Bayesian benchmarking of the Fay-Herriot model using random deletion

被引:0
|
作者
Nandram, Balgobin [1 ,2 ]
Erciulescu, Andreea L. [3 ]
Cruze, Nathan B. [4 ]
机构
[1] Worcester Polytech Inst, Stratton Hall,100 Inst Rd, Worcester, MA 01609 USA
[2] USDA, Natl Agr Stat Serv, Dept Math Sci, Stratton Hall,100 Inst Rd, Worcester, MA 01609 USA
[3] Westat Corp, 1600 Res Blvd, Rockville, MD 20850 USA
[4] USDA, Natl Agr Stat Serv, 1400 Independence Ave SW,Room 6412 A, Washington, DC 20250 USA
关键词
Constraint; Direct estimates; Fay-Herriot model; Multivariate normal density; Official statistics; Small area estimation; SMALL-AREA ESTIMATION; PREDICTION;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
O1 [数学]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 0701 ; 070101 ;
摘要
Benchmarking lower level estimates to upper level estimates is an important activity at the United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) (e.g., benchmarking county estimates to state estimates for corn acreage). Assuming that a county is a small area, we use the original Fay-Herriot model to obtain a general Bayesian method to benchmark county estimates to the state estimate (the target). Here the target is assumed known, and the county estimates are obtained subject to the constraint that these estimates must sum to the target. This is an external benchmarking; it is important for official statistics, not just NASS, and it occurs more generally in small area estimation. One can benchmark these estimates by "deleting" one of the counties (typically the last one) to incorporate the benchmarking constraint into the model. However, it is also true that the estimates may change depending on which county is deleted when the constraint is included in the model. Our current contribution is to give each small area a chance to be deleted, and we call this procedure the random deletion benchmarking method. We show empirically that there are differences in the estimates as to which county is deleted and that there are differences of these estimates from those obtained from random deletion as well. Although these differences may be considered small, it is most sensible to use random deletion because it does not give preferential treatment to any county and it can provide small improvement in precision over deleting the last one benchmarking as well.
引用
收藏
页码:365 / 390
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Fay-Herriot Model with Different Random Effect Variances
    Herrador, M.
    Esteban, M. D.
    Hobza, T.
    Morales, D.
    [J]. COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS-THEORY AND METHODS, 2011, 40 (05) : 785 - 797
  • [2] The best EBLUP in the Fay-Herriot model
    Jiang, Jiming
    Tang, En-Tzu
    [J]. ANNALS OF THE INSTITUTE OF STATISTICAL MATHEMATICS, 2011, 63 (06) : 1123 - 1140
  • [3] Estimation of domain discontinuities using Hierarchical Bayesian Fay-Herriot models
    van den Brakel, Jan A.
    Boonstra, Harm-Jan
    [J]. SURVEY METHODOLOGY, 2021, 47 (01) : 151 - 189
  • [4] Tests for the variance parameter in the Fay-Herriot model
    Marhuenda, Y.
    Morales, D.
    Pardo, M. C.
    [J]. STATISTICS, 2016, 50 (01) : 27 - 42
  • [5] Information criteria for Fay-Herriot model selection
    Marhuenda, Yolanda
    Morales, Domingo
    del Carmen Pardo, Maria
    [J]. COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS & DATA ANALYSIS, 2014, 70 : 268 - 280
  • [6] Transformed Fay-Herriot model with measurement error in covariates
    Mosaferi, Sepideh
    Ghosh, Malay
    Steorts, Rebecca C.
    [J]. COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS-SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION, 2023, 52 (05) : 2257 - 2274
  • [7] Conditional Akaike information criterion in the Fay-Herriot model
    Han, Bing
    [J]. STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY, 2013, 11 : 53 - 67
  • [8] A resampling approach to estimation of the linking variance in the Fay-Herriot model
    Chatterjee, Snigdhansu
    [J]. STATISTICAL THEORY AND RELATED FIELDS, 2019, 3 (02) : 170 - 177
  • [9] Parametric transformed Fay-Herriot model for small area estimation
    Sugasawa, Shonosuke
    Kubokawa, Tatsuya
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, 2015, 139 : 295 - 311
  • [10] A Fay-Herriot model when auxiliary variables are measured with error
    Pablo Burgard, Jan
    Dolores Esteban, Maria
    Morales, Domingo
    Perez, Agustin
    [J]. TEST, 2020, 29 (01) : 166 - 195