Author's response to comments on "Exchangeability assumption in propensity-score based adjustment methods for population mean estimation using non-probability samples"

In this rejoinder, I address the comments from the discussants, Dr. Takumi Saegusa, Dr. Jae-Kwang Kim and Ms. Yonghyun Kwon. Dr. Saegusa's comments about the differences between the conditional exchangeability (CE) assumption for causal inferences versus the CE assumption for finite population inferences using nonprobability samples, and the distinction between design -based versus model -based approaches for finite population inference using nonprobability samples, are elaborated and clarified in the context of my paper. Subsequently, I respond to Dr. Kim and Ms. Kwon's comprehensive framework for categorizing existing approaches for estimating propensity scores (PS) into conditional and unconditional approaches. I expand their simulation studies to vary the sampling weights, allow for misspecified PS models, and include an additional estimator, i.e., scaled adjusted logistic propensity estimator (Wang, Valliant and Li (2021), denoted by sWBS). In my simulations, it is observed that the sWBS estimator consistently outperforms or is comparable to the other estimators under the misspecified PS model. The sWBS, as well as WBS or ABS described in my paper, do not assume that the overlapped units in both the nonprobability and probability reference samples are negligible, nor do they require the identification of overlap units as needed by the estimators proposed by Dr. Kim and Ms. Kwon.