Inference on Consensus Ranking of Distributions

David M. Kaplan
{"title":"Inference on Consensus Ranking of Distributions","authors":"David M. Kaplan","doi":"arxiv-2408.13949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Instead of testing for unanimous agreement, I propose learning how broad of a\nconsensus favors one distribution over another (of earnings, productivity,\nasset returns, test scores, etc.). Specifically, given a sample from each of\ntwo distributions, I propose statistical inference methods to learn about the\nset of utility functions for which the first distribution has higher expected\nutility than the second distribution. With high probability, an \"inner\"\nconfidence set is contained within this true set, while an \"outer\" confidence\nset contains the true set. Such confidence sets can be formed by inverting a\nproposed multiple testing procedure that controls the familywise error rate.\nTheoretical justification comes from empirical process results, given that very\nlarge classes of utility functions are generally Donsker (subject to finite\nmoments). The theory additionally justifies a uniform (over utility functions)\nconfidence band of expected utility differences, as well as tests with a\nutility-based \"restricted stochastic dominance\" as either the null or\nalternative hypothesis. Simulated and empirical examples illustrate the\nmethodology.","PeriodicalId":501293,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - ECON - Econometrics","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - ECON - Econometrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2408.13949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Instead of testing for unanimous agreement, I propose learning how broad of a consensus favors one distribution over another (of earnings, productivity, asset returns, test scores, etc.). Specifically, given a sample from each of two distributions, I propose statistical inference methods to learn about the set of utility functions for which the first distribution has higher expected utility than the second distribution. With high probability, an "inner" confidence set is contained within this true set, while an "outer" confidence set contains the true set. Such confidence sets can be formed by inverting a proposed multiple testing procedure that controls the familywise error rate. Theoretical justification comes from empirical process results, given that very large classes of utility functions are generally Donsker (subject to finite moments). The theory additionally justifies a uniform (over utility functions) confidence band of expected utility differences, as well as tests with a utility-based "restricted stochastic dominance" as either the null or alternative hypothesis. Simulated and empirical examples illustrate the methodology.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一致同意的分布排名推论
我建议,与其测试是否存在一致意见,不如了解有多大程度的一致意见倾向于一种分布而非另一种分布(收入、生产率、资产回报、考试分数等)。具体来说,给定两种分布的样本,我提出了统计推断方法,以了解第一种分布的预期效用高于第二种分布的效用函数集。很有可能,"内部 "置信集包含在这个真实集合中,而 "外部 "置信集包含真实集合。这种置信集可以通过反转所提出的多重检验程序来形成,该程序可以控制全族误差率。理论依据来自于经验过程的结果,因为很大一类效用函数一般都是唐斯克函数(受有限矩影响)。此外,该理论还证明了预期效用差异的统一(效用函数)置信区间,以及基于自变量的 "受限随机支配 "作为零假设或口述替代假设的检验是合理的。模拟和实证例子说明了这一方法。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Simple robust two-stage estimation and inference for generalized impulse responses and multi-horizon causality GPT takes the SAT: Tracing changes in Test Difficulty and Math Performance of Students A Simple and Adaptive Confidence Interval when Nuisance Parameters Satisfy an Inequality Why you should also use OLS estimation of tail exponents On LASSO Inference for High Dimensional Predictive Regression
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1