Comments on: Deville and Särndal’s calibration: revisiting a 25 years old successful optimization problem
Discussion
First Online:
- 28 Downloads
Abstract
We provide a brief discussion on the development of model calibration techniques and optimal calibration estimation in survey sampling and its relation to Deville and Särndal’s calibration, and applications of model calibration to missing data problems for robust inference.
Keywords
Complete auxiliary information Double robustness Missing at random Multiple robustness Nonlinear models Optimal estimationMathematics Subject Classification
62D05Notes
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by a Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We are grateful to the invitation from the Co-Editor Lola Ugarte to join the discussion and to celebrate an important methodological advance in statistics for the past 25 years.
Funding
This work was funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant Number 50503-10487).
References
- Chen J, Sitter RR (1999) A pseudo empirical likelihood approach to the effective use of auxiliary information in complex surveys. Stat Sin 9:385–406MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Chen J, Wu C (2002) Estimation of distribution function and quantiles using the model-calibrated pseudo empirical likelihood method. Stat Sin 12:1223–1239MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Chen S, Haziza D (2017) Multiply robust imputation procedures for the treatment of item nonresponse in surveys. Biometrika 104:439–453MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chen J, Sitter RR, Wu C (2002) Using empirical likelihood methods to obtain range restricted weights in regression estimators for surveys. Biometrika 89:230–237MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Deville JC, Särndal CE (1992) Calibration estimators in survey sampling. J Am Stat Assoc 87:376–382MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Han P (2014) Multiply robust estimation in regression analysis with missing data. J Am Stat Assoc 109:1159–1173MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Han P (2016) Combining inverse probability weighting and multiple imputation to improve robustness of estimation. Scand J Stat 43:246–260MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Han P, Wang L (2013) Estimation with missing data: beyond double robustness. Biometrika 100:417–430MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Montanari GE, Ranalli MG (2005) Nonparametric model calibration estimation in survey sampling. J Am Stat Assoc 100:1429–1442MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Owen A (1988) Empirical likelihood ratio confidence intervals for a single functional. Biometrika 75:237–249MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sitter RR, Wu C (2002) Efficient estimation of quadratic finite population functions in the presence of auxiliary information. J Am Stat Assoc 97:535–543MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wu C (1999) The effective use of complete auxiliary information from survey data. Ph.D. Dissertation, Simon Fraser University, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Wu C (2003) Optimal calibration estimators in survey sampling. Biometrika 90:935–951MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Wu C, Sitter RR (2001) A model-calibration approach to using complete auxiliary information from survey data. J Am Stat Assoc 96:185–193MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wu C, Luan Y (2003) Optimal calibration estimators under two-phase sampling. J Off Stat 19:119–131Google Scholar
- Wu C, Lu WW (2016) Calibration weighting methods for complex surveys. Int Stat Rev 84:79–98MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhang S, Han P, Wu C (2019a) A unified empirical likelihood approach to testing MCAR and subsequent estimation. Scand J Stat 46:272–288MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhang S, Han P, Wu C (2019b) Empirical likelihood inference for non-randomized pretest–posttest studies with missing data. Electron J Stat 13:2012–2042MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa 2019