Mean-Minimum Exact Confidence Intervals

This article introduces mean-minimum (MM) exact confidence intervals for a binomial probability. These intervals guarantee that both the mean and the minimum frequentist coverage never drop below specified values. For example, an MM 95[93]% interval has mean coverage at least 95% and minimum coverage at least 93%. In the conventional sense, such an interval can be viewed as an exact 93% interval that has mean coverage at least 95% or it can be viewed as an approximate 95% interval that has minimum coverage at least 93%. Graphical and numerical summaries of coverage and expected length suggest that the Blaker-based MM exact interval is an attractive alternative to, even an improvement over, commonly recommended approximate and exact intervals, including the Agresti–Coull approximate interval, the Clopper–Pearson (CP) exact interval, and the more recently recommended CP-, Blaker-, and Sterne-based mean-coverage-adjusted approximate intervals.     

Exact likelihood ratio and score confidence intervals for the binomial proportion

Many methods are available for computing a confidence interval for the binomial parameter, and these methods differ in their operating characteristics. It has been suggested in the literature that the use of the exact likelihood ratio (LR) confidence interval for the binomial proportion should be considered. This paper provides an evaluation of the operating characteristics of the two‐sided exact LR and exact score confidence intervals for the binomial proportion and compares these results to those for three other methods that also strictly maintain nominal coverage: Clopper‐Pearson, Blaker, and Casella. In addition, the operating characteristics of the two‐sided exact LR method and exact score method are compared with those of the corresponding asymptotic methods to investigate the adequacy of the asymptotic approximation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Model‐Averaged Confidence Intervals

We develop an approach to evaluating frequentist model averaging procedures by considering them in a simple situation in which there are two‐nested linear regression models over which we average. We introduce a general class of model averaged confidence intervals, obtain exact expressions for the coverage and the scaled expected length of the intervals, and use these to compute these quantities for the model averaged profile likelihood (MPI) and model‐averaged tail area confidence intervals proposed by D. Fletcher and D. Turek. We show that the MPI confidence intervals can perform more poorly than the standard confidence interval used after model selection but ignoring the model selection process. The model‐averaged tail area confidence intervals perform better than the MPI and postmodel‐selection confidence intervals but, for the examples that we consider, offer little over simply using the standard confidence interval for θ under the full model, with the same nominal coverage.     

Comparing confidence intervals for the logarithmic series distribution

It is assumed that a small random sample of fixed size n is drawn from a logarithmic series distribution with parameter θ and that it is desired to estimate θ by means of a two-sided confidence interval. In this note Crow's system of confidence intervals is compared, in shortness of intervals, with Clopper and Pearson's, and the corresponding randomized counterparts.     

Exact confidence limits for the probability of response in two-stage designs

In addition to point estimate for the probability of response in a two-stage design (e.g. Simon's two-stage design for binary endpoints), confidence limits should be computed and reported. The current method of inverting the p-value function to compute the confidence interval does not guarantee coverage probability in a two-stage setting. The existing exact approach to calculate one-sided limits is based on the overall number of responses to order the sample space. This approach could be conservative because many sample points have the same limits. We propose a new exact one-sided interval based on p-value for the sample space ordering. Exact intervals are computed by using binomial distributions directly, instead of a normal approximation. Both exact intervals preserve the nominal confidence level. The proposed exact interval based on the p-value generally performs better than the other exact interval with regard to expected length and simple average length of confidence intervals.     

Sample size for estimating a binomial proportion: comparison of different methods

The poor performance of the Wald method for constructing confidence intervals (CIs) for a binomial proportion has been demonstrated in a vast literature. The related problem of sample size determination needs to be updated and comparative studies are essential to understanding the performance of alternative methods. In this paper, the sample size is obtained for the Clopper–Pearson, Bayesian (Uniform and Jeffreys priors), Wilson, Agresti–Coull, Anscombe, and Wald methods. Two two-step procedures are used: one based on the expected length (EL) of the CI and another one on its first-order approximation. In the first step, all possible solutions that satisfy the optimal criterion are obtained. In the second step, a single solution is proposed according to a new criterion (e.g. highest coverage probability (CP)). In practice, it is expected a sample size reduction, therefore, we explore the behavior of the methods admitting 30% and 50% of losses. For all the methods, the ELs are inflated, as expected, but the coverage probabilities remain close to the original target (with few exceptions). It is not easy to suggest a method that is optimal throughout the range (0, 1) for p. Depending on whether the goal is to achieve CP approximately or above the nominal level different recommendations are made.     

