Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:26:46.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Continuous-Time, Latent-Variable Model of Time Series Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Alexander M. Tahk
Alexander M. Tahk*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1050 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI 53706. email: atahk@wisc.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Many types of time series data in political science, including polling data and events data, exhibit important features'such as irregular spacing, noninstantaneous observation, overlapping observation times, and sampling or other measurement error'that are ignored in most statistical analyses because of model limitations. Ignoring these properties can lead not only to biased coefficients but also to incorrect inference about the direction of causality. This article develops a continuous-time model to overcome these limitations. This new model treats observations as noisy samples collected over an interval of time and can be viewed as a generalization of the vector autoregressive model. Monte Carlo simulations and two empirical examples demonstrate the importance of modeling these features of the data.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , Spring 2015, pp. 278 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Author's note: The author wishes to thank John Ahlquist, Patrick Brandt, Kosuke Imai, Simon Jackman, Jon Krosnick, Suzanna Linn, Jon Pevehouse, James Sieja, Susannah Tahk, David Weimer, and participants at Princeton University's Political Methodology Research Seminar and the 28th Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology. Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

References

Armstrong, D. A. II 2009. Measuring the democracy-repression nexus. Electoral Studies 28(3): 403–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, N. 1989. Estimating dynamic models using Kalman filtering. Political Analysis 1(1): 121–56.10.1093/pan/1.1.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berardo, R., and Scholz, J. T. 2010. Self-organizing policy networks: Risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 632–49.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00451.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlemann, M., and Enkelmann, S. 2012. The economic determinants of U.S. presidential approval—A survey. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2029449, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.10.2139/ssrn.2029449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, J. R., Fleisher, R., and Wood, B. D. 2003. The marginal and time-varying effect of public approval on presidential success in Congress. Journal of Politics 65(1): 92–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., and Jones, B. S. 1997. Time is of the essence: Event history models in political science. American Journal of Political Science 41(4): 1414–61.10.2307/2960496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., and Jones, B. S. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, P. T., and Freeman, J. R. 2006. Advances in Bayesian time series modeling and the study of politics: Theory testing, forecasting, and policy analysis. Political Analysis 14(1): 1–36.10.1093/pan/mpi035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, P. T., and Freeman, J. R. 2009. Modeling macro-political dynamics. Political Analysis 17(2): 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, P. T., and Williams, J. T. 2001. A linear Poisson autoregressive model: The Poisson AR( p) model. Political Analysis 9(2): 164–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, P. T., Williams, J. T., Fordham, B. O., and Pollins, B. 2000. Dynamic modeling for persistent event-count time series. American Journal of Political Science 44(4):823.10.2307/2669284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockwell, P. J. 2001. Continuous-time ARMA processes. In Stochastic Processes: Theory and Methods, Volume 19, of Handbook of Statistics, eds. Shanbhag, D. N. and Rao, C. R., 149–276. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Burden, B. C., and Mughan, A. 2003. The international economy and presidential approval. Public Opinion Quarterly 67(4): 555–78.10.1086/378963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlin, R. E., Love, G. J., Martínez-Gallardo, C. Forthcoming. Cushioning the fall: Scandals, economic conditions, and executive approval. Political Behavior. doi:10.1007/s11109-014-9267-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, D. 2003. Why do bureaucrats delay? In Politics, Policy, and Organizations: Frontiers in the Study of Bureaucracy 2003, eds. Krause, G. A. and Meier, K. J., 23–40. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Commandeur, J. J., and Koopman, S. J. 2007. An Introduction to State Space Time Series Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Boef, S., and Keele, L. 2008. Taking time seriously. American Journal of Political Science 52(1): 184–200.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00307.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durbin, J., and Koopman, S. J. 2012. Time Series Analysis by State Space Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199641178.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enns, P. K. 2014. The public's increasing punitiveness and its influence on mass incarceration in the United States. American Journal of Political Science 58:857–72.10.1111/ajps.12098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, J. D. 1994. Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review 88(03): 577–92.10.2307/2944796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, J. D. 1998. Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation. International Organization 52(02): 269–305.10.1162/002081898753162820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. R. 1989. Systematic sampling, temporal aggregation, and the study of political relationships. Political Analysis 1(1): 61–98.10.1093/pan/1.1.61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. R., Williams, J. T., and Lin, T. 1989, November. Vector autoregression and the study of politics. American Journal of Political Science 33(4): 842–77.10.2307/2111112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, W. A. 1976. Introduction to Statistical Time Series. