Using the bootstrap to quantify the authority of an empirical ranking
Peter Hall, Hugh Miller

TL;DR
This paper critically examines the bootstrap method for ranking confidence, revealing its limitations and proposing improved variants, especially in high-dimensional and dependent data contexts like genomics.
Contribution
It demonstrates the inconsistency of the standard bootstrap for empirical ranks and introduces an independent component bootstrap to address dependence issues.
Findings
Standard bootstrap can be inconsistent for ranks.
Bootstrap intervals may be accurate in order but not in magnitude.
Independent component bootstrap improves performance with dependent data.
Abstract
The bootstrap is a popular and convenient method for quantifying the authority of an empirical ordering of attributes, for example of a ranking of the performance of institutions or of the influence of genes on a response variable. In the first of these examples, the number, , of quantities being ordered is sometimes only moderate in size; in the second it can be very large, often much greater than sample size. However, we show that in both types of problem the conventional bootstrap can produce inconsistency. Moreover, the standard -out-of- bootstrap estimator of the distribution of an empirical rank may not converge in the usual sense; the estimator may converge in distribution, but not in probability. Nevertheless, in many cases the bootstrap correctly identifies the support of the asymptotic distribution of ranks. In some contemporary problems, bootstrap prediction…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
