Understanding Our Markov Chain Significance Test: A Reply to Cho and Rubinstein-Salzedo

IF 1.5 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS Statistics and Public Policy Pub Date : 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1080/2330443X.2019.1615396
M. Chikina, A. Frieze, W. Pegden
{"title":"Understanding Our Markov Chain Significance Test: A Reply to Cho and Rubinstein-Salzedo","authors":"M. Chikina, A. Frieze, W. Pegden","doi":"10.1080/2330443X.2019.1615396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article of Cho and Rubinstein-Salzedo seeks to cast doubt on our previous paper, which described a rigorous statistical test which can be applied to reversible Markov chains. In particular, Cho and Rubinstein-Salzedo seem to suggest that the test we describe might not be a reliable indicator of gerrymandering, when the test is applied to certain redistricting Markov chains. However, the examples constructed by Cho and Rubinstein-Salzedo in fact demonstrate a different point: that our test is not the same as another class of gerrymandering tests, which Cho and Rubinstein-Salzedo prefer. But we agree and emphasized this very distinction in our original paper. In this reply, we reply to the criticisms of Cho and Rubinstein-Salzedo, and discuss, more generally, the advantages of the various tests available in the context of detecting gerrymandering of political districtings.","PeriodicalId":43397,"journal":{"name":"Statistics and Public Policy","volume":"6 1","pages":"50 - 53"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2330443X.2019.1615396","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2019.1615396","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract The article of Cho and Rubinstein-Salzedo seeks to cast doubt on our previous paper, which described a rigorous statistical test which can be applied to reversible Markov chains. In particular, Cho and Rubinstein-Salzedo seem to suggest that the test we describe might not be a reliable indicator of gerrymandering, when the test is applied to certain redistricting Markov chains. However, the examples constructed by Cho and Rubinstein-Salzedo in fact demonstrate a different point: that our test is not the same as another class of gerrymandering tests, which Cho and Rubinstein-Salzedo prefer. But we agree and emphasized this very distinction in our original paper. In this reply, we reply to the criticisms of Cho and Rubinstein-Salzedo, and discuss, more generally, the advantages of the various tests available in the context of detecting gerrymandering of political districtings.
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
理解我们的马尔可夫链显著性检验:对Cho和Rubinstein-Salzedo的答复
摘要Cho和Rubinstein Salzedo的文章试图对我们之前的论文提出质疑,该论文描述了一种可以应用于可逆马尔可夫链的严格统计检验。特别是,Cho和Rubinstein Salzedo似乎认为,当测试应用于某些重新划分选区的马尔可夫链时,我们描述的测试可能不是不公正选区划分的可靠指标。然而,Cho和Rubinstein Salzedo构建的例子实际上证明了一个不同的观点:我们的测试与Cho和鲁宾斯坦Salzedo更喜欢的另一类选区划分不公测试不同。但我们同意这一点,并在我们的原始文件中强调了这一区别。在本回复中,我们回应了赵和鲁宾斯坦·萨尔泽多的批评,并更广泛地讨论了在检测政治选区划分不公的背景下可用的各种测试的优势。
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
Statistics and Public Policy
Statistics and Public Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
13
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊最新文献
State-Building through Public Land Disposal? An Application of Matrix Completion for Counterfactual Prediction Clusters of Jail Incarcerations in US Counties: 2010-2018 Comment on ‘What protects the autonomy of the Federal Statistics Agencies? An Assessment of the Procedures in Place That Protect the Independence and Objectivity of Official Statistics” by Pierson et al. On Coping in a Non-Binary World: Rejoinder to Biedermann and Kotsoglou Commentary on “Three-Way ROCs for Forensic Decision Making” by Nicholas Scurich and Richard S. John (in: Statistics and Public Policy)
×
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