Construction of fixed width confidence intervals for a Bernoulli success probability using sequential sampling: a simulation study

This article considers the construction of level 1?α fixed width 2d confidence intervals for a Bernoulli success probability p, assuming no prior knowledge about p and so p can be anywhere in the interval [0, 1]. It is shown that some fixed width 2d confidence intervals that combine sequential sampling of Hall [Asymptotic theory of triple sampling for sequential estimation of a mean, Ann. Stat. 9 (1981), pp. 1229–1238] and fixed-sample-size confidence intervals of Agresti and Coull [Approximate is better than ‘exact’ for interval estimation of binomial proportions, Am. Stat. 52 (1998), pp. 119–126], Wilson [Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 22 (1927), pp. 209–212] and Brown et al. [Interval estimation for binomial proportion (with discussion), Stat. Sci. 16 (2001), pp. 101–133] have close to 1?α confidence level. These sequential confidence intervals require a much smaller sample size than a fixed-sample-size confidence interval. For the coin jamming example considered, a fixed-sample-size confidence interval requires a sample size of 9457, while a sequential confidence interval requires a sample size that rarely exceeds 2042.     

New bootstrap confidence intervals for means of positively skewed distributions

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we consider the problem of constructing non parametric confidence intervals for the mean of a positively skewed distribution. We suggest calibrated, smoothed bootstrap upper and lower percentile confidence intervals. For the theoretical properties, we show that the proposed one-sided confidence intervals have coverage probability α + O(n^{? 3/2}). This is an improvement upon the traditional bootstrap confidence intervals in terms of coverage probability. A version smoothed approach is also considered for constructing a two-sided confidence interval and its theoretical properties are also studied. A simulation study is performed to illustrate the performance of our confidence interval methods. We then apply the methods to a real data set.     

Improved confidence intervals for a binomial parameter using the bayesian method

Constructing confidence intervals for a binomial proportion parameter using the Bayesian technique is considered. For an appropriate choice of priors, the proposed Bayes confidence intervals may, in frequentist performance, uniformly improve the traditional C-P (Clopper and Pearson, 1934) confidence intervals when the sample size is not large (n < 30).     

Approximate Bayesianity of Frequentist Confidence Intervals for a Binomial Proportion

The well-known Wilson and Agresti–Coull confidence intervals for a binomial proportion p are centered around a Bayesian estimator. Using this as a starting point, similarities between frequentist confidence intervals for proportions and Bayesian credible intervals based on low-informative priors are studied using asymptotic expansions. A Bayesian motivation for a large class of frequentist confidence intervals is provided. It is shown that the likelihood ratio interval for p approximates a Bayesian credible interval based on Kerman’s neutral noninformative conjugate prior up to O(n^{? 1}) in the confidence bounds. For the significance level α ? 0.317, the Bayesian interval based on the Jeffreys’ prior is then shown to be a compromise between the likelihood ratio and Wilson intervals. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.     

A NEW CALIBRATION METHOD OF CONSTRUCTING EMPIRICAL LIKELIHOOD-BASED CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR THE TAIL INDEX

Empirical likelihood has attracted much attention in the literature as a nonparametric method. A recent paper by Lu & Peng (2002) [Likelihood based confidence intervals for the tail index. Extremes 5, 337–352] applied this method to construct a confidence interval for the tail index of a heavy‐tailed distribution. It turns out that the empirical likelihood method, as well as other likelihood‐based methods, performs better than the normal approximation method in terms of coverage probability. However, when the sample size is small, the confidence interval computed using the χ² approximation has a serious undercoverage problem. Motivated by Tsao (2004) [A new method of calibration for the empirical loglikelihood ratio. Statist. Probab. Lett. 68, 305–314], this paper proposes a new method of calibration, which corrects the undercoverage problem.     

