Rejoinder: Learning Optimal Distributionally Robust Individualized Treatment Rules

DOI10.1080/01621459.2020.1866581MaRDI QIDQ4999147zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors Weibin Mo, Zhengling Qi, Yufeng Liu

Publication date 6 July 2021

Published in Journal of the American Statistical Association (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.08936

zbMATH Keywords

covariate shiftsdistributionally robust optimizationgeneralizabilityindividualized treatment rules

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Causal inference from observational studies (62D20) Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis (62P10)

Abstract: We thank the opportunity offered by editors for this discussion and the discussants for their insightful comments and thoughtful contributions. We also want to congratulate Kallus (2020) for his inspiring work in improving the efficiency of policy learning by retargeting. Motivated from the discussion in Dukes and Vansteelandt (2020), we first point out interesting connections and distinctions between our work and Kallus (2020) in Section 1. In particular, the assumptions and sources of variation for consideration in these two papers lead to different research problems with different scopes and focuses. In Section 2, following the discussions in Li et al. (2020); Liang and Zhao (2020), we also consider the efficient policy evaluation problem when we have some data from the testing distribution available at the training stage. We show that under the assumption that the sample sizes from training and testing are growing in the same order, efficient value function estimates can deliver competitive performance. We further show some connections of these estimates with existing literature. However, when the growth of testing sample size available for training is in a slower order, efficient value function estimates may not perform well anymore. In contrast, the requirement of the testing sample size for DRITR is not as strong as that of efficient policy evaluation using the combined data. Finally, we highlight the general applicability and usefulness of DRITR in Section 3.

Cites work

• Covariate balancing propensity score
• Covariate balancing propensity score by tailored loss functions
• Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects
• Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters
• Estimation of individualized decision rules based on an optimized covariate-dependent equivalent of random outcomes
• External validity: from do-calculus to transportability across populations
• Invariance, causality and robustness
• Multiple robustness in factorized likelihood models
• Policy learning with observational data
• Prediction, estimation, and attribution
• Robust Estimation of Encouragement Design Intervention Effects Transported Across Sites
• Robustifying trial-derived optimal treatment rules for a target population
• Semiparametric theory and missing data.
• Statistical analysis of kernel-based least-squares density-ratio estimation
• Veridical data science

Cited in

(1)

• Discussion of Kallus (2020) and Mo, Qi, and Liu (2020): New Objectives for Policy Learning

This page was built for publication: Rejoinder: Learning Optimal Distributionally Robust Individualized Treatment Rules

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q4999147)