In classical canonical correlation analysis (CCA), the goal is to determine the linear transformations of two random vectors into two new random variables that are most strongly correlated. Canonical variables are pairs of these new random variables, while canonical correlations are correlations between these pairs. In this paper, we propose and study two generalizations of this classical method: (1) Instead of two random vectors we study more complex data structures that appear in important applications. In these structures, there are $L$ features, each described by $p_l$ scalars, $1 \le l \le L$. We observe $n$ such objects over $T$ time points. We derive a suitable analog of the CCA for such data. Our approach relies on embeddings into Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces, and covers several related data structures as well. (2) We develop an analogous approach for multidimensional random processes. In this case, the experimental units are multivariate continuous, square-integrable functions over a given interval. These functions are modeled as elements of a Hilbert space, so in this case, we define the multiple functional canonical correlation analysis, MFCCA. We justify our approaches by their application to two data sets and suitable large sample theory. We derive consistency rates for the related transformation and correlation estimators, and show that it is possible to relax two common assumptions on the compactness of the underlying cross-covariance operators and the independence of the data.

When an experimenter has the option of running an adaptive trial, is it admissible to ignore this option and run a non-adaptive trial instead? We provide a negative answer to this question in the best-arm identification problem, where the experimenter aims to allocate measurement efforts judiciously to confidently deploy the most effective treatment arm. We find that, whenever there are at least three treatment arms, there exist simple adaptive designs that universally and strictly dominate non-adaptive completely randomized trials. This dominance is characterized by a notion called efficiency exponent, which quantifies a design's statistical efficiency when the experimental sample is large. Our analysis focuses on the class of batched arm elimination designs, which progressively eliminate underperforming arms at pre-specified batch intervals. We characterize simple sufficient conditions under which these designs universally and strictly dominate completely randomized trials. These results resolve the second open problem posed in Qin [2022].

Typically (in the Rubin potential outcomes model, which is what you are building on), the causal effect is defined at the individual level, with a "treatment" outcome and "control" outcome for each experimental unit. The fundamental problem of causal inference is that only one of these two outcomes is actually observed for each experimental unit. You seem to be focusing on a slightly different issue, which is that the effect of treating the entire population cannot be determined correctly from just data when half the population is treated. It seems to me that this issue -- which can arise due to a variety of violations of the SUTVA assumption -- can exist independent of whether there is a multiagent interaction. Conversely, it seems multiagent considerations are relevant even when defining causal effects at the sub-population level.

This study designs an adaptive experiment for efficiently estimating average treatment effect (ATEs). We consider an adaptive experiment where an experimenter sequentially samples an experimental unit from a covariate density decided by the experimenter and assigns a treatment. After assigning a treatment, the experimenter observes the corresponding outcome immediately. At the end of the experiment, the experimenter estimates an ATE using gathered samples. The objective of the experimenter is to estimate the ATE with a smaller asymptotic variance. Existing studies have designed experiments that adaptively optimize the propensity score (treatment-assignment probability). As a generalization of such an approach, we propose a framework under which an experimenter optimizes the covariate density, as well as the propensity score, and find that optimizing both covariate density and propensity score reduces the asymptotic variance more than optimizing only the propensity score. Based on this idea, in each round of our experiment, the experimenter optimizes the covariate density and propensity score based on past observations. To design an adaptive experiment, we first derive the efficient covariate density and propensity score that minimizes the semiparametric efficiency bound, a lower bound for the asymptotic variance given a fixed covariate density and a fixed propensity score. Next, we design an adaptive experiment using the efficient covariate density and propensity score sequentially estimated during the experiment. Lastly, we propose an ATE estimator whose asymptotic variance aligns with the minimized semiparametric efficiency bound.