跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要涉及政治选举预测与罕见事件概率,没有宏观预测、金融尾部风险或离散选择估计的直接依据。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Andrew Gelman
Gary King
W. John Boscardin

估计从未发生事件的概率:你的一票何时具有决定性?

研究问题
当某类事件罕见到从未被观察到时,能否利用相关经验数据估计其概率,并用于分析总统选举中单票的决定性?
方法与思路
作者扩展政治学选举预测模型,利用州级总统选举预测推算决定性单票的概率,并以一届美国总统选举展示。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称即使目标事件从未发生,经验预测模型仍能改善概率推断,并报告决定性单票概率具有明显的州际差异。
阅读关注点
应核对州级预测分布及州际依赖的设定、决定性事件的定义,以及极罕见事件概率对尾部假设和模型误差的敏感性。
阅读边界
仅据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;事件概率来自预测模型,不能视为直接观察频率,摘要未说明充分的尾部验证或刊本变化。

原文摘要

Researchers sometimes argue that statisticians have little to contribute when few realizations of the process being estimated are observed. We show that this argument is incorrect even in the extreme situation of estimating the probabilities of events so rare that they have never occurred. We show how statistical forecasting models allow us to use empirical data to improve inferences about the probabilities of these events. Our application is estimating the probability that your vote will be decisive in a U.S. presidential election, a problem that has been studied by political scientists for more than two decades. The exact value of this probability is of only minor interest, but the number has important implications for understanding the optimal allocation of campaign resources, whether states and voter groups receive their fair share of attention from prospective presidents, and how formal “rational choice” models of voter behavior might be able to explain why people vote at all. We show how the probability of a decisive vote can be estimated empirically from state-level forecasts of the presidential election and illustrate with the example of 1992. Based on generalizations of standard political science forecasting models, we estimate the (prospective) probability of a single vote being decisive as about 1 in 10 million for close national elections such as 1992, varying by about a factor of 10 among states. Our results support the argument that subjective probabilities of many types are best obtained through empirically based statistical prediction models rather than solely through mathematical reasoning. We discuss the implications of our findings for the types of decision analyses used in public choice studies.

笔记与分组