CausalSmith · seminar slides

Random Groups and Finite-Population Variance

For fixed-size random group-formation experiments, we characterize the exact design variance and show when the equal-group CR2 cluster-robust variance statistic tracks the right scale.

Overview

  • We study experiments where units are first formed into disjoint groups of a common size, then groups are assigned to treatment or control.
  • The estimand is a finite-population average over all possible groups of that size.
  • The realized groups are dependent because they are drawn without replacement from the same population.
  • We express that dependence exactly using Kneser disjointness geometry.
  • The equal-group CR2 statistic estimates the independent-group variance scale.
  • The exact variance also contains a finite-population correction when grouped units occupy a positive population fraction.

Motivation

  • Think of a peer-effect experiment that forms study groups of size MM, the common group size.
  • A unit’s outcome can depend on both treatment and the peers in its realized group.
  • If many units are grouped, seeing one group removes its members from the pool available to other groups.
  • That removal creates dependence across realized group outcomes.
  • Standard cluster-robust logic treats groups as the sampling units.
  • The design question is what that logic estimates after the groups themselves are randomly formed.

Research Question

  • We want the exact design variance of the group-level treated-control difference in means.
  • The target is the partition-average marginal effect τn\tau_n, the finite-population average contrast over all possible groups of size MM.
  • The estimator τ^n\widehat\tau_n compares treated and control realized group means.
  • The variance target averages over both random group formation and balanced group treatment assignment.
  • What correction is created by drawing disjoint groups from a finite population?

Setup

  • The finite population has size nn.
  • The design draws GnG_n, the number of realized groups, as pairwise-disjoint groups of common size MM.
  • The grouped-unit count is Nn=MGnN_n=MG_n.
  • The treated-group fraction is pn=G1n/Gnp_n=G_{1n}/G_n.
  • The grouped-unit sampling fraction is Nn/nN_n/n, with limit ρ\rho.
  • In the study-group example, ρ\rho is the share of students placed into groups.
Finite pop size n Random grouping disjoint groups common size M Realized groups Gₙ groups Nₙ=M Gₙ Sampling fraction Nₙ/n → ρ study-group share Assignment balanced groups pₙ=G₁ₙ/Gₙ Outcomes observed group outcomes
illustrative Box-and-arrow schematic showing a finite population, a random disjoint grouping step into equal-size groups, a balanced group treatment assignment step, and observed group outcomes.

Assumptions

  • The number of realized groups grows.
  • The treated-group fraction converges to an interior limit.
  • The grouped-unit sampling fraction converges to ρ[0,1]\rho\in[0,1], the limiting grouped-unit fraction.
  • Potential outcomes are uniformly bounded.
  • For ratio statements and lower bounds, the scaled exact variance stays away from zero.
Assumption A-1 (Group-count growth)

The number of realized groups diverges: Gn. G_n \to \infty .

Assumption A-2 (Stable treatment fraction)

The treated-group fraction pnp_n converges to an interior limit: pnp(0,1). p_n \to p \in (0,1).

Assumption A-3 (Sampling fraction limit)

The grouped-unit fraction Nn/nN_n/n converges: Nnnρ[0,1]. \frac{N_n}{n} \to \rho \in [0,1].

Assumption A-4 (Bounded potential outcomes)

There is a finite uniform outcome envelope BB such that supn,i,z,AYi,n(z,A)B<. \sup_{n,i,z,A}\left|Y_{i,n}(z,A)\right| \le B < \infty .

Estimand and Statistic

  • For each treatment arm, hz,n(A)h_{z,n}(A) is the group mean potential outcome for candidate group AA.
  • The partition-average marginal effect averages h1,n(A)h0,n(A)h_{1,n}(A)-h_{0,n}(A) over the uniform slice of possible groups.
  • The estimator is the treated-minus-control difference in realized group means.
  • The scalar equal-group CR2 statistic is the sum of within-arm group-mean sample variances divided by arm group counts.
Definition P-3 (PAME and estimator \(\tau_n,\widehat\tau_n\))

Define the finite-population partition-average marginal effect by τn=En ⁣[h1,nh0,n]. \tau_n=\mathbb E_n\!\left[h_{1,n}-h_{0,n}\right]. The difference-in-means estimator across treated and control groups is τ^n=1G1ngZngh1,n(Ang)1G0ng(1Zng)h0,n(Ang). \widehat\tau_n = \frac{1}{G_{1n}}\sum_g Z_{ng}h_{1,n}(A_{ng}) - \frac{1}{G_{0n}}\sum_g (1-Z_{ng})h_{0,n}(A_{ng}).

