Normal Distribution
nothing is called 95% until it has been counted
Concept

Conservative interval — where it appears

An interval or test whose true rate is better than the level it claims — covering more often, or rejecting less often, than 95% and 5%. It is not a safe interval so much as one with an unmeasured loss of power, and the loss is invisible in every table that reports only coverage.

Named by 10 essays across 9 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Worst and average coverage of six 95% intervals for a proportion, 30 trials. The worst coverage over every proportion beside the average over a uniform one, with the average expected width. Clopper–Pearson: worst 95.05%, average 97.34%, width 0.299. Blaker: worst 95.00%, average 96.31%, width 0.283. Wilson: worst 83.71%, average 95.24%, width 0.271.

What a guaranteed minimum costs

Clopper–Pearson's interval never covers less than 95%, and at thirty trials it averages 97.34% and is 10.4% wider than Wilson's. Blaker's interval keeps the same guarantee, averages 96.31% and is 4.6% wider. The difference is not waste: Clopper–Pearson guarantees each side separately, holding both below 2.5%, and Blaker guarantees only their sum — so at ten trials and a proportion of 0.15 it misses on one side 5.00% of the time.

discrete · Oscillation Four analyses of the same 3-arm trials, under a true null. 250 trials of 150 patients, 3 arms, minimisation with p = 0.85, 99 re-randomisations for each exact test. Two statistics — an F on the arms alone and an F on the arms after the balanced factors — against two reference distributions: the table the statistic is named for, and the distribution the allocