More Efficient Policy Learning via Optimal Retargeting

A generalizability score for aggregate causal effect

Scientists frequently generalize population level causal quantities such as average treatment effect from a source population to a target population. When the causal effects are heterogeneous, differences in subject characteristics between the source and target populations may make such a generalization difficult and unreliable. Reweighting or regression can be used to adjust for such differences when generalizing. However, these methods typically suffer from large variance if there is limited covariate distribution overlap between the two populations. We propose a generalizability score to address this issue. The score can be used as a yardstick to select target subpopulations for generalization. A simplified version of the score avoids using any outcome information and thus can prevent deliberate biases associated with inadvertent access to such information. Both simulation studies and real data analysis demonstrate convincing results for such selection.

Rejoinder: Learning Optimal Distributionally Robust Individualized Treatment Rules

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 effciency 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.