Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
An idea due to Quade (1973) is used to develop a method that reduces the computational load for rerandomization inferences in certain situations, and, for experiments carried out with a sufficiently small reference set of randomizations, makes computations entirely feasible. Consider an experimental design for N units for which an experimental plan E is to be chosen randomly from a set of K plans. Plan E will assign treatment dosage dE,u to unit u with postulated additive effect δdE,u reflected in the observation zu . Rerandomization inferences are to be carried out by means of “pivotal” statistics te,E (z) = [bE (z) - be (z)]/[1 - be (d E )], where z and d E are observation and dosage vectors and be ([mdot]) is the regression (slope) onto d e , the dosages under plan e (∈ ). (a) The P value of a test of the hypotheses δ = Δ versus δ > Δ is essentially the proportion of te,E (z) values, e ∈ , that are at most Δ. (b) If t (l),E (z) is the lth largest of the te,E (z)'s, e ∈ , then a (L - l)/K confidence interval is t (l),E (z) ≤ δ ≤ t (L),E (z). (c) The power of the α-level test of δ = Δ is F(δ - Δ), where F is the left-continuous empirical cdf of -t (l),E (ζ), E ∈ —l being the largest integer ≤ αK and ζ the vector of N potential observations without any treatment effects. The computations for (a) and (b) are O(K) and for (c) O(K 2), and K may be as small as 1,000 (or less). This article formulates the rerandomization regression model and develops the pivotal method. The special case of the two-sample shift problem is also treated. The merits of the randomization model, in contrast to a random sampling model, are stressed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gabriel et al. (1983) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: