Methodology for Adding a Variable to a Synthetic Population from Aggregate Data: Example of the Income Variable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a framework to tackle the problem, which has received little attention in the literature, of adding variables to a synthetic population from aggregate data. The work herein thus enriches the existing literature by proposing a new and e icient methodology to meet this practical need. The methodology integrates three distinct stages, the first of which theoretically models the problem as a multinomial distribution. The addition of a new variable is formulated as an entropy maximization using the variables available in both the synthetic population and aggregate data. Solving this problem (in our specific case study) is not possible due to the large number of constraints involved. The second stage then presents a heuristic yielding a practical solution to the problem. This heuristic combines Bayes' theorem with the cross-entropy minimization algorithm. However, given the large number of parameters to be estimated by the proposed heuristic, some of the results obtained prove to be invalid. To rectify this shortcoming, a post-processing method is applied during a third stage to ensure the consistency of our results. The methodology is described in great detail, and examples are provided for a better understanding of these three stages. Also, this methodology is applied to a real-world case study. An income is allocated to each of the 157 000 households in the French city of Nantes based on aggregate data from the FiLoSoFi database. Income constitutes an essential microsimulation variable for taking many social and economic aspects into account (e.g. household purchasing power, redistribution policy, tax policy). Special attention is also paid to the reproducibility of our results with the databases and R-scripts used, all of which are freely available. This method remains general and is indeed applicable to other variables with available aggregate data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".