Discussion of Kallus (2020) and Mo et al. (2020)

被引:0
|
作者
Liang, Muxuan [1 ]
Zhao, Ying-Qi [1 ]
机构
[1] Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, Publ Hlth Sci Div, Seattle, WA 98109 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Covariate shift; Density-ratio estimation; Efficient score; Generalizability;
D O I
10.1080/01621459.2020.1833887
中图分类号
O21 [概率论与数理统计]; C8 [统计学];
学科分类号
020208 ; 070103 ; 0714 ;
摘要
We discuss the results on improving the generalizability of individualized treatment rule following the work by Kallus and Mo et al. We note that the advocated weights in the work of Kallus are connected to the efficient score of the contrast function. We further propose a likelihood-ratio-based method (LR-ITR) to accommodate covariate shifts, and compare it to the CTE-DR-ITR method proposed by Mo et al. We provide the upper-bound on the risk function of the target population when both the covariate shift and the contrast function shift are present. Numerical studies show that LR-ITR can outperform CTE-DR-ITR when there is only covariate shift. for this article are available online.
引用
收藏
页码:690 / 693
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Rebuttal of Roper (2020) Critique of Larson et al. (2019)
    Larson, Larry
    Larson, Pat
    Johnson, Douglas
    RANGELAND ECOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, 2020, 73 (05) : 735 - 736
  • [32] Letter in response to Black et al. (2020): Authors' Reply
    Black, Christopher J.
    Ford, Alexander C.
    NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY, 2022, 34 (06):
  • [33] The outdoor cat problem: a response to Crowley et al. (2020)
    Lepczyk, Christopher A.
    Dunning, Kelly
    Williamson, Ryan
    FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2021, 19 (10) : 547 - 547
  • [34] Consequences, norms, and inaction: Response to Gawronski et al. (2020)
    Baron, Jonathan
    Goodwin, Geoffrey P.
    JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING, 2021, 16 (02): : 566 - 595
  • [35] Is ACTraining Behavior Analytic? A Review of Tarbox et al. (2020)
    Cihon, Joseph H.
    Schlinger, Henry D., Jr.
    Ferguson, Julia L.
    Leaf, Justin B.
    Milne, Christine M.
    BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS IN PRACTICE, 2022, 18 (1) : 29 - 33
  • [36] WoRMS needs YOU! A Reply to Collareta et al. 2020
    Horton, Tammy
    Kroh, Andreas
    Vandepitte, Leen
    INTEGRATIVE ZOOLOGY, 2022, 17 (02): : 326 - 327
  • [37] Reply to the remarks of Quinn on the paper by Buchwald et al. (2020)
    Buchwald, Thomas
    POWDER TECHNOLOGY, 2022, 399
  • [38] Affect, "wanting" and relevance: Commentary on Lutz et al. (2020)
    Coppin, Geraldine
    Pool, Eva R.
    ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS, 2021, 115
  • [39] Reflecting on the Evidence: A Reply to Knight, McShane, et al. (2020)
    Nave, Gideon
    Daviet, Remi
    Nadler, Amos
    Zava, David
    Camerer, Colin
    PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2020, 31 (07) : 898 - 900
  • [40] Use Without Consequences? A Commentary on Bonn et al. (2020)
    Carroll, Kathleen M.
    JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS, 2020, 81 (05) : 561 - 561