BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

David Azriel

David Azriel contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Methodologymath.STStatistics TheoryArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A zero-estimator approach for estimating the signal level in a high-dimensional model-free setting

We study a high-dimensional regression setting under the assumption of known covariate distribution. We aim at estimating the amount of explained variation in the response by the best linear function of the covariates (the signal level). In our setting, neither sparsity of the coefficient vector, nor normality of the covariates or linearity of the conditional expectation are assumed. We present an unbiased and consistent estimator and then improve it by using a zero-estimator approach, where a zero-estimator is a statistic whose expected value is zero. More generally, we present an algorithm based on the zero estimator approach that in principle can improve any given estimator. We study some asymptotic properties of the proposed estimators and demonstrate their finite sample performance in a simulation study.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Empirical Bayes approach to Truth Discovery problems

When aggregating information from conflicting sources, one's goal is to find the truth. Most real-value \emph{truth discovery} (TD) algorithms try to achieve this goal by estimating the competence of each source and then aggregating the conflicting information by weighing each source's answer proportionally to her competence. However, each of those algorithms requires more than a single source for such estimation and usually does not consider different estimation methods other than a weighted mean. Therefore, in this work we formulate, prove, and empirically test the conditions for an Empirical Bayes Estimator (EBE) to dominate the weighted mean aggregation. Our main result demonstrates that EBE, under mild conditions, can be used as a second step of any TD algorithm in order to reduce the expected error.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Optimal designs for the development of personalized treatment rules

We study the design of multi-armed parallel group clinical trials to estimate personalized treatment rules that identify the best treatment for a given patient with given covariates. Assuming that the outcomes in each treatment arm are given by a homoscedastic linear model, with possibly different variances between treatment arms, and that the trial subjects form a random sample from an unselected overall population, we optimize the (possibly randomized) treatment allocation allowing the allocation rates to depend on the covariates. We find that, for the case of two treatments, the approximately optimal allocation rule does not depend on the value of the covariates but only on the variances of the responses. In contrast, for the case of three treatments or more, the optimal treatment allocation does depend on the values of the covariates as well as the true regression coefficients. The methods are illustrated with a recently published dietary clinical trial.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The Role of Pairwise Matching in Experimental Design for an Incidence Outcome

We consider the problem of evaluating designs for a two-arm randomized experiment with an incidence (binary) outcome under a nonparametric general response model. Our two main results are that the priori pair matching design of Greevy et al. (2004) is (1) the optimal design as measured by mean squared error among all block designs which includes complete randomization. And (2), this pair-matching design is minimax, i.e. it provides the lowest mean squared error under an adversarial response model. Theoretical results are supported by simulations and clinical trial data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Better Experimental Design by Hybridizing Binary Matching with Imbalance Optimization

We present a new experimental design procedure that divides a set of experimental units into two groups in order to minimize error in estimating an additive treatment effect. One concern is minimizing error at the experimental design stage is large covariate imbalance between the two groups. Another concern is robustness of design to misspecification in response models. We address both concerns in our proposed design: we first place subjects into pairs using optimal nonbipartite matching, making our estimator robust to complicated non-linear response models. Our innovation is to keep the matched pairs extant, take differences of the covariate values within each matched pair and then we use the greedy switching heuristic of Krieger et al. (2019) or rerandomization on these differences. This latter step greatly reduce covariate imbalance to the rate $O_p(n^{-4})$ in the case of one covariate that are uniformly distributed. This rate benefits from the greedy switching heuristic which is $O_p(n^{-3})$ and the rate of matching which is $O_p(n^{-1})$. Further, our resultant designs are shown to be as random as matching which is robust to unobserved covariates. When compared to previous designs, our approach exhibits significant improvement in the mean squared error of the treatment effect estimator when the response model is nonlinear and performs at least as well when it the response model is linear. Our design procedure is found as a method in the open source R package available on CRAN called GreedyExperimentalDesign.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Optimal Rerandomization via a Criterion that Provides Insurance Against Failed Experiments

We present an optimized rerandomization design procedure for a non-sequential treatment-control experiment. Randomized experiments are the gold standard for finding causal effects in nature. But sometimes random assignments result in unequal partitions of the treatment and control group visibly seen as imbalance in observed covariates. There can additionally be imbalance on unobserved covariates. Imbalance in either observed or unobserved covariates increases treatment effect estimator error inflating the width of confidence regions and reducing experimental power. "Rerandomization" is a strategy that omits poor imbalance assignments by limiting imbalance in the observed covariates to a prespecified threshold. However, limiting this threshold too much can increase the risk of contracting error from unobserved covariates. We introduce a criterion that combines observed imbalance while factoring in the risk of inadvertently imbalancing unobserved covariates. We then use this criterion to locate the optimal rerandomization threshold based on the practitioner's level of desired insurance against high estimator error. We demonstrate the gains of our designs in simulation and in a dataset from a large randomized experiment in education. We provide an open source R package available on CRAN named OptimalRerandExpDesigns which generates designs according to our algorithm.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Improving the Power of the Randomization Test

We consider the problem of evaluating designs for a two-arm randomized experiment with the criterion being the power of the randomization test for the one-sided null hypothesis. Our evaluation assumes a response that is linear in one observed covariate, an unobserved component and an additive treatment effect where the only randomness comes from the treatment allocations. It is well-known that the power depends on the allocations' imbalance in the observed covariate and this is the reason for the classic restricted designs such as rerandomization. We show that power is also affected by two other design choices: the number of allocations in the design and the degree of linear dependence among the allocations. We prove that the more allocations, the higher the power and the lower the variability in the power. Designs that feature greater independence of allocations are also shown to have higher performance. Our theoretical findings and extensive simulation studies imply that the designs with the highest power provide thousands of highly independent allocations that each provide nominal imbalance in the observed covariates. These high powered designs exhibit less randomization than complete randomization and more randomization than recently proposed designs based on numerical optimization. Model choices for a practicing experimenter are rerandomization and greedy pair switching, where both outperform complete randomization and numerical optimization. The tradeoff we find also provides a means to specify the imbalance threshold parameter when rerandomizing.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access