Confidence Intervals for Population Ranks in the Presence of Ties and Near Ties
存在并列与近似并列时总体排名的置信区间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:摘要研究总体排名的不确定性;提及金融机构和风险调整不足以归入金融尾部风险方向。
存在并列与近似并列时总体排名的置信区间AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Frequentist confidence intervals for population ranks and their statistical justifications are not well established, even though there is a great need for such procedures in practice. How do we assign confidence bounds for the ranks of health care facilities, schools, and financial institutions based on data that do not clearly separate the performance of different entities apart? The commonly used bootstrap-based frequentist confidence intervals and Bayesian intervals for population ranks may not achieve the intended coverage probability in the frequentist sense, especially in the presence of unknown ties or “near ties” among the populations to be ranked. Given random samples from k populations, we propose confidence bounds for population ranking parameters and develop rigorous frequentist theory and nonstandard bootstrap inference for population ranks, which allow ties and near ties. In the process, a notion of modified population rank is introduced that appears quite suitable for dealing with the population ranking problem. The proposed methodology and theoretical results are illustrated through simulations and a real dataset from a health research study involving 79 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. The results are extended to general risk adjustment models.