Bipartite experiments have recently emerged as a focal point in causal inference. In these experiments, treatment is administered to one set of units, while outcomes of interest are gauged on a distinct set of units. Such experiments are especially valuable in scenarios where pronounced interference effects transpire between units on a bipartite network. For instance, in market experiments, designating treatment at the seller level and assessing outcomes at the buyer level (or vice-versa) can lead to causal models that more accurately reflect the inherent interference between buyers and sellers. Although bipartite experiments can enhance the precision of causal effect estimations in specific contexts, it's imperative to conduct the analysis judiciously to avoid introducing undue bias through the network. Drawing from the generalized propensity score literature, we demonstrate that it's feasible to achieve unbiased estimates of causal effects for bipartite experiments, given a conventional set of assumptions. Furthermore, we delve into the formulation of confidence sets with accurate coverage probabilities. By employing a bipartite graph from a publicly accessible dataset previously explored in bipartite experiment studies, we illustrate, via simulations, a notable reduction in bias and augmented coverage. / Statistics