Definition P-7 (CR2 statistic \(\widehat V_{\mathrm{CR2},n}\))

For each arm zz, let sz,n2s_{z,n}^2 be the within-arm sample variance of the observed group means, computed with denominator Gzn1G_{zn}-1. Define the scalar equal-group CR2 variance statistic by V^CR2,n=s1,n2G1n+s0,n2G0n. \widehat V_{\mathrm{CR2},n} = \frac{s_{1,n}^2}{G_{1n}} + \frac{s_{0,n}^2}{G_{0n}}.

Key Idea

  • Random disjoint groups are sampled without replacement from the uniform slice.
  • The Kneser operator averages a group table over groups disjoint from a given group.
  • Johnson degrees decompose a group table into orthogonal finite-population components.
  • Disjointness acts diagonally on those components.
  • Degree one captures the part of the arm contrast tied to individual units’ marginal participation in groups.

Exact Geometry

informal · Theorem T-1 Disjoint-group covariance decomposes exactly by Johnson degree, with each degree weighted by its Kneser eigenvalue.

Theorem T-1 (Exact Kneser covariance identity)

Let M,nNM,n\in\mathbb N satisfy 2M2\le M and 2Mn2M\le n. Let Yi,n(z,A)Y_{i,n}(z,A) be a deterministic potential-outcome schedule for units iAi\in A, arms zZz\in\mathcal Z, and groups AΩn,MA\in\Omega_{n,M}, with group-level arm tables hz,nh_{z,n} as in Definition P-2. Suppose the following conditions hold.

  • (Johnson projections.) For each k=0,,Mk=0,\ldots,M, Πn,k\Pi_{n,k} is a linear projection on functions f:Ωn,MRf:\Omega_{n,M}\to\mathbb R whose range is the degree-kk Johnson harmonic subspace Hn,k\mathcal H_{n,k}, which fixes every element of Hn,k\mathcal H_{n,k}, and whose residual fΠn,kff-\Pi_{n,k}f is orthogonal to Hn,k\mathcal H_{n,k} under the uniform-slice inner product u,vn=En[u(A)v(A)]\langle u,v\rangle_n=\mathbb E_n[u(A)v(A)].
  • (Centered orthogonal decomposition.) For every f:Ωn,MRf:\Omega_{n,M}\to\mathbb R and AΩn,MA\in\Omega_{n,M}, k=1MΠn,kf(A)=f(A)Enf(A), \sum_{k=1}^{M}\Pi_{n,k}f(A)=f(A)-\mathbb E_n f(A), and the projected components are mutually orthogonal: if kk\ne \ell, then Πn,kf,Πn,gn=0 \langle \Pi_{n,k}f,\Pi_{n,\ell}g\rangle_n=0 for all f,g:Ωn,MRf,g:\Omega_{n,M}\to\mathbb R.
  • (Kneser spectrum.) For every k=0,,Mk=0,\ldots,M and every fHn,kf\in\mathcal H_{n,k}, the unnormalized Kneser adjacency operator has eigenvalue (1)k(nMkMk). (-1)^k {n-M-k\choose M-k}.

