Rejoinder: Learning Optimal Distributionally Robust Individualized
  Treatment Rules
  We thank the opportunity offered by editors for this discussion and the
discussants for their insightful comments and thoughtful contributions. We also
want to congratulate Kallus (2020) for his inspiring work in improving the
efficiency of policy learning by retargeting. Motivated from the discussion in
Dukes and Vansteelandt (2020), we first point out interesting connections and
distinctions between our work and Kallus (2020) in Section 1. In particular,
the assumptions and sources of variation for consideration in these two papers
lead to different research problems with different scopes and focuses. In
Section 2, following the discussions in Li et al. (2020); Liang and Zhao
(2020), we also consider the efficient policy evaluation problem when we have
some data from the testing distribution available at the training stage. We
show that under the assumption that the sample sizes from training and testing
are growing in the same order, efficient value function estimates can deliver
competitive performance. We further show some connections of these estimates
with existing literature. However, when the growth of testing sample size
available for training is in a slower order, efficient value function estimates
may not perform well anymore. In contrast, the requirement of the testing
sample size for DRITR is not as strong as that of efficient policy evaluation
using the combined data. Finally, we highlight the general applicability and
usefulness of DRITR in Section 3.
