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.

Rerandomization is a strategy for improving balance on observed covariates in randomized controlled trials. It has been both advocated and advised against by renowned scholars of experimental design. However, the relationship and differences between stratification, rerandomization, and the combination of the two have not been previously investigated. In this paper, we show that stratified designs can be recreated by rerandomization and explain why, in most cases, stratification on binary covariates followed by rerandomization on continuous covariates is more efficient than rerandomization on all covariates at the same time.

Introduction. This paper presents a study protocol for a comparative effectiveness evaluation of abiraterone acetate against enzalutamide in clinical practice, two cancer drugs given to patients suffering from advanced prostate cancer. Method and analysis. The protocol designs a comparative-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone acetate against enzalutamide. With the substantial number of covariates a two-step procedure is suggested in choosing relevant covariates in the matching design. In the first step, an exploratory factor analysis reduces the dimension of a large set of continuous covariates to nine factors. In the second step, we reduce the dimension of the covariates, interactions and second order terms for the continuous covariates using propensity score estimation. The final design makes use of a genetic matching algorithm. The study protocol provides a detailed statistical analysis plan of the analysis sample derived from the matching design. The analysis will make use of linear regression and robust inference adjusted for multisignificance testing. Discussion. As in a randomised experiment the focus is on the design of the assignment to treatment. This allows the publication of this preanalysis plan before having access to outcome data. This means that the p values will be correct if the maintained assumption of uncounfoundedness is valid. Given that is p-hacking is substantial problem in empirical research, this is a substantial strength of this study. However, while design yields, balance on the observed covariates one cannot discard the possibility that unobserved confounders are not balanced. For that reason, sensitivity tests for the maintained assumption of uncounfoundedness are presented. Ethics and dissemination. The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Uppsala, Sweden (Dnr 2017/482). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and distributed to relevant stakeholders in healthcare.

In linear regression of Y on X(∈ R^p) with parameters 𝛽(∈ R^{p+1}), statistical inference is unreliable when observations are obtained from gross-error model, F_{ϵ,G} = (1 − ϵ)F + ϵG, instead of the assumed probability F;G is gross-error probability, 0 < ϵ < 1. Residual’s influence index (RINFIN) at (x, y) is introduced, with components measuring also the local influence of x in the residual and large value flagging a bad leverage case (from G), thus causing unmasking. Large sample properties of RINFIN are presented to confirm significance of the findings, but often the large difference in the RINFIN scores of the data is indicative. RINFIN is successful with microarray data, simulated, high dimensional data and classic regression data sets. RINFIN’s performance improves as p increases and can be used in multiple response linear regression.