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:摘要研究多项选择份额所生成排名的统计推断,未明确建立离散选择行为模型或其他所列领域模型。

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
Sergei Bazylik
Magne Mogstad
Joseph P. Romano
Azeem M. Shaikh
Daniel Wilhelm

多项数据排名的有限样本与大样本推断:政党排名应用

研究问题
以调查中的选择份额排列政党等类别时,如何量化真实排名的不确定性,并同时为单个类别和全部类别构造置信集合?
方法与思路
作者利用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合,并提出仅在大样本近似有效的 bootstrap 方法。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称有限样本方法在澳大利亚政党排名应用中具有信息量,且在接近该应用的模拟情形下经常优于大样本方法。
阅读关注点
应核对并列排名的定义、多项抽样假设、同时覆盖的控制方式,以及有限样本集合与 bootstrap 集合的比较指标。
阅读边界
仅依据所给 OpenAlex 摘要;有限样本有效性依赖未列出的抽样条件,所述比较优势不能直接推广至所有排名问题。

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