Improved exact confidence intervals for a proportion using ranked-set sampling

We develop new exact confidence intervals for a proportion using ranked-set sampling (RSS). The existing intervals arise from applying the method of Clopper and Pearson (1934) to the total number of successes. We improve on the existing intervals by using the method of Blaker (2000) and by replacing the total number of successes with the maximum likelihood estimator of the proportion. The new intervals outperform the existing intervals in terms of average expected length, and they are also good in an absolute sense, as they come within a few percentage points of a new theoretical bound on the average expected length. Like the existing intervals, the new intervals use a perfect rankings assumption. They are no longer exact under imperfect rankings, but provide coverage close to nominal for mild departures from perfect rankings.     

An alternative to confidence intervals constructed after a Hausman pretest in panel data

Consider panel data modelled by a linear random intercept model that includes a time‐varying covariate. Suppose that our aim is to construct a confidence interval for the slope parameter. Commonly, a Hausman pretest is used to decide whether this confidence interval is constructed using the random effects model or the fixed effects model. This post‐model‐selection confidence interval has the attractive features that it (a) is relatively short when the random effects model is correct and (b) reduces to the confidence interval based on the fixed effects model when the data and the random effects model are highly discordant. However, this confidence interval has the drawbacks that (i) its endpoints are discontinuous functions of the data and (ii) its minimum coverage can be far below its nominal coverage probability. We construct a new confidence interval that possesses these attractive features, but does not suffer from these drawbacks. This new confidence interval provides an intermediate between the post‐model‐selection confidence interval and the confidence interval obtained by always using the fixed effects model. The endpoints of the new confidence interval are smooth functions of the Hausman test statistic, whereas the endpoints of the post‐model‐selection confidence interval are discontinuous functions of this statistic.     

ON THE COVERAGE PROBABILITY OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS IN REGRESSION AFTER VARIABLE SELECTION

This paper considers a linear regression model with regression parameter vector β. The parameter of interest is θ= a^Tβ where a is specified. When, as a first step, a data‐based variable selection (e.g. minimum Akaike information criterion) is used to select a model, it is common statistical practice to then carry out inference about θ, using the same data, based on the (false) assumption that the selected model had been provided a priori. The paper considers a confidence interval for θ with nominal coverage 1 ‐ α constructed on this (false) assumption, and calls this the naive 1 ‐ α confidence interval. The minimum coverage probability of this confidence interval can be calculated for simple variable selection procedures involving only a single variable. However, the kinds of variable selection procedures used in practice are typically much more complicated. For the real‐life data presented in this paper, there are 20 variables each of which is to be either included or not, leading to 2²⁰ different models. The coverage probability at any given value of the parameters provides an upper bound on the minimum coverage probability of the naive confidence interval. This paper derives a new Monte Carlo simulation estimator of the coverage probability, which uses conditioning for variance reduction. For these real‐life data, the gain in efficiency of this Monte Carlo simulation due to conditioning ranged from 2 to 6. The paper also presents a simple one‐dimensional search strategy for parameter values at which the coverage probability is relatively small. For these real‐life data, this search leads to parameter values for which the coverage probability of the naive 0.95 confidence interval is 0.79 for variable selection using the Akaike information criterion and 0.70 for variable selection using Bayes information criterion, showing that these confidence intervals are completely inadequate.     

Interval estimation for a binomial proportion: a bootstrap approach

This paper discusses the classic but still current problem of interval estimation of a binomial proportion. Bootstrap methods are presented for constructing such confidence intervals in a routine, automatic way. Three confidence intervals for a binomial proportion are compared and studied by means of a simulation study, namely: the Wald confidence interval, the Agresti–Coull interval and the bootstrap-t interval. A new confidence interval, the Agresti–Coull interval with bootstrap critical values, is also introduced and its good behaviour related to the average coverage probability is established by means of simulations.     

Confidence intervals for the ratio of two variances

In this paper we consider confidence intervals for the ratio of two population variances. We propose a confidence interval for the ratio of two variances based on the t-statistic by deriving its Edgeworth expansion and considering Hall's and Johnson's transformations. Then, we consider the coverage accuracy of suggested intervals and intervals based on the F-statistic for some distributions.     

