  Completely randomized experiments have been the gold standard for drawing
causal inference because they can balance all potential confounding on average.
However, they may suffer from unbalanced covariates for realized treatment
assignments. Rerandomization, a design that rerandomizes the treatment
assignment until a prespecified covariate balance criterion is met, has
recently got attention due to its easy implementation, improved covariate
balance and more efficient inference. Researchers have then suggested to use
the treatment assignments that minimize the covariate imbalance, namely the
optimally balanced design. This has caused again the long-time controversy
between two philosophies for designing experiments: randomization versus
optimal and thus almost deterministic designs. Existing literature argued that
rerandomization with overly balanced observed covariates can lead to highly
imbalanced unobserved covariates, making it vulnerable to model
misspecification. On the contrary, rerandomization with properly balanced
covariates can provide robust inference for treatment effects while sacrificing
some efficiency compared to the ideally optimal design. In this paper, we show
it is possible that, by making the covariate imbalance diminishing at a proper
rate as the sample size increases, rerandomization can achieve its ideally
optimal precision that one can expect with perfectly balanced covariates, while
still maintaining its robustness. We further investigate conditions on the
number of covariates for achieving the desired optimality. Our results rely on
a more delicate asymptotic analysis for rerandomization. The derived theory for
rerandomization provides a deeper understanding of its large-sample property
and can better guide its practical implementation. Furthermore, it also helps
reconcile the controversy between randomized and optimal designs in an
asymptotic sense.
