Search

In the interest of business innovation, social network companies often carry out experiments to test product changes and new ideas. In such experiments, users are typically assigned to one of two experimental conditions with some outcome of interest observed and compared. In this setting, the outcome of one user may be influenced by not only the condition to which they are assigned but also the conditions of other users via their network connections. This challenges classical experimental design and analysis methodologies and requires specialized methods. We introduce the general additive network effect (GANE) model, which encompasses many existing outcome models in the literature under a unified model-based framework. The model is both interpretable and flexible in modeling the treatment effect as well as the network influence. We show that (quasi) maximum likelihood estimators are consistent and asymptotically normal for a family of model specifications. Quantities of interest such as the global treatment effect are defined and expressed as functions of the GANE model parameters, and hence inference can be carried out using likelihood theory. We further propose the “power-degree” (POW-DEG) specification of the GANE model. The performance of POW-DEG and other specifications of the GANE model are investigated via simulations. Under model misspecification, the POW-DEG specification appears to work well. Finally, we study the characteristics of good experimental designs for the POW-DEG specification. We find that graph-cluster randomization and balanced designs are not necessarily optimal for precise estimation of the global treatment effect, indicating the need for alternative design strategies.

After more than a decade since the introduction of Statistical Engineering by Roger Hoerl and Ronald Snee, a group of leading applied statisticians from academia, industry, and government were invited to discuss their perspectives on progress made, the current status of this important movement, and what future Statistical Engineering holds on the path forward in a series of two panel discussion papers. In this first article, the invited panelists focus their discussion on the past and present of Statistical Engineering. They discuss notable advances and current obstacles to progress. They also consider the unique value added by Statistical Engineering, and the possible addition of decision making to the body of knowledge. The format of the article consists of the posed questions from the moderators, a summary of key ideas from all the panelists, and then the individual detailed answers. The goal of this series of articles is to inspire statisticians to consider their possible role to advance the adoption of Statistical Engineering to solve important problems.

This study uses coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case counts and Google mobility data for 12 of Ontario's largest Public Health Units from Spring 2020 until the end of January 2021 to evaluate the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs; policy restrictions on business operations and social gatherings) and population mobility on daily cases. Instrumental variables (IV) estimation is used to account for potential simultaneity bias, because both daily COVID-19 cases and NPIs are dependent on lagged case numbers. IV estimates based on differences in lag lengths to infer causal estimates imply that the implementation of stricter NPIs and indoor mask mandates are associated with reductions in COVID-19 cases. Moreover, estimates based on Google mobility data suggest that increases in workplace attendance are correlated with higher case counts. Finally, from October 2020 to January 2021, daily Ontario forecasts from Box-Jenkins time-series models are more accurate than official forecasts and forecasts from a susceptible-infected-removed epidemiology model.Cette étude cherche à évaluer les effets des interventions non pharmaceutiques (INPs; restrictions sur les activités commerciales et rassemblements sociaux) et de la mobilité de la population sur le nombre de cas d’infection par jour, en utilisant les nombres de cas d’infection par la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) et les données de mobilité de Google pour 12 des plus grands Bureaux de Santé publique de l’Ontario entre le printemps 2020 et la fin janvier 2021. La méthode des variables instrumentales (VI) permet de rendre compte d’un biais potentiel de simultanéité puisque les taux quotidiens de COVID-19 et les INPs dépendent, tous les deux, du nombre de cas décalés. Les estimations par les VI basées sur les différences de durée des décalages d’ajustement pour inférer des estimations causales impliquent que de plus strictes INPs et le port obligatoire du masque dans les endroits fermés sont associés à une réduction de cas d’infection. Par ailleurs, Les estimations basées sur les données de mobilité de Google montrent que la présence accrue sur le lieu du travail est corrélée avec un plus grand nombre de cas d’infection. Finalement, d’octobre 2020 à Janvier 2021, les prévisions faites à partir de modèles de Box-Jenkins en série chronologique s’avèrent plus précises que les prévisions officielles et que celles utilisant le modèle épidémiologique susceptible – infecté – retiré.