Target-Weighted Neyman Allocation: Experimental Design for Heterogeneous Treatment Effects under Population Shift

Randomized experiments are often run in one population to guide decisions in another. Allocating by experimental proportions wastes budget on groups that rarely appear in deployment, whereas allocating by deployment proportions under-samples groups that are hard to measure precisely. We propose \textbf{TWNA} (Target-Weighted Neyman Allocation), a two-stage stratified design that uses pilot estimates of group--arm outcome variances to allocate final-stage sample sizes and treatment probabilities for target-weighted group average treatment effect (GATE) precision. The oracle rule has a closed form and balances deployment importance with statistical difficulty; the plug-in rule recovers it as pilot variance estimates stabilize. We also extend TWNA to handle uncertainty about deployment composition, remaining robust whether the target mix is roughly known or entirely unknown. Finally, we distinguish this weight robustness from a pilot-robust variant for skewed, rare-event, or contaminated outcomes. Simulations and real-covariate benchmarks show the largest gains when groups are both deployment-important and difficult to measure.

Effect-Level Validation for Causal Discovery

Causal discovery is increasingly applied to large-scale telemetry data to estimate the effects of user-facing interventions, yet its reliability for decision-making in feedback-driven systems with strong self-selection remains unclear. In this paper, we propose an effect-centric, admissibility-first framework that treats discovered graphs as structural hypotheses and evaluates them by identifiability, stability, and falsification rather than by graph recovery accuracy alone. Empirically, we study the effect of early exposure to competitive gameplay on short-term retention using real-world game telemetry. We find that many statistically plausible discovery outputs do not admit point-identified causal queries once minimal temporal and semantic constraints are enforced, highlighting identifiability as a critical bottleneck for decision support. When identification is possible, several algorithm families converge to similar, decision-consistent effect estimates despite producing substantially different graph structures, including cases where the direct treatment-outcome edge is absent and the effect is preserved through indirect causal pathways. These converging estimates survive placebo, subsampling, and sensitivity refutation. In contrast, other methods exhibit sporadic admissibility and threshold-sensitive or attenuated effects due to endpoint ambiguity. These results suggest that graph-level metrics alone are inadequate proxies for causal reliability for a given target query. Therefore, trustworthy causal conclusions in telemetry-driven systems require prioritizing admissibility and effect-level validation over causal structural recovery alone.