  The first step towards investigating the effectiveness of a treatment via a
randomized trial is to split the population into control and treatment groups
then compare the average response of the treatment group receiving the
treatment to the control group receiving the placebo.
  In order to ensure that the difference between the two groups is caused only
by the treatment, it is crucial that the control and the treatment groups have
similar statistics. Indeed, the validity and reliability of a trial are
determined by the similarity of two groups' statistics. Covariate balancing
methods increase the similarity between the distributions of the two groups'
covariates. However, often in practice, there are not enough samples to
accurately estimate the groups' covariate distributions. In this paper, we
empirically show that covariate balancing with the Standardized Means
Difference (SMD) covariate balancing measure, as well as Pocock's sequential
treatment assignment method, are susceptible to worst-case treatment
assignments. Worst-case treatment assignments are those admitted by the
covariate balance measure, but result in highest possible ATE estimation
errors. We developed an adversarial attack to find adversarial treatment
assignment for any given trial. Then, we provide an index to measure how close
the given trial is to the worst-case. To this end, we provide an
optimization-based algorithm, namely Adversarial Treatment ASsignment in
TREatment Effect Trials (ATASTREET), to find the adversarial treatment
assignments.