Then the normalized Kneser disjointness operator Kn\mathsf K_n acts on each projected component by Kn(Πn,kf)(A)=λn,kΠn,kf(A),λn,k=(1)k(M)k(nM)k, \mathsf K_n(\Pi_{n,k}f)(A)=\lambda_{n,k}\,\Pi_{n,k}f(A), \qquad \lambda_{n,k}=(-1)^k\frac{(M)_k}{(n-M)_k}, for every k=0,,Mk=0,\ldots,M, every f:Ωn,MRf:\Omega_{n,M}\to\mathbb R, and every AΩn,MA\in\Omega_{n,M}. Moreover, if f,g:Ωn,MRf,g:\Omega_{n,M}\to\mathbb R are centered under the uniform MM-slice, then for a uniform ordered disjoint pair (A,C)(A,C), Cov{f(A),g(C)}=k=1Mλn,kΠn,kf,Πn,kgn. \operatorname{Cov}\{f(A),g(C)\} = \sum_{k=1}^{M}\lambda_{n,k} \langle \Pi_{n,k}f,\Pi_{n,k}g\rangle_n . Finally, the ordered-disjoint covariance of the arm-difference table satisfies Cττ,n=k=1Mλn,kΠn,k(h1,nh0,n)n2. C_{\tau\tau,n} = \sum_{k=1}^{M}\lambda_{n,k} \bigl\|\Pi_{n,k}(h_{1,n}-h_{0,n})\bigr\|_n^2 .

Exact Variance

informal · Theorem T-2 The group-level difference in means is unbiased, and its exact design variance differs from expected equal-group CR2 by the Kneser covariance of the arm-difference table.

Theorem T-2 (Exact PAME variance)

Let n,M,Gn,G1nn,M,G_n,G_{1n} be natural numbers and let G0n=GnG1nG_{0n}=G_n-G_{1n}. Suppose that:

  • (Feasible partition.) The two-stage random partition design in Definition P-1 is feasible: MGnnM G_n\le n.
  • (Group sizes.) 2M2\le M, 2G1n2\le G_{1n}, and 2G0n2\le G_{0n}.
  • (Potential outcomes.) Yi,n(z,A)Y_{i,n}(z,A) is a deterministic potential-outcome schedule, defined for every AΩn,MA\in\Omega_{n,M}, every iAi\in A, and every zZz\in\mathcal Z.

Set Vz,n=VarAUnif(Ωn,M){hz,n(A)},Cab,n=EAECCA=[ha,n(A)hb,n(C)], V_{z,n} = \operatorname{Var}_{A\sim\mathrm{Unif}(\Omega_{n,M})}\{h_{z,n}(A)\}, \qquad C_{ab,n} = \mathbb E_{A}\mathbb E_{C\mid C\cap A=\varnothing} \bigl[h_{a,n}^{\circ}(A)h_{b,n}^{\circ}(C)\bigr], and Cττ,n=C11,n+C00,n2C10,n,Rn=V1,nG1n/Gn+V0,n1G1n/Gn. C_{\tau\tau,n}=C_{11,n}+C_{00,n}-2C_{10,n}, \qquad R_n=\frac{V_{1,n}}{G_{1n}/G_n}+\frac{V_{0,n}}{1-G_{1n}/G_n}. For the difference-in-means estimator τ^n\widehat\tau_n, the finite-population PAME τn\tau_n, the exact design variance σn2=Var(τ^n)\sigma_n^2=\operatorname{Var}(\widehat\tau_n), and the scalar equal-group CR2 statistic V^CR2,n\widehat V_{\mathrm{CR2},n} in Definition P-7, E[τ^n]=τn, \mathbb E[\widehat\tau_n]=\tau_n, σn2=RnGn+Cττ,nC11,nG1nC00,nG0n, \sigma_n^2 = \frac{R_n}{G_n} + C_{\tau\tau,n} - \frac{C_{11,n}}{G_{1n}} - \frac{C_{00,n}}{G_{0n}}, E[V^CR2,n]=V1,nC11,nG1n+V0,nC00,nG0n, \mathbb E[\widehat V_{\mathrm{CR2},n}] = \frac{V_{1,n}-C_{11,n}}{G_{1n}} + \frac{V_{0,n}-C_{00,n}}{G_{0n}}, and E[V^CR2,n]σn2=Cττ,n. \mathbb E[\widehat V_{\mathrm{CR2},n}]-\sigma_n^2=-C_{\tau\tau,n}.

