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.

No abstract uploaded!

No abstract uploaded!

We derive the asymptotic distributions of the spiked eigenvalues and eigenvectors under a generalized and unified asymptotic regime, which takes into account the magnitude of spiked eigenvalues, sample size, and dimensionality. This regime allows high dimensionality and diverging eigenvalues and provides new insights into the roles that the leading eigenvalues, sample size, and dimensionality play in principal component analysis. Our results are a natural extension of those in Paul (2007) to a more general setting and solve the rates of convergence problems in Shen et al.(2013). They also reveal the biases of estimating leading eigenvalues and eigenvectors by using principal component analysis, and lead to a new covariance estimator for the approximate factor model, called shrinkage principal orthogonal complement thresholding (S-POET), that corrects the biases. Our results are successfully applied to

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.