In this paper, we extend the transfer learning classification framework from regression function-based methods to decision rules. We propose a novel methodology for modeling posterior drift through Bayes decision rules. By exploiting the geometric transformation of the Bayes decision boundary, our method reformulates the problem as a low-dimensional empirical risk minimization problem. Under mild regularity conditions, we establish the consistency of our estimators and derive the risk bounds. Moreover, we illustrate the broad applicability of our method by adapting it to the estimation of optimal individualized treatment rules. Extensive simulation studies and analyses of real-world data further demonstrate both superior performance and robustness of our approach.

Individualized treatment rules (ITRs) have gained significant attention due to their wide-ranging applications in fields such as precision medicine, ridesharing, and advertising recommendations. However, when ITRs are influenced by sensitive attributes such as race, gender, or age, they can lead to outcomes where certain groups are unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged. To address this gap, we propose a flexible approach based on the optimal transport theory, which is capable of transforming any optimal ITR into a fair ITR that ensures demographic parity. Recognizing the potential loss of value under fairness constraints, we introduce an ``improved trade-off ITR," designed to balance value optimization and fairness while accommodating varying levels of fairness through parameter adjustment. To maximize the value of the improved trade-off ITR under specific fairness levels, we propose a smoothed fairness constraint for estimating the adjustable parameter. Additionally, we establish a theoretical upper bound on the value loss for the improved trade-off ITR. We demonstrate performance of the proposed method through extensive simulation studies and application to the Next 36 entrepreneurial program dataset.

Individualized treatment rules/recommendations (ITRs) aim to improve patient outcomes by tailoring treatments to the characteristics of each individual. However, when there are many treatment groups, existing methods face significant challenges due to data sparsity within treatment groups and highly unbalanced covariate distributions across groups. To address these challenges, we propose a novel calibration-weighted treatment fusion procedure that robustly balances covariates across treatment groups and fuses similar treatments using a penalized working model. The fusion procedure ensures the recovery of latent treatment group structures when either the calibration model or the outcome model is correctly specified. In the fused treatment space, practitioners can seamlessly apply state-of-the-art ITR learning methods with the flexibility to utilize a subset of covariates, thereby achieving robustness while addressing practical concerns such as fairness. We establish theoretical guarantees, including consistency, the oracle property of treatment fusion, and regret bounds when integrated with multi-armed ITR learning methods such as policy trees. Simulation studies show superior group recovery and policy value compared to existing approaches. We illustrate the practical utility of our method using a nationwide electronic health record-derived de-identified database containing data from patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma.

Estimating individualized treatment rules (ITRs) is fundamental in causal inference, particularly for precision medicine applications. Traditional ITR estimation methods rely on inverse probability weighting (IPW) to address confounding factors and L_{1} -penalization for simplicity and interpretability. However, IPW can introduce statistical bias without precise propensity score modeling, while L_1 -penalization makes the objective non-smooth, leading to computational bias and requiring subgradient methods. In this paper, we propose a unified ITR estimation framework formulated as a constrained, weighted, and smooth convex optimization problem. The optimal ITR can be robustly and effectively computed by projected gradient descent.

Penalized empirical risk minimization with a surrogate loss function is often used to derive a high-dimensional linear decision rule in classification problems. Although much of the literature focuses on the generalization error, there is a lack of valid inference procedures to identify the driving factors of the estimated decision rule, especially when the surrogate loss is non-differentiable. In this work, we propose a kernel-smoothed decorrelated score to construct hypothesis testing and interval estimations for the linear decision rule estimated using a piece-wise linear surrogate loss, which has a discontinuous gradient and non-regular Hessian. Specifically, we adopt kernel approximations to smooth the discontinuous gradient near discontinuity points and approximate the non-regular Hessian of the surrogate loss. In applications where additional nuisance parameters are involved, we propose a novel cross-fitted version to accommodate flexible nuisance estimates and kernel approximations. We establish the limiting distribution of the kernel-smoothed decorrelated score and its cross-fitted version in a high-dimensional setup. Simulation and real data analysis are conducted to demonstrate the validity and superiority of the proposed method.

A century ago, Neyman showed how to evaluate the efficacy of treatment using a randomized experiment under a minimal set of assumptions. This classical repeated sampling framework serves as a basis of routine experimental analyses conducted by today's scientists across disciplines. In this paper, we demonstrate that Neyman's methodology can also be used to experimentally evaluate the efficacy of individualized treatment rules (ITRs), which are derived by modern causal machine learning algorithms. In particular, we show how to account for additional uncertainty resulting from a training process based on cross-fitting. The primary advantage of Neyman's approach is that it can be applied to any ITR regardless of the properties of machine learning algorithms that are used to derive the ITR. We also show, somewhat surprisingly, that for certain metrics, it is more efficient to conduct this ex-post experimental evaluation of an ITR than to conduct an ex-ante experimental evaluation that randomly assigns some units to the ITR. Our analysis demonstrates that Neyman's repeated sampling framework is as relevant for causal inference today as it has been since its inception.