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. S. 1992. A conflict-cooperation scale for WEIS events data. Journal of Conflict Resolution 36(2): 369–85.10.1177/0022002792036002007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, J. S., and Pevehouse, J. C. 1997. Reciprocity, bullying, and international cooperation: Time series analysis of the Bosnia conflict. American Political Science Review 91(3): 515–29.10.2307/2952072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. P., Gerber, A. S., and Boef, S. L. d. 1999. Tracking opinion over time: A method for reducing sampling error. Public Opinion Quarterly 63(2): 178–92.10.1086/297710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gronke, P., and Brehm, J. 2002. History, heterogeneity, and presidential approval: A modified ARCH approach. Electoral Studies 21(3): 425–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hänggi, P., and Marchesoni, F. 2005. Introduction: 100 years of Brownian motion. Chaos 15(2):026101.10.1063/1.1895505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbs, D. A. Jr., 1973. Problems of statistical estimation and causal inference in time-series regression models. In Sociological Methodology, Vol. 5, ed. Heise, D. R., 252–308. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Jackman, S. 2005. December. Pooling the polls over an election campaign. Australian Journal of Political Science 40:499–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. 1984. Fitting multivariate models to unequally spaced data. In Time Series Analysis of Irregularly Observed Data. Vol. 25 of Lecture Notes in Statistics, ed. Parzen, E., 158–188. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Jones, R., and Tryon, P. 1987. Continuous time series models for unequally spaced data applied to modeling atomic clocks. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 8(1): 71–81.10.1137/0908007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. H. 1981. Fitting a continuous time autoregression to discrete data. In Applied Time Series Analysis II, ed. Findley, D. F., 651–682. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-256420-8.50026-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. H. 1985. Time series analysis with unequally spaced data. In Time Series in the Time Domain. Vol. 5 of Handbook of Statistics, eds. Hannan, E. J., Krishnaiah, P. R., and Rao, M. M., 157–178. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Jones, R. H., and Ackerson, L. M. 1990. Serial correlation in unequally spaced longitudinal data. Biometrika 77(4): 721–31.10.1093/biomet/77.4.721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. H., and Boadi-Boateng, F. 1991. Unequally spaced longitudinal data with AR(1) serial correlation. Biometrics 47(1): 161–75.10.2307/2532504CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellstedt, P., McAvoy, E., and Stimson, J. A. 1993. Dynamic analysis with latent constructs. Political Analysis 5(1): 113–50.10.1093/pan/5.1.113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, S. 1978. Explaining presidential popularity. American Political Science Review 72(2):506.10.2307/1954107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriner, D. L. 2006. Examining variance in presidential approval: The case of FDR in World War II. Public Opinion Quarterly 70(1): 23–47.10.1093/poq/nfj001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manger, M. S., Pickup, M. A., and Snijders, T. A. B. 2012. A hierarchy of preferences: A longitudinal network analysis approach to PTA formation. Journal of Conflict Resolution 56(5): 853–78.10.1177/0022002712438351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. D., and Quinn, K. M. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10(2): 134–53.10.1093/pan/10.2.134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAvoy, G. E. 1998. Partisan probing and democratic decisionmaking rethinking the NIMBY syndrome. Policy Studies Journal 26(2): 274–92.10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01899.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, J. E. 1970. Presidential popularity from Truman to Johnson. American Political Science Review 64(1):18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickup, M. A., and Johnston, R. 2007. Campaign trial heats as electoral information. Electoral Studies 26(2): 460–76.10.1016/j.electstud.2007.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickup, M. A., and Johnston, R. 2008. Campaign trial heats as election forecasts. International Journal of Forecasting 24(2): 272–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickup, M. A., and Wlezien, C. 2009. On filtering longitudinal public opinion data. Electoral Studies 28(3): 354–67.10.1016/j.electstud.2009.05.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center, Roper. 2013. iPoll databank. Storrs, CT.: The Roper Center, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Schweppe, F. C. 1965. Evaluation of likelihood functions for Gaussian signals. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 11(1): 61–70.10.1109/TIT.1965.1053737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shellman, S. M. 2004. Time series intervals and statistical inference: The effects of temporal aggregation on event data analysis. Political Analysis 12(1): 97–104.10.1093/pan/mpg017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, J. A. 1999. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, J. A. 2008. Using WCALC and the dyad ratios algorithm. http://www.unc.edu/ ∼jstimson/Software_files/wcalc.pdf (accessed January 22, 2015).Google Scholar
Streb, J. M., Lema, D., and Garofalo, P. 2012. Fall. Temporal aggregation in political budget cycles. Economía 13(1): 39–78.10.1353/eco.2012.a485603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiao, G. C., and Wei, W. W. 1976. Effect of temporal aggregation on the dynamic relationship of two time series variables. Biometrika 63(3): 513–23.10.1093/biomet/63.3.513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Tahk supplementary material

Appendix

Download Tahk supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 3.6 MB