The model uncertainty issue is pervasive in virtually all applied fields but especially critical in insurance and finance. To hedge against the uncertainty of the underlying probability distribution, which we refer to as ambiguity, the worst case is often considered in quantifying the underlying risk. However, this worst-case treatment often yields results that are overly conservative. We argue that, in most practical situations, a generic risk is realized from multiple scenarios and the risk in some ordinary scenarios may be subject to negligible ambiguity so that it is safe to trust the reference distributions. Hence, we only need to consider the worst case in the other scenarios where ambiguity is significant. We implement this idea in the study of the worst-case moments of a risk in the hope to alleviate the over-conservativeness issue. Note that the ambiguity in our consideration exists in both the scenario indicator and the risk in the corresponding scenario, leading to a two-fold ambiguity issue. We employ the Wasserstein distance to construct an ambiguity ball. Then, we disentangle the ambiguity along the scenario indicator and the risk in the corresponding scenario, so that we convert the two-fold optimization problem into two one-fold problems. Our main result is a closed-form worst-case moment estimate. Our numerical studies illustrate that the consideration of partial ambiguity indeed greatly alleviates the over-conservativeness issue.

Accurate zygosity determination is a fundamental step in twin research. Although DNA-based testing is the gold standard for determining zygosity, collecting biological samples is not feasible in all research settings or all families. Previous work has demonstrated the feasibility of zygosity estimation based on questionnaire (physical similarity) data in older twins, but the extent to which this is also a reliable approach in infancy is less well established. Here, we report the accuracy of different questionnaire-based zygosity determination approaches (traditional and machine learning) in 5.5 month-old twins. The participant cohort comprised 284 infant twin pairs (128 dizygotic and 156 monozygotic) who participated in the Babytwins Study Sweden (BATSS). Manual scoring based on an established technique validated in older twins accurately predicted 90.49% of the zygosities with a sensitivity of 91.65% and specificity of 89.06%. The machine learning approach improved the prediction accuracy to 93.10%, with a sensitivity of 91.30% and specificity of 94.29%. Additionally, we quantified the systematic impact of zygosity misclassification on estimates of genetic and environmental influences using simulation-based sensitivity analysis on a separate data set to show the implication of our machine learning accuracy gain. In conclusion, our study demonstrates the feasibility of determining zygosity in very young infant twins using a questionnaire with four items and builds a scalable machine learning model with better metrics, thus a viable alternative to DNA tests in large-scale infant twin studies.

Much work has shown that differences in the timecourse of language processing are central to comparing native (L1) and non-native (L2) speakers. However, estimating the onset of experimental effects in timecourse data presents several statistical problems including multiple comparisons and autocorrelation. We compare several approaches to tackling these problems and illustrate them using an L1-L2 visual world eye-tracking dataset. We then present a bootstrapping procedure that allows not only estimation of an effect onset, but also of a temporal confidence interval around this divergence point. We describe how divergence points can be used to demonstrate timecourse differences between speaker groups or between experimental manipulations, two important issues in evaluating L2 processing accounts. We discuss possible extensions of the bootstrapping procedure, including determining divergence points for individual speakers and correlating them with individual factors like L2 exposure and proficiency. Data and an analysis tutorial are available at https://osf.io/exbmk/.

This paper describes how statistical methods can be tested on computer-generated data from known models. We explore bias and percentile tests in detail, illustrating these with examples based on insurance claims and financial time series.

A dynamic-stochastic model is developed to evaluate preferences among alternative countercyclical payment programs for representative farms producing corn or soybeans in Iowa and cotton or soybeans in Mississippi. Countercyclical payment programs are found to not necessarily be preferred to fixed payment programs.

The objective of this research is to identify and quantify the motivations for organic grain farming in the United States. Survey data of US organic grain producers were used in regression models to find the statistical determinants of three motivations for organic grain production, including profit maximization, environmental stewardship, and an organic lifestyle. Results provide evidence that many organic grain producers had more than a single motivation and that younger farmers are more likely to be motivated by environmental and lifestyle goals than older farmers. Organic grain producers exhibited a diversity of motivations, including profit and stewardship.

By adding the information of reported count data to a classical triangle of reserving data, we derive a suprisingly simple method for forecasting IBNR and RBNS claims. A simple relationship between development factors allows to involve and then estimate the reporting and payment delay. Bootstrap methods provide prediction errors and make possible the inference about IBNR and RBNS claims, separately.

U.S. state politics researchers often analyze data with observations grouped into clusters. This structure commonly produces unmodeled correlation within clusters, leading to downward bias in the standard errors of regression coefficients. Estimating robust cluster standard errors (RCSE) is a common approach to correcting this bias. However, despite their frequent use, recent work indicates that RCSE can also be biased downward. Here the author provides evidence of that bias and offers a potential solution. Through Monte Carlo simulation of an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model, the author compares conventional standard error (OLS-SE) and RCSE performance to that of a bootstrap method that resamples clusters of observations (BCSE). The author shows that both OLS-SE and RCSE are biased downward, with OLS-SE being the most biased. In contrast, BCSE are not biased and consistently outperform the other two methods. The author concludes with three replications from recent work and offers recommendations to researchers.

A theory of conceptual development must specify the innate representational primitives, must characterize the ways in which the initial state differs from the adult state, and must characterize the processes through which one is transformed into the other. The Origin of Concepts (henceforth TOOC) defends three theses. With respect to the initial state, the innate stock of primitives is not limited to sensory, perceptual, or sensorimotor representations; rather, there are also innate conceptual representations. With respect to developmental change, conceptual development consists of episodes of qualitative change, resulting in systems of representation that are more powerful than, and sometimes incommensurable with, those from which they are built. With respect to a learning mechanism that achieves conceptual discontinuity, I offer Quinian bootstrapping. TOOC concludes with a discussion of how an understanding of conceptual development constrains a theory of concepts.

This paper considers the bootstrapping approach for measuring reserve uncertainty when applying the model of Schnieper for reserves which separate Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) and Incurred But Not Enough Reserved (IBNER) claims. The Schnieper method has been explored in Liu and Verrall (2009), and the Mean Square Errors of Prediction (MSEP) derived. This paper takes this further by deriving the full predictive distribution, using bootstrapping. Numerical examples are provided and the MSEP from the bootstrapping approach are compared with those obtained analytically.

Monetary policy should be guided by macroeconomic models with limited nominal rigidity; ‘New Classical’ or even for some issues just plain Classical (i.e. with no nominal rigidity at all) models are perfectly adequate for understanding various aspects of the economy that have previously led economists to believe in a high degree of nominal rigidity. On UK data these models account for the facts of inflation persistence and exchange rate ‘overshooting’; their impulse responses are in line with the data; and a typical example, the Liverpool Model, is marginally accepted in its entirety by the data since 1979. Such models suggest that no increased macro instability would result from taking the rigours of monetary policy one stage further from inflation targeting and ensuring that the price level itself is returned to its long-run preset target path — so that the value of money over long periods of time would be utterly predictable.

Asymptotic expansions are obtained for the distribution function of a studentized estimator of the offspring mean sequence in an array branching process with immigration. The expansion result is shown to hold in a test function topology. As an application of this result, it is shown that the bootstrapping distribution of the estimator of the offspring mean in a sub-critical branching process with immigration also admits the same expansion (in probability). From these considerations, it is concluded that the bootstrapping distribution provides a better approximation asymptotically than the normal distribution.