[EM] Quick and Clean Burial Resistant Smith, compromise

[Daniel Carrera]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 2:32 PM Daniel Carrera <dcarrera at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Impartial culture: 15 voters, 3 candidates:
>
> Your result:  0.1101-0.1191
> My result:  ~0.06
>
> So I'm still off by a fair bit, but at least now I'm in the correct
> magnitude range. I'm going to look around to see if I find another bug.
>
Aha! I had the `SS += 1` vs `SF += 1` counter in the wrong loop. Using your
pseudocode:

for n = 1...numiters:
        e_A = sample election
        w_A = winner of e_A according to method M
        for c_k in every candidate but w_A:
                for i = 1...strategy_iters:
                        ...
        if strategy successful:
                increment number of strategy successes SS
        else:
                increment number of strategy failures SF

I had the if statement in the `for c_k in every ...` loop. Moving it back
down where it belongs gives me strategy success rates in the same range as
yours.

Your result:  0.1101-0.1191  (95% c.i.)
My result:    0.0923-0.1250  (95% c.i.)

It is comforting that my interval contains yours. The wider interval
probably just reflects that I'm using fewer elections because I'm testing
the code. I'm running sets of 1,000 elections and the paper uses 10,000.

Thanks for the help!

Cheers,
-- 
Dr. Daniel Carrera
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Iowa State University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20220111/d2ddfc71/attachment.html>