A note on fiducial generalized pivots for in one-way heteroscedastic ANOVA with random effects

The paper deals with generalized confidence intervals for the between-group variance in one-way heteroscedastic (unbalanced) ANOVA with random effects. The approach used mimics the standard one applied in mixed linear models with two variance components, where interval estimators are based on a minimal sufficient statistic derived after an initial reduction by the principle of invariance. A minimal sufficient statistic under heteroscedasticity is found to resemble its homoscedastic counterpart and further analogies between heteroscedastic and homoscedastic cases lead us to two classes of fiducial generalized pivots for the between-group variance. The procedures suggested formerly by Wimmer and Witkovský [Between group variance component interval estimation for the unbalanced heteroscedastic one-way random effects model, J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 73 (2003), pp. 333–346] and Li [Comparison of confidence intervals on between group variance in unbalanced heteroscedastic one-way random models, Comm. Statist. Simulation Comput. 36 (2007), pp. 381–390] are found to belong to these two classes. We comment briefly on some of their properties that were not mentioned in the original papers. In addition, properties of another particular generalized pivot are considered.     

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.     

穿越复杂性丛林——复杂性研究的四种理论基点及其哲学反思

复杂性研究角度极多,彼此研究界限高度交叉却又互不相同,犹如一个"复杂性丛林"。我们试图从哲学视野把当代复杂性理论纳入四种较为基本的理论基点("客体—复杂性"、"认识—复杂性"、"方法—复杂性"和"作为不确定性的复杂性")之中,探讨建构从宏观层面切入并能更好理解复杂性的"范畴框架"的可能,以尽快走出复杂性丛林,进入更广阔的复杂性探索领域。     

The automatic percentile method: Accurate confidence limits in parametric models

The problem of constructing confidence limits for a scalar parameter is considered. Under weak conditions, Efron's accelerated bias-corrected bootstrap confidence limits are correct to second order in parametric familles. In this article, a new method, called the automatic percentile method, for setting approximate confidence limits is proposed as an attempt to alleviate two problems inherent in Efron's method. The accelerated bias-corrected method is not fully automatic, since it requires the calculation of an analytical adjustment; furthermore, it is typically not exact, though for many situations, particularly scalar-parameter familles, exact answers are available. In broader generality, the proposed method is exact when exact answers exist, and it is second-order accurate otherwise. The automatic percentile method is automatic, and for scalar parameter models it can be iterated to achieve higher accuracy, with the number of computations being linear in the number of iterations. However, when nuisance parameters are present, only second-order accuracy seems obtainable.