Dense Asymptotics

  • In dense arrays, GnG_n grows while Nn/nN_n/n converges to a possibly positive ρ\rho.
  • The independent-group scale is RnR_n.
  • The dense correction is governed by Eτ,1,nE_{\tau,1,n}, the degree-one Johnson energy of the arm-difference table.
  • Higher Johnson degrees have a smaller pooled contribution under fixed MM and bounded outcomes.

informal · Theorem T-3 Under the stated dense-array conditions, Gnσn2G_n\sigma_n^2 is RnρEτ,1,nR_n-\rho E_{\tau,1,n} up to a term that vanishes.

Theorem T-3 (Dense projection limit)

Fix a common group size M2M\ge 2 and real numbers pp, ρ\rho, and BB. There is a constant C>0C>0 such that, for every feasible triangular schedule array with common group size MM and every rowwise choice of Johnson projections Πn,k\Pi_{n,k} on L2(Ωn,M)L^2(\Omega_{n,M}), the following conditions imply the displayed limits below:

  • (Group growth.) The array satisfies Assumption A-1.
  • (Treatment fractions.) The array satisfies Assumption A-2 with limiting treated-group fraction pp.
  • (Sampling fractions.) The array satisfies Assumption A-3 with limiting grouped-unit fraction ρ\rho.
  • (Bounded outcomes.) The array satisfies Assumption A-4 with uniform outcome envelope BB.
  • (Johnson decomposition.) In every row with 2Mn2M\le n, the projections give the centered orthogonal Johnson decomposition k=1MΠn,kf(A)=f(A)Enf \sum_{k=1}^{M}\Pi_{n,k}f(A)=f(A)-\mathbb E_n f for every ff and every AΩn,MA\in\Omega_{n,M}, and distinct Johnson degrees are orthogonal under ,n\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_n.
  • (Kneser spectrum.) In every row with 2Mn2M\le n, every fHn,kf\in\mathcal H_{n,k} is an eigenfunction of the unnormalized Kneser adjacency operator with eigenvalue (1)k(nMkMk). (-1)^k {\,n-M-k\choose M-k\,}.

Then Gnσn2(RnρEτ,1,n)0, G_n\sigma_n^2-\bigl(R_n-\rho E_{\tau,1,n}\bigr)\to 0, GnCττ,n+ρEτ,1,n0, G_nC_{\tau\tau,n}+\rho E_{\tau,1,n}\to 0, and C11,npn+C00,n1pn0. \frac{C_{11,n}}{p_n}+\frac{C_{00,n}}{1-p_n}\to 0. Moreover, for every row nn, the pooled contribution of Johnson degrees k2k\ge 2, Gnk=2Mλn,kΠn,k(h1,nh0,n)n2, G_n\sum_{k=2}^{M}\lambda_{n,k} \left\|\Pi_{n,k}\bigl(h_{1,n}-h_{0,n}\bigr)\right\|_{n}^{2}, has absolute value at most C/nC/n.

CR2 Frontier

  • Equal-group CR2 estimates Rn/GnR_n/G_n, the independent-group variance scale.
  • The exact variance subtracts the dense correction.
  • Thus the one-sided conservativeness statement is a direct consequence of the projection expansion.
  • Ratio consistency is characterized by the correction’s size relative to the corrected variance scale.

informal · Theorem T-4 Under the dense bounded schedule class, CR2 is asymptotically conservative in the stated one-sided probability sense and is ratio-consistent exactly when the dense correction is negligible.

