Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2206.14570v2

The study titled "Bias and Excess Variance in Election Polling: A Not-So-Hidden Markov Model" by Graham Tierney and Alexander Volfovsky explores the measurement of polling errors in US Presidential and Senate elections. The authors highlight the increased interest in measuring polling errors due to historic misses in the 2016 and 2020 US Presidential elections. They note that the most common method for measuring directional errors and non-sampling excess variability is by comparing poll results with election results conducted within a few days of the election. However, analyzing such polling error data has proven to be challenging, as typical models are highly sensitive to the time between the poll and the election. To address this issue, Tierney and Volfovsky propose leveraging hidden Markov models traditionally used for election forecasting. These models allow for flexible capturing of time-varying preferences and treat the election result as a peak in the hidden Markovian process. The authors demonstrate their approach using data from polls conducted during US Presidential elections from 2004 to 2020 and US Senate elections from 1992 to 2020. Their results show that previous estimates of bias in Presidential elections were too extreme by 10%, while estimates of bias in Senatorial elections were too extreme by 25%. Additionally, they find that previous estimates of excess variability were also too large. By utilizing hidden Markov models, Tierney and Volfovsky's approach provides less sensitivity to the choice of time window, avoids conflating shifting preferences with polling error, and offers more interpretable results despite using a highly flexible model. This research contributes to improving our understanding of polling errors in elections and provides valuable insights for future analysis.

• - The study explores the measurement of polling errors in US Presidential and Senate elections.
• - The authors highlight the increased interest in measuring polling errors due to historic misses in the 2016 and 2020 US Presidential elections.
• - The most common method for measuring directional errors and non-sampling excess variability is by comparing poll results with election results conducted within a few days of the election.
• - Typical models are highly sensitive to the time between the poll and the election, making analysis challenging.
• - Tierney and Volfovsky propose leveraging hidden Markov models traditionally used for election forecasting to address this issue.
• - Their approach allows for flexible capturing of time-varying preferences and treats the election result as a peak in the hidden Markovian process.
• - Results using data from polls conducted during US Presidential elections from 2004 to 2020 and US Senate elections from 1992 to 2020 show that previous estimates of bias were too extreme by 10% in Presidential elections and by 25% in Senatorial elections.
• - Previous estimates of excess variability were also found to be too large.
• - Utilizing hidden Markov models provides less sensitivity to the choice of time window, avoids conflating shifting preferences with polling error, and offers more interpretable results despite using a highly flexible model.
• - This research contributes to improving our understanding of polling errors in elections.

The study is about measuring mistakes in polls during US elections. The authors are interested in this because there were big mistakes in the 2016 and 2020 elections. They usually compare the poll results with the actual election results to see if there were any mistakes. It can be difficult to analyze because the time between the poll and the election matters a lot. The authors suggest using a special kind of model called hidden Markov models to solve this problem. They tested their method using data from past elections and found that previous estimates of mistakes were too big. Using hidden Markov models makes it easier to understand the results and avoids some problems with other methods. This research helps us learn more about how polls can be wrong in elections." Definitions- Measurement: finding out how much or how many of something there is - Polling errors: mistakes made when collecting information from people's opinions - Presidential: relating to the President, who is the leader of a country - Senate: a group of people who make laws in some countries, like the US - Historic misses: important mistakes that happened before - Method: a way of doing something - Directional errors: mistakes that show which way things are going - Non-sampling excess variability: extra differences that are not caused by chance - Comparing: looking at two things and seeing how they are similar or different - Analysis: studying something carefully to understand it better - Challenging: difficult - Leveraging

Exploring Bias and Excess Variance in Election Polling: A Not-So-Hidden Markov Model

In the wake of historic polling misses in the 2016 and 2020 US Presidential elections, there is an increased interest in measuring polling errors. Graham Tierney and Alexander Volfovsky explore this issue by proposing a novel approach to measure directional errors and non-sampling excess variability using hidden Markov models. This research paper will discuss their findings from analyzing polls conducted during US Presidential elections from 2004 to 2020 and US Senate elections from 1992 to 2020.

Background on Measuring Polling Errors

The most common method for measuring polling errors is by comparing poll results with election results conducted within a few days of the election. However, analyzing such data has proven to be challenging due to its sensitivity to the time between the poll and the election. To address this issue, Tierney and Volfovsky propose leveraging hidden Markov models traditionally used for election forecasting. These models allow for flexible capturing of time-varying preferences while treating the election result as a peak in the hidden Markovian process.

Results

Tierney and Volfovsky's results show that previous estimates of bias in Presidential elections were too extreme by 10%, while estimates of bias in Senatorial elections were too extreme by 25%. Additionally, they find that previous estimates of excess variability were also too large. By utilizing hidden Markov models, their approach provides less sensitivity to the choice of time window, avoids conflating shifting preferences with polling error, and offers more interpretable results despite using a highly flexible model.

Conclusion

This research contributes to improving our understanding of polling errors in elections and provides valuable insights for future analysis. The authors demonstrate how their proposed approach can provide more accurate measurements than traditional methods while still being able to capture time-varying preferences leading up to an election result peak. As such, it could prove useful for researchers looking into similar topics or those seeking more reliable predictions when it comes to electoral outcomes based on polls taken prior to voting day