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。

本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。

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:摘要以离散类别选择形成的多项分布份额为基础,对政党支持排名进行推断。

反馈分类问题

Finite- and Large-Sample Inference for Ranks using Multinomial Data with an Application to Ranking Political Parties

多项分布数据下排名的有限样本与大样本推断:政党排名应用

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
Sergei Bazylik
Magne Mogstad
Joseph Romano
Azeem Shaikh
Daniel Wilhelm

多项分布数据下排名的有限样本与大样本推断:政党排名应用

研究问题
当类别支持份额由调查样本估计时,如何为单个类别或全部类别的真实排名构造置信集,并处理稀少选择与小样本?
方法与思路
作者利用数据的多项分布结构构造有限样本有效的边际及同时排名置信集,并提出大样本近似有效的自助法置信集。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,在澳大利亚政党排名应用及相关模拟中,有限样本置信集往往比自助法置信集更有信息,尤其在类似应用的设定下。
阅读关注点
应核对边际与同时覆盖的区别、排名并列如何定义,以及有限样本保证的抽样条件、置信集信息量和模拟比较标准。
阅读边界
这是预印本,同行评审或接收未经核实。摘要未说明调查设计如何满足多项分布假设,所述比较也不能推出普遍优越性。

原文摘要

It is common to rank different categories by means of preferences that are revealed through data on choices. A prominent example is the ranking of political candidates or parties using the estimated share of support each one receives in surveys or polls about political attitudes. Since these rankings are computed using estimates of the share of support rather than the true share of support, there may be considerable uncertainty concerning the true ranking of the political candidates or parties. In this paper, we consider the problem of accounting for such uncertainty by constructing confidence sets for the rank of each category. We consider both the problem of constructing marginal confidence sets for the rank of a particular category as well as simultaneous confidence sets for the ranks of all categories. A distinguishing feature of our analysis is that we exploit the multinomial structure of the data to develop confidence sets that are valid in finite samples. We additionally develop confidence sets using the bootstrap that are valid only approximately in large samples. We use our methodology to rank political parties in Australia using data from the 2019 Australian Election Survey. We find that our finite-sample confidence sets are informative across the entire ranking of political parties, even in Australian territories with few survey respondents and/or with parties that are chosen by only a small share of the survey respondents. In contrast, the bootstrap-based confidence sets may sometimes be considerably less informative. These findings motivate us to compare these methods in an empirically-driven simulation study, in which we conclude that our finite-sample confidence sets often perform better than their large-sample, bootstrap-based counterparts, especially in settings that resemble our empirical application.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文