Theorem T-4 (CR2 phase frontier)

Let M2M\ge 2, and let AA be a triangular array of feasible random-group experiment rows with population sizes nn, group counts Gn>0G_n>0, treated-group counts 0<G1n<Gn0<G_{1n}<G_n, grouped-unit counts Nn=MGnnN_n=MG_n\le n, and deterministic potential-outcome schedules. Fix constants p,ρ,B,cσRp,\rho,B,c_\sigma\in\mathbb R. Suppose that:

  • (Dense array.) The array AA belongs to the dense bounded schedule class Cdense\mathcal C_{\mathrm{dense}} in Definition P-8, with parameters p,ρ,B,cσp,\rho,B,c_\sigma.
  • (Johnson projections.) For every row nn, the spaces L2(Ωn,M)L^2(\Omega_{n,M}) are equipped with linear projections Πn,k\Pi_{n,k}, 0kM0\le k\le M, whose ranges are the degree-kk Johnson harmonic subspaces Hn,k\mathcal H_{n,k}, which fix functions in their ranges and have residuals orthogonal to Hn,k\mathcal H_{n,k} under ,n\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_n.
  • (Orthogonal decomposition.) For every row with 2Mn2M\le n, every fL2(Ωn,M)f\in L^2(\Omega_{n,M}), and every AΩn,MA\in\Omega_{n,M}, k=1MΠn,kf(A)=f(A)Enf, \sum_{k=1}^{M}\Pi_{n,k}f(A)=f(A)-\mathbb E_n f, and distinct Johnson components are orthogonal: Πn,kf,Πn,gn=0whenever k. \langle \Pi_{n,k}f,\Pi_{n,\ell}g\rangle_n=0 \qquad\text{whenever } k\ne \ell .
  • (Kneser spectrum.) For every row with 2Mn2M\le n, every 0kM0\le k\le M, and every fHn,kf\in\mathcal H_{n,k}, the unnormalized Kneser adjacency operator satisfies CA=f(C)=(1)k(nMkMk)f(A). \sum_{C\cap A=\varnothing} f(C) = (-1)^k {\,n-M-k\choose M-k\,} f(A).

Then, as nn\to\infty, GnV^CR2,nRnp0 G_n\widehat V_{\mathrm{CR2},n}-R_n \xrightarrow{p}0 and Gn(V^CR2,nσn2)ρEτ,1,np0. G_n\bigl(\widehat V_{\mathrm{CR2},n}-\sigma_n^2\bigr) -\rho E_{\tau,1,n} \xrightarrow{p}0 . Moreover, for every ε>0\varepsilon>0, Pr ⁣{V^CR2,n/σn2<1ε}0, \Pr\!\left\{ \widehat V_{\mathrm{CR2},n}/\sigma_n^2<1-\varepsilon \right\}\longrightarrow 0 , and the ratio V^CR2,n/σn2\widehat V_{\mathrm{CR2},n}/\sigma_n^2 converges in probability to 11 if and only if ρEτ,1,nRnρEτ,1,n0. \frac{\rho E_{\tau,1,n}}{R_n-\rho E_{\tau,1,n}}\longrightarrow 0 .

Sparse Regime

  • When ρ=0\rho=0, the first-order finite-population correction vanishes at the variance-ratio scale.
  • This covers regimes where the grouped population share goes to zero.
  • The named benchmark is Nn=Mn3/4/MN_n=M\lfloor n^{3/4}/M\rfloor, for which Nn/n0N_n/n\to0 while Nn2/nN_n^2/n\to\infty.
  • The study-group interpretation is that the grouped share becomes small, even if the number of realized groups grows quickly.

informal · Theorem T-5 For fixed MM, zero limiting grouped-unit fraction gives CR2 ratio consistency, including the stated birthday-count benchmark.

Theorem T-5 (Sparse birthday consistency)

Fix an integer M2M\ge 2. Then the following statements hold.

