Prediction-Guided Active Experiments
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In this work, we introduce a new framework for active experimentation, the Prediction-Guided Active Experiment (PGAE), which leverages predictions from an existing machine learning model to guide sampling and experimentation. Specifically, at each time step, an experimental unit is sampled according to a designated sampling distribution, and the actual outcome is observed based on an experimental probability. Otherwise, only a prediction for the outcome is available. We begin by analyzing the non-adaptive case, where full information on the joint distribution of the predictor and the actual outcome is assumed. For this scenario, we derive an optimal experimentation strategy by minimizing the semi-parametric efficiency bound for the class of regular estimators. We then introduce an estimator that meets this efficiency bound, achieving asymptotic optimality. Next, we move to the adaptive case, where the predictor is continuously updated with newly sampled data. We show that the adaptive version of the estimator remains efficient and attains the same semi-parametric bound under certain regularity assumptions. Finally, we validate PGAE's performance through simulations and a semi-synthetic experiment using data from the US Census Bureau. The results underscore the PGAE framework's effectiveness and superiority compared to other existing methods.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Nov 2024.
Builds on
12 of 46 references.
References · 12
- 2020A Survey of Deep Active Learningcited by 554
- 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 449
- 2019Variational Adversarial Active Learningcited by 284
- 2022Semiparametric doubly robust targeted double machine learning: a reviewcited by 133
- 2019Confidence Intervals for Policy Evaluation in Adaptive Experimentscited by 95
- 2024Can Large Language Model Agents Simulate Human Trust Behavior?cited by 64
- 2023The Challenge of Using LLMs to Simulate Human Behavior: A Causal Inference Perspectivecited by 59
- 2022Active Learning for Optimal Intervention Design in Causal Modelscited by 31
- 2021Interference, Bias, and Variance in Two-Sided Marketplace Experimentation: Guidance for Platformscited by 22
- 2014Designing and Deploying Online Field Experimentscited by 18
- 2018Stratification Trees for Adaptive Randomization in Randomized Controlled Trialscited by 14
- 2023Adaptive Neyman Allocationcited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 2.
6 papers.
- 2025Large Language Models for Supply Chain Decisionscited by 13
- 2025Doubly-Robust LLM-as-a-Judge: Externally Valid Estimation with Imperfect Personascited by 8
- 2025Robust Sampling for Active Statistical Inferencecited by 6
- 2026PPI-SVRG: Unifying Prediction-Powered Inference and Variance Reduction for Semi-Supervised Optimizationcited by 4
- 2025Do We Really Even Need Data? A Modern Look at Drawing Inference with Predicted Datacited by 3
- 2026The Surrogate Is Not the Reward: Post-Surrogate Primary-Outcome Acquisition in Contextual Banditscited by 1
- 2026The Surrogate Is Not the Reward: Post-Surrogate Primary-Outcome Acquisition in Contextual Bandits5 Oct 2026
- 2026PPI-SVRG: Unifying Prediction-Powered Inference and Variance Reduction for Semi-Supervised Optimization29 Jan 2026
- 2025Do We Really Even Need Data? A Modern Look at Drawing Inference with Predicted Data5 Dec 2025
- 2025Robust Sampling for Active Statistical Inference12 Nov 2025
- 2025Doubly-Robust LLM-as-a-Judge: Externally Valid Estimation with Imperfect Personas26 Sep 2025
- 2025Large Language Models for Supply Chain Decisions29 Jul 2025