Covariate Adjustment in Randomized Experiments: A Unified Framework for Decision and Practice

Jiawei Fu; Donald P. Green

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.09039

Covariate Adjustment in Randomized Experiments: A Unified Framework for Decision and Practice

Jiawei Fu·Donald P. Green

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Should researchers adjust for covariates in randomized experiments, and if so, how? The literature offers three distinct prescriptions: do not adjust because randomization guarantees unbiasedness; adjust for outcome-prognostic covariates to improve precision; or adjust for covariates imbalanced between treatment arms. These competing prescriptions create confusion and uncertainty. We develop a unified framework for decision and practice. Given available information, we show that the optimal correction is what we call ex-post bias. The only relevant criterion for adjustment is prognosticity for ex-post bias; neither raw covariate imbalance nor outcome prognosticity is sufficient by itself. We also show that correcting imbalance and improving precision are two sides of the same decision problem. We develop two estimation approaches, one of which recovers familiar adjustment estimators and provides a new theoretical justification for them. Simulations compare alternative covariate-selection and adjustment strategies. Overall, our framework provides a unified foundation for covariate adjustment in randomized experiments.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME econ.EM stat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Jiawei Fu, Donald P. Green. 2026-09-08. Covariate Adjustment in Randomized Experiments: A Unified Framework for Decision and Practice. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09039

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Considerations for the Integration of Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Data

As clinical decision-making increasingly moves toward individualized and context-specific treatment recommendations, reliance on any single evidence source, randomized or observational, may be insufficient. Principled integration of randomized controlled trials and real-world data, grounded in explicit causal frameworks, offers a path toward evidence that is both internally credible and externally relevant. In this article, we describe distinct objectives for the integration of randomized controlled trials and real-world data and discuss how these objectives shape key design and analytic considerations, illustrating the resulting choices through example estimands. We highlight practical issues that commonly arise in applied settings, including data relevance and curation, cross-source comparability, estimand specification, and sensitivity analysis. We aim for this article to help readers evaluate and implement principled approaches to integrating randomized controlled trials and real-world data in ways that can support more reliable treatment recommendations while maintaining regulatory-grade evidentiary standards.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Validity of MMRM-based hypothesis testing under missing-not-at-random mechanisms

In randomized clinical trials with longitudinal continuous outcomes, missing-not-at-random (MNAR) missingness often motivates conservative alternatives to mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM). Such caution is important for estimation, but estimation and testing need not require identical assumptions. Moreover, overly conservative primary analyses may reduce power, increase required sample size, and raise trial costs. We investigated the validity of MMRM-based testing under the global null of identical longitudinal outcome distributions across groups. Because valid testing minimally requires treatment-effect estimators to converge to the null under the null hypothesis, we investigated sufficient conditions for this property. We introduced a proportional observation condition requiring ratios of observation probabilities relative to a reference group, conditional on the full outcome vector, to be outcome-independent, and showed that, with arbitrary post-baseline visits and monotone missingness, this condition is sufficient for convergence to the null value. The condition allows observation to depend on unobserved outcomes and permits between-group differences in overall observation probabilities through outcome-independent dropout, making it clinically interpretable while accommodating outcome-dependent MNAR missingness. Synthetic and data-based bootstrap simulations showed negligible bias and empirical test sizes near 0.05, including nonmonotone missingness. Thus, MNAR missingness does not by itself imply that a more conservative primary testing procedure is required. This result does not justify treatment-effect estimation under alternatives, which still requires estimand-based interpretation and sensitivity analyses.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Optimized variance estimation under interference and complex experimental designs

Unbiased and consistent variance estimators generally do not exist for design-based treatment effect estimators because experimenters never observe more than one potential outcome for any unit. The problem is exacerbated by interference and complex experimental designs. Experimenters must accept conservative variance estimators in these settings, but they can strive to minimize the conservativeness. In this paper, we show that the task of constructing a minimally conservative variance estimator can be interpreted as an optimization problem that aims to find the lowest estimable upper bound of the true variance given the experimenter's risk preferences and knowledge of the potential outcomes. We characterize the set of admissible bounds in the class of quadratic forms, and we demonstrate that the optimization problem is a convex program for many natural objectives. The resulting variance estimators are guaranteed to be conservative regardless of whether the background knowledge used to construct the bound is correct, but the estimators are less conservative if the provided information is reasonably accurate. Numerical results show that the resulting variance estimators can be considerably less conservative than existing estimators, allowing experimenters to draw more informative inferences about treatment effects.

stat.ME↗