Finite- and large-sample inference for ranks using multinomial data with an application to ranking political parties

IF 9.9 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Sergei Bazylik , Magne Mogstad , Joseph P. Romano , Azeem M. Shaikh , Daniel Wilhelm
{"title":"Finite- and large-sample inference for ranks using multinomial data with an application to ranking political parties","authors":"Sergei Bazylik ,&nbsp;Magne Mogstad ,&nbsp;Joseph P. Romano ,&nbsp;Azeem M. Shaikh ,&nbsp;Daniel Wilhelm","doi":"10.1016/j.jeconom.2025.106010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Econometrics","volume":"250 ","pages":"Article 106010"},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Econometrics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407625000648","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
利用多项数据进行有限样本和大样本的排名推断,并应用于政党排名
通过选择数据显示的偏好来对不同类别进行排名是很常见的。一个突出的例子是根据每个人在政治态度调查或民意测验中获得的估计支持份额对政治候选人或政党进行排名。由于这些排名是根据支持率的估计值而不是实际支持率来计算的,因此政治候选人或政党的实际排名可能存在相当大的不确定性。在本文中,我们考虑了通过构造每个类别的秩的置信集来解释这种不确定性的问题。我们既考虑构造特定类别秩的边缘置信集问题,又考虑构造所有类别秩的同时置信集问题。我们分析的一个显著特征是,我们利用数据的多项结构来开发在有限样本中有效的置信集。我们还使用bootstrap开发了在大样本中仅近似有效的置信集。我们使用2019年澳大利亚选举调查的数据,使用我们的方法对澳大利亚的政党进行排名。我们发现,我们的有限样本置信集在整个政党排名中都具有信息性,即使在调查受访者很少和/或只有一小部分调查受访者选择的政党的澳大利亚地区也是如此。相反,基于自举的置信集有时可能信息量少得多。这些发现促使我们在一项经验驱动的模拟研究中比较这些方法,在研究中我们得出结论,我们的有限样本置信度集通常比大样本、基于引导的置信度集表现得更好,特别是在类似于我们的经验应用程序的设置中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Econometrics
Journal of Econometrics 社会科学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
1.60%
发文量
220
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Econometrics serves as an outlet for important, high quality, new research in both theoretical and applied econometrics. The scope of the Journal includes papers dealing with identification, estimation, testing, decision, and prediction issues encountered in economic research. Classical Bayesian statistics, and machine learning methods, are decidedly within the range of the Journal''s interests. The Annals of Econometrics is a supplement to the Journal of Econometrics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信