Alberto Abadie

Advances in scientific AI have accelerated hypothesis generation, prediction, and experimental design, but translating these capabilities into reliable physical experimentation remains a major bottleneck in scientific discovery. Although automation, high-throughput experimentation, foundation models, and cloud infrastructure have accelerated individual stages of the scientific workflow, they have not unified the discovery process. Scientists must still coordinate between computational models and physical laboratory systems to translate scientific designs into executable experiments and ensure their results are reliable. We argue that the next generation of laboratories will be agentic: environments in which scientists, AI systems, equipment and robotic platforms operate as collaborative discovery partners. We propose an architecture built around two complementary components: an agentic foundation that translates scientific designs into coordinated execution plans, and an evolving laboratory world model that represents physical state, predicts action outcomes, and incorporates experimental feedback. Together, they connect computational reasoning to observable and verifiable physical execution. Multimodal perception, robotics, and human–AI interfaces can make laboratory actions and evolving experimental conditions accessible to these systems, supporting adaptive execution and learning. We further propose an evaluation framework centered on physical grounding, execution fidelity, scientific validity, and adaptive coordination under human oversight, rather than autonomy alone. This Perspective outlines how agentic laboratories could connect scientific reasoning, physical experimentation, and trustworthy evidence within a human-in-the-lead discovery loop.

The synthetic control (SC) framework is widely used for observational causal inference with time-series panel data. SC has been successful in diverse applications, but existing methods typically treat the ordering of pre-intervention time indices interchangeable. This invariance means they may not fully take advantage of temporal structure when strong trends are present. We propose Time-Aware Synthetic Control (TASC), which employs a state-space model with a constant trend while preserving a low-rank structure of the signal. TASC uses the Kalman filter and Rauch-Tung-Striebel smoother: it first fits a generative time-series model with expectation-maximization and then performs counterfactual inference. We evaluate TASC on both simulated and real-world datasets, including policy evaluation and sports prediction. Our results suggest that TASC offers advantages in settings with strong temporal trends and high levels of observation noise.

This article studies experimental design in settings where the experimental units are large aggregate entities (e.g., markets), and only one or a small number of units can be exposed to the treatment. In such settings, randomization of the treatment may result in treated and control groups with very different characteristics at baseline, inducing biases. We propose a variety of synthetic control designs (Abadie, Diamond and Hainmueller, 2010, Abadie and Gardeazabal, 2003) as experimental designs to select treated units in non-randomized experiments with large aggregate units, as well as the untreated units to be used as a control group. Average potential outcomes are estimated as weighted averages of treated units, for potential outcomes with treatment -- and control units, for potential outcomes without treatment. We analyze the properties of estimators based on synthetic control designs and propose new inferential techniques. We show that in experimental settings with aggregate units, synthetic control designs can substantially reduce estimation biases in comparison to randomization of the treatment.

In June of 2010, JASA published the article “Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program” (Abadie, Diamond, and Hainmueller...

Synthetic control methods are commonly applied in empirical research to estimate the effects of treatments or interventions on aggregate outcomes. A synthetic control estimator compares the outcome of a treated unit to the outcome of a weighted average of untreated units that best resembles the characteristics of the treated unit before the intervention. When disaggregated data are available, constructing separate synthetic controls for each treated unit may help avoid interpolation biases. However, the problem of finding a synthetic control that best reproduces the characteristics of a treated unit may not have a unique solution. Multiplicity of solutions is a particularly daunting challenge when the data include many treated and untreated units. To address this challenge, we propose a synthetic control estimator that penalizes the pairwise discrepancies between the characteristics of the treated units and the characteristics of the units that contribute to their synthetic controls. The penalization parameter trades off pairwise matching discrepancies with respect to the characteristics of each unit in the synthetic control against matching discrepancies with respect to the characteristics of the synthetic control unit as a whole. We study the properties of this estimator and propose data-driven choices of the penalization parameter.

Nearest-neighbor matching is a popular nonparametric tool to create balance between treatment and control groups in observational studies. As a preprocessing step before regression, matching reduces the dependence on parametric modeling assumptions. In current empirical practice, however, the matching step is often ignored in the calculation of standard errors and confidence intervals. In this article, we show that ignoring the matching step results in asymptotically valid standard errors if matching is done without replacement and the regression model is correctly specified relative to the population regression function of the outcome variable on the treatment variable and all the covariates used for matching. However, standard errors that ignore the matching step are not valid if matching is conducted with replacement or, more crucially, if the second step regression model is misspecified in the sense indicated above. Moreover, correct specification of the regression model is not required for consistent estimation of treatment effects with matched data. We show that two easily implementable alternatives produce approximations to the distribution of the post-matching estimator that are robust to misspecification. A simulation study and an empirical example demonstrate the empirical relevance of our results. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Consider a researcher estimating the parameters of a regression function based on data for all 50 states in the United States or on data for all visits to a website. What is the interpretation of the estimated parameters and the standard errors? In practice, researchers typically assume that the sample is randomly drawn from a large population of interest and report standard errors that are designed to capture sampling variation. This is common even in applications where it is difficult to articulate what that population of interest is, and how it differs from the sample. In this article, we explore an alternative approach to inference, which is partly design-based. In a design-based setting, the values of some of the regressors can be manipulated, perhaps through a policy intervention. Design-based uncertainty emanates from lack of knowledge about the values that the regression outcome would have taken under alternative interventions. We derive standard errors that account for design-based uncertainty instead of, or in addition to, sampling-based uncertainty. We show that our standard errors in general are smaller than the usual infinite-population sampling-based standard errors and provide conditions under which they coincide.

Significance tests are probably the most extended form of inference in empirical research, and significance is often interpreted as providing greater informational content than non-significance. In this article we show, however, that rejection of a point null often carries very little information, while failure to reject may be highly informative. This is particularly true in empirical contexts where data sets are large and where there are rarely reasons to put substantial prior probability on a point null. Our results challenge the usual practice of conferring point null rejections a higher level of scientific significance than non-rejections. In consequence, we advocate a visible reporting and discussion of non-significant results in empirical practice.