  • (Sparse dense arrays.) For every feasible triangular schedule array with common group size MM, if the array belongs to Cdense\mathcal C_{\mathrm{dense}} in Definition P-8 with limiting grouped-unit fraction ρ=0\rho=0, then V^CR2,nσn2p1. \frac{\widehat V_{\mathrm{CR2},n}}{\sigma_n^2}\xrightarrow{p}1 .
  • (Birthday counts.) With Nnbd=Mn3/4M, N_n^{\mathrm{bd}}=M\Big\lfloor \frac{n^{3/4}}{M}\Big\rfloor , the benchmark counts satisfy NnbdnN_n^{\mathrm{bd}}\le n for all sufficiently large nn, Nnbdn0,(Nnbd)2n. \frac{N_n^{\mathrm{bd}}}{n}\to 0, \qquad \frac{(N_n^{\mathrm{bd}})^2}{n}\to\infty .
  • (Birthday-aligned arrays.) For every feasible triangular schedule array with common group size MM, if its grouped-unit count satisfies Nn=Mn3/4M N_n=M\Big\lfloor \frac{n^{3/4}}{M}\Big\rfloor row by row and the array satisfies Assumption A-1, Assumption A-2, Assumption A-4, Assumption A-5 for some pp, BB, and cσc_\sigma, then V^CR2,nσn2p1. \frac{\widehat V_{\mathrm{CR2},n}}{\sigma_n^2}\xrightarrow{p}1 .

Related Literature

  • The design-based foundation follows Splawa-Neyman et al. (1990), Fisher (1935), Cox (1958), Rubin (1974), and Holland (1986).
  • The triangular-array and finite-population asymptotic language follows Hajek (1960), Cochran (1977), Ohlsson (1989), Fuller (2009), and Li and Ding (2017).
  • The Johnson and Kneser tools come from Delsarte (1973), Brouwer et al. (1989), Filmus (2016), and Brouwer et al. (2018).
  • CR2 connects to White (1980), Liang and Zeger (1986), Bell and McCaffrey (2002), Pustejovsky and Tipton (2018), and Abadie et al. (2023).
  • The closest theorem-level comparison is Fu et al. (2026), where sparse whole-tuple conditions deliver CR2 ratio consistency.

Software and Witness

  • The scalar statistic we analyze is the treatment-coordinate entry from a versioned equal-group clubSandwich CR2 calculation.
  • The software identity ties the finite-population target to the regression workflow used in practice.
  • The eight-unit witness gives a finite balanced design where exact variance and expected CR2 can be computed directly.
  • In that witness, the exact variance is 1/71/7 and expected CR2 is 2/72/7.

informal · Theorem T-6 For the stated unweighted intercept-plus-treatment regression and versioned software call, the treatment-coordinate CR2 entry equals the scalar equal-group CR2 statistic.

informal · Theorem T-7 In the balanced eight-unit witness, the exact variance is 1/71/7 and the expected equal-group CR2 statistic is 2/72/7.

Lower-bound Intuition

  • The lower bound compares two randomized schedule priors.
  • In the same-sign prior, a unit carries the same sign across arms.
  • In the independent-sign prior, a unit’s signs are drawn separately by arm.
  • A single realization reveals only the assigned-arm outcomes.
  • The observed-data mixture is the same for every statistic, while the exact variance limits separate when ρ>0\rho>0.
Same sign same across arms Independent sign separately by arm Observation law assigned-arm outcomes same mixture Any statistic one realization Exact variance same-sign limit Exact variance independent-sign limit Separated limits when ρ > 0
illustrative Box-and-arrow schematic showing same-sign schedules and independent-sign schedules flowing into the same one-realization observation law, while their scaled exact variances point to two separated limits.

Lower Bound

informal · Theorem T-8 At positive limiting grouped-unit fraction, the two Rademacher mixtures have equal one-realization expectations for every statistic while their scaled exact-variance limits differ by 2ρ/M2\rho/M.

informal · Theorem T-9 For the dense bounded schedule class, every measurable one-realization variance statistic has nonvanishing worst-case relative error with probability at least one half in the stated limit sense.

Theorem T-9 (Diagonal variance obstruction)

Fix a common group size MM with 2M2\le M, and let AA be a triangular schedule array with population sizes nn, group counts Gn>0G_n>0, treated-group counts 0<G1n<Gn0<G_{1n}<G_n, MGnnM G_n\le n, and deterministic potential-outcome rows. Let p,ρ,B,cσRp,\rho,B,c_\sigma\in\mathbb R. Suppose:

