measuring average treatment effects under interference.

[1]  Aonghus Lawlor,et al.  Critical phenomena in heterogeneous k-core percolation. , 2013, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  Random graphs , 2006, SODA '06.

[3]  Charles F. Manski,et al.  Identification of Treatment Response with Social Interactions , 2013 .

[4]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Community detection in graphs , 2009, ArXiv.

[5]  D. Rubin Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. , 1974 .

[6]  Lars Backstrom,et al.  Balanced label propagation for partitioning massive graphs , 2013, WSDM.

[7]  D. Horvitz,et al.  A Generalization of Sampling Without Replacement from a Finite Universe , 1952 .

[8]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[9]  Stephen E. Fienberg,et al.  A Brief History of Statistical Models for Network Analysis and Open Challenges , 2012 .

[10]  Peter M. Aronow,et al.  Estimating Average Causal Effects Under General Interference , 2012 .

[11]  Robert Krauthgamer,et al.  Bounded geometries, fractals, and low-distortion embeddings , 2003, 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings..

[12]  Edo Liberty,et al.  Framework and algorithms for network bucket testing , 2012, WWW.

[13]  Ron Kohavi,et al.  Trustworthy online controlled experiments: five puzzling outcomes explained , 2012, KDD.

[14]  David R. Karger,et al.  Finding nearest neighbors in growth-restricted metrics , 2002, STOC '02.

[15]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Network bucket testing , 2011, WWW.

[16]  Tyler J VanderWeele,et al.  On causal inference in the presence of interference , 2012, Statistical methods in medical research.