THE COVERAGE PROBABILITY OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS IN 2r FACTORIAL EXPERIMENTS AFTER PRELIMINARY HYPOTHESIS TESTING

We consider a 2^r factorial experiment with at least two replicates. Our aim is to find a confidence interval for θ, a specified linear combination of the regression parameters (for the model written as a regression, with factor levels coded as ?1 and 1). We suppose that preliminary hypothesis tests are carried out sequentially, beginning with the rth‐order interaction. After these preliminary hypothesis tests, a confidence interval for θ with nominal coverage 1 ?α is constructed under the assumption that the selected model had been given to us a priori. We describe a new efficient Monte Carlo method, which employs conditioning for variance reduction, for estimating the minimum coverage probability of the resulting confidence interval. The application of this method is demonstrated in the context of a 2³ factorial experiment with two replicates and a particular contrast θ of interest. The preliminary hypothesis tests consist of the following two‐step procedure. We first test the null hypothesis that the third‐order interaction is zero against the alternative hypothesis that it is non‐zero. If this null hypothesis is accepted, we assume that this interaction is zero and proceed to the second step; otherwise, we stop. In the second step, for each of the second‐order interactions we test the null hypothesis that the interaction is zero against the alternative hypothesis that it is non‐zero. If this null hypothesis is accepted, we assume that this interaction is zero. The resulting confidence interval, with nominal coverage probability 0.95, has a minimum coverage probability that is, to a good approximation, 0.464. This shows that this confidence interval is completely inadequate.     

Confidence and Likelihood*

Confidence intervals for a single parameter are spanned by quantiles of a confidence distribution, and one‐sided p‐values are cumulative confidences. Confidence distributions are thus a unifying format for representing frequentist inference for a single parameter. The confidence distribution, which depends on data, is exact (unbiased) when its cumulative distribution function evaluated at the true parameter is uniformly distributed over the unit interval. A new version of the Neyman–Pearson lemma is given, showing that the confidence distribution based on the natural statistic in exponential models with continuous data is less dispersed than all other confidence distributions, regardless of how dispersion is measured. Approximations are necessary for discrete data, and also in many models with nuisance parameters. Approximate pivots might then be useful. A pivot based on a scalar statistic determines a likelihood in the parameter of interest along with a confidence distribution. This proper likelihood is reduced of all nuisance parameters, and is appropriate for meta‐analysis and updating of information. The reduced likelihood is generally different from the confidence density. Confidence distributions and reduced likelihoods are rooted in Fisher–Neyman statistics. This frequentist methodology has many of the Bayesian attractions, and the two approaches are briefly compared. Concepts, methods and techniques of this brand of Fisher–Neyman statistics are presented. Asymptotics and bootstrapping are used to find pivots and their distributions, and hence reduced likelihoods and confidence distributions. A simple form of inverting bootstrap distributions to approximate pivots of the abc type is proposed. Our material is illustrated in a number of examples and in an application to multiple capture data for bowhead whales.     

Inferences on the Coefficients of Variation in a Multivariate Normal Population

In this article, the problem of testing the equality of coefficients of variation in a multivariate normal population is considered, and an asymptotic approach and a generalized p-value approach based on the concepts of generalized test variable are proposed. Monte Carlo simulation studies show that the proposed generalized p-value test has good empirical sizes, and it is better than the asymptotic approach. In addition, the problem of hypothesis testing and confidence interval for the common coefficient variation of a multivariate normal population are considered, and a generalized p-value and a generalized confidence interval are proposed. Using Monte Carlo simulation, we find that the coverage probabilities and expected lengths of this generalized confidence interval are satisfactory, and the empirical sizes of the generalized p-value are close to nominal level. We illustrate our approaches using a real data.     

Interval Estimation for the Correlation Coefficient

ABSTRACT

The correlation coefficient (CC) is a standard measure of a possible linear association between two continuous random variables. The CC plays a significant role in many scientific disciplines. For a bivariate normal distribution, there are many types of confidence intervals for the CC, such as z-transformation and maximum likelihood-based intervals. However, when the underlying bivariate distribution is unknown, the construction of confidence intervals for the CC is not well-developed. In this paper, we discuss various interval estimation methods for the CC. We propose a generalized confidence interval for the CC when the underlying bivariate distribution is a normal distribution, and two empirical likelihood-based intervals for the CC when the underlying bivariate distribution is unknown. We also conduct extensive simulation studies to compare the new intervals with existing intervals in terms of coverage probability and interval length. Finally, two real examples are used to demonstrate the application of the proposed methods.