Model Selection by Testing for the Presence of Small-Area Effects, and Application to Area-Level Data
通过检验小区域效应进行模型选择及区域数据应用AI 解读 ↓
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。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要讨论小区域随机效应模型,没有明确的面板结构或其他所列细分方向依据。
通过检验小区域效应进行模型选择及区域数据应用AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
The models used in small-area inference often involve unobservable random effects. While this can significantly improve the adaptivity and flexibility of a model, it also increases the variability of both point and interval estimators. If we could test for the existence of the random effects, and if the test were to show that they were unlikely to be present, then we would arguably not need to incorporate them into the model, and thus could significantly improve the precision of the methodology. In this article we suggest an approach of this type. We develop simple bootstrap methods for testing for the presence of random effects, applicable well beyond the conventional context of the natural exponential family. If the null hypothesis that the effects are not present is not rejected then our general methodology immediately gives us access to estimators of unknown model parameters and estimators of small-area means. Such estimators can be substantially more effective, for example, because they enjoy much faster convergence rates than their counterparts when the model includes random effects. If the null hypothesis is rejected then the next step is either to make the model more elaborate (our methodology is available quite generally) or to turn to existing random effects models. This article has supplementary material online.