  • (Envelope and fractions.) 0<ρ0<\rho, 1B1\le B, and the array satisfies Assumption A-1, Assumption A-2, Assumption A-3 with limiting treated-group fraction pp and limiting grouped-unit fraction ρ\rho.
  • (Johnson decomposition input.) For every row nn, there are orthogonal projections Πn,k\Pi_{n,k} onto the degree-kk Johnson harmonic spaces Hn,k\mathcal H_{n,k}, k=0,,Mk=0,\ldots,M, whose positive-degree components give the centered orthogonal decomposition of every fL2(Ωn,M)f\in L^2(\Omega_{n,M}): k=1MΠn,kf=fEnf,Πn,kf,Πn,gn=0for k. \sum_{k=1}^{M}\Pi_{n,k}f = f-\mathbb E_n f, \qquad \langle \Pi_{n,k}f,\Pi_{n,\ell}g\rangle_n=0 \quad\text{for }k\ne \ell .
  • (Kneser spectrum input.) For every row nn with 2Mn2M\le n, the Kneser adjacency operator acts on fHn,kf\in\mathcal H_{n,k} by the eigenvalue (1)k(nMkMk),k=0,,M. (-1)^k {\,n-M-k\,\choose\, M-k\,}, \qquad k=0,\ldots,M .
  • (Variance lower bound.) With dsame=1Mp(1p),dind=1Mp(1p)2ρM, d_{\mathrm{same}}=\frac{1}{M p(1-p)}, \qquad d_{\mathrm{ind}}=\frac{1}{M p(1-p)}-\frac{2\rho}{M}, the constant cσc_\sigma satisfies 0<cσ<dind. 0<c_\sigma<d_{\mathrm{ind}} .

Then there exist support sets Γnsame\Gamma_n^{\mathrm{same}} for the common-arm Rademacher prior Hnsame\mathbb H_n^{\mathrm{same}} and Γnind\Gamma_n^{\mathrm{ind}} for the independent-arm Rademacher prior Hnind\mathbb H_n^{\mathrm{ind}} such that both prior probabilities tend to one, every diagonal selection from either support induces an array in Cdense\mathcal C_{\mathrm{dense}} with parameters (p,ρ,B,cσ)(p,\rho,B,c_\sigma), the conditioned one-realization laws satisfy TV ⁣(Hnsame(OnΓnsame),Hnind(OnΓnind))0, \operatorname{TV}\!\left( \mathbb H_n^{\mathrm{same}}(\mathcal O_n\in\cdot\mid \Gamma_n^{\mathrm{same}}), \mathbb H_n^{\mathrm{ind}}(\mathcal O_n\in\cdot\mid \Gamma_n^{\mathrm{ind}}) \right)\to 0, and the scaled exact variances converge uniformly on the respective supports: supuΓnsameGnσn2(u)dsame0,supuΓnindGnσn2(u)dind0. \sup_{u\in\Gamma_n^{\mathrm{same}}} \left|G_n\sigma_n^2(u)-d_{\mathrm{same}}\right|\to 0, \qquad \sup_{u\in\Gamma_n^{\mathrm{ind}}} \left|G_n\sigma_n^2(u)-d_{\mathrm{ind}}\right|\to 0 . Moreover, there is an ε>0\varepsilon>0 such that every measurable one-realization variance statistic S^n(On)\widehat S_n(\mathcal O_n) satisfies 12lim infnsupYCdensePrY ⁣(S^n(On)σn21>ε). \frac12 \le \liminf_{n\to\infty} \sup_{Y\in\mathcal C_{\mathrm{dense}}} \Pr_Y\!\left( \left| \frac{\widehat S_n(\mathcal O_n)}{\sigma_n^2}-1 \right|>\varepsilon \right).

Conclusion

  • We give exact finite-sample variance identities for homogeneous random group formation.
  • The Kneser covariance decomposition identifies the design dependence created by disjoint groups.
  • The dense asymptotic expansion isolates ρEτ,1,n\rho E_{\tau,1,n} as the first-order correction to the independent-group scale.
  • Equal-group CR2 estimates that independent-group scale and is ratio-consistent precisely under the stated correction criterion.
  • At positive density, the lower bound explains why one realized grouping cannot uniformly recover the exact variance ratio over the full bounded schedule class.