arXiv subjects

Gabriel Levin-Konigsberg

Publications and source records attributed to Gabriel Levin-Konigsberg.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Towards Optimal Estimators for Randomized Control Trials

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are fundamental tools for causal inference across technology companies, pharmaceutical research, and federal agencies. While the standard difference-in-means estimator provides unbiased treatment effect estimates, it often lacks precision, particularly when treatment effects are heterogeneous or outcomes exhibit heavy-tailed distributions. Although numerous precision-enhancing methods exist---from covariate adjustment techniques to variance reduction strategies---recent research demonstrates that no single estimator performs optimally across all datasets. Rather than seeking the best estimator for individual RCTs, which risks compromising scientific validity through convenient selection, we propose a principled framework for identifying optimal estimators within families of RCTs based on specific analytical goals. Our approach uses sample splitting to estimate the distribution of evaluation metrics (e.g., mean squared error, regret) across RCT families, enabling systematic comparisons between estimators while maintaining asymptotic guarantees. We demonstrate this framework using a sample of Amazon's Supply Chain Optimization Technology trials and the Strengthening Democracy Challenge dataset (25 interventions). Results reveal that optimal estimators vary significantly by analytical objective: weighted least squares performs best for inference goals, while difference-in-means minimizes regret for decision-making contexts. This work provides actionable guidance for estimator selection while preserving methodological rigor across diverse research applications.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2026

Mind the Sim-to-Real Gap & Think Like a Scientist

Suppose a planner has a pre-trained simulator of a sequential decision problem and the option to run real experiments in the field. The simulator is cheap to query but inherits confounding and drift from its calibration data. Experimentation is unbiased but consumes one real unit per trial. We study when, and how, the planner should supplement the simulator with experiments. We give three results. First, an extended simulation lemma decomposes the simulator's value error into a calibration--deployment shift that randomization can identify and a parametric residual that no further interaction can reduce. Second, the value gap between the simulator-optimal policy and the optimum splits into a local component, on states the deployed policy already visits, and a reachability component, on states it does not. The reachability component stays bounded away from zero at any horizon under purely passive learning. Third, we propose Fisher-SEP, a simulation-aided experimental policy (SEP) that minimizes the posterior predictive variance of a target policy's value, with reward-only and transition-only specializations. Two case studies illustrate the regimes. In a vending-machine supply chain, front-loaded experimentation overtakes posterior updating once the horizon is long enough to amortize the pilot. In an HIV mobile-testing example with a corridor that separates a well-surveilled region from a poorly-surveilled one, only designed exploration reaches the poorly-surveilled region.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

TEA-Time: Transporting Effects Across Time

Treatment effects estimated from a randomized controlled trial are local not only to the study population but also to the time at which the trial was conducted. The literature on generalizing experimental findings to new populations is extensive, yet transporting effects across time has received far less attention, and even defining the target estimand is nonobvious. We formalize the transported average treatment effect under a separable temporal effects assumption, derive two identification strategies: replicated trials and common arm, and develop doubly robust, semiparametrically efficient estimators for each. Applied to a large archive of headline A/B tests, the common arm strategy is substantially more precise but exhibits systematic bias when the temporal factor depends on the gap between intervention and measurement rather than on measurement time alone, while the replicated trials strategy, which allows this dependence, tracks the ground truth more faithfully. Simulation studies investigate when each strategy is reliable and when it silently fails.

stat.ME↗