Inference for Optimal Linear Treatment Regimes in Personalized Decision-making

Yuwen Cheng; Shu Yang

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2405.16161

Inference for Optimal Linear Treatment Regimes in Personalized Decision-making

Yuwen Cheng·Shu Yang

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Personalized decision-making, tailored to individual characteristics, is gaining significant attention. The optimal treatment regime aims to provide the best-expected outcome in the entire population, known as the value function. One approach to determine this optimal regime is by maximizing the Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (AIPW) estimator of the value function. However, the derived treatment regime can be intricate and nonlinear, limiting their use. For clarity and interoperability, we emphasize linear regimes and determine the optimal linear regime by optimizing the AIPW estimator within set constraints. While the AIPW estimator offers a viable path to estimating the optimal regime, current methodologies predominantly focus on its asymptotic distribution, leaving a gap in studying the linear regime itself. However, there are many benefits to understanding the regime, as pinpointing significant covariates can enhance treatment effects and provide future clinical guidance. In this paper, we explore the asymptotic distribution of the estimated linear regime. Our results show that the parameter associated with the linear regime follows a cube-root convergence to a non-normal limiting distribution characterized by the maximizer of a centered Gaussian process with a quadratic drift. When making inferences for the estimated linear regimes with cube-root convergence in practical scenarios, the standard nonparametric bootstrap is invalid. As a solution, we facilitate the Cattaneo et al. (2020) bootstrap technique to provide a consistent distributional approximation for the estimated linear regimes, validated further through simulations and real-world data applications from the eICU Collaborative Research Database.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Yuwen Cheng, Shu Yang. 2024-05-25. Inference for Optimal Linear Treatment Regimes in Personalized Decision-making. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16161

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