This article considers experimental design based on the strategy of rerandomization to increase the efficiency in experiments. Two aspects of rerandomization are addressed. First, we propose a two-stage allocation sample scheme for randomization inference to the units in experiments that guarantees that the difference-in-mean estimator is an unbiased estimator of the sample average treatment effect for any experiment, conserves the exactness of randomization inference, and halves the time consumption of the rerandomization design. Second, we propose a rank-based covariate-balance measure which can take into account the estimated relative weight of each covariate. Several strategies for estimating these weights using pre-experimental data are proposed. Using Monte Carlo simulations, the proposed strategies are compared to complete randomization and Mahalanobis-based rerandomization. An empirical example is given where the power of a mean difference test of electricity consumption of 54 households is increased by 99%, in comparison to complete randomization, using one of the proposed designs based on high frequency longitudinal electricity consumption data. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Recently a computational-based experimental design strategy called rerandomization has been proposed as an alternative or complement to traditional blocked designs. The idea of rerandomization is to remove, from consideration, those allocations with large imbalances in observed covariates according to a balance criterion, and then randomize within the set of acceptable allocations. Based on the Mahalanobis distance criterion for balancing the covariates, we show that asymptotic inference to the population, from which the units in the sample are randomly drawn, is possible using only the set of best, or ‘optimal’, allocations. Finally, we show that for the optimal and near optimal designs, the quite complex asymptotic sampling distribution derived by Li et al. (2018), is well approximated by a normal distribution.

Blocking is commonly used in randomized experiments to increase efficiency of estimation. A generalization of blocking removes allocations with imbalance in covariate distributions between treated and control units, and then randomizes within the remaining set of allocations with balance. This idea of rerandomization was formalized by Morgan and Rubin (Annals of Statistics, 2012, 40, 1263–1282), who suggested using Mahalanobis distance between treated and control covariate means as the criterion for removing unbalanced allocations. Kallus (Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B: Statistical Methodology, 2018, 80, 85–112) proposed reducing the set of balanced allocations to the minimum. Here we discuss the implication of such an ‘optimal’ rerandomization design for inferences to the units in the sample and to the population from which the units in the sample were randomly drawn. We argue that, in general, it is a bad idea to seek the optimal design for an inference because that inference typically only reflects uncertainty from the random sampling of units, which is usually hypothetical, and not the randomization of units to treatment versus control.

In deconvolution in R^d, d≥1, with mixing density p(∈\mathscr{P}) and kernel h, the mixture density f_p(∈\mathscr{F}_p) is estimated with MDE f_{\hat{p}n}, having upper L1-error rate, an, in probability or in risk; \hat{p}_n∈\mathscr{P}. In one application, \mathscr{P} consists of L1-separable densities in R with differences changing sign at most J times and h(x−y) Totally Positive. When h is known and p is \tilde{q}-smooth, vanishing outside a compact in R^d, plug-in upper bounds are provided for the L2-error rate of \hat{p}_n and its [s]-th mixed partial derivative \hat{p}^{(s)}_n, via ∥f_{\hat{p}_n}−f_p∥_1, with rates (log a^{−1}_n)^{−N_1} and a^{N_2}_n, respectively, for h super-smooth and smooth; \tilde{q}∈R^+, [s] ≤ \tilde{q}, d≥1, N_1>0, N_2>0. For a_n ∼ (logn)^ζ⋅(n^{−δ}), the former rate is optimal for any δ>0 and the latter misses the optimal by the factor (logn)^ξ when δ=.5; ζ>0, ξ>0. N_1 and N_2 appear in optimal rates and lower error and risk bounds in the deconvolution literature.

Double-blind randomized controlled trials are traditionally seen as the gold standard for causal inferences as the difference-in-means estimator is an unbiased estimator of the average treatment effect in the experiment. The fact that this estimator is unbiased over all possible randomizations does not, however, mean that any given estimate is close to the true treatment effect. Similarly, while predetermined covariates will be balanced between treatment and control groups on average, large imbalances may be observed in a given experiment and the researcher may therefore want to condition on such covariates using linear regression. This article studies the theoretical properties of both the difference-in-means and OLS estimators conditional on observed differences in covariates. By deriving the statistical properties of the conditional estimators, we can establish guidance for how to deal with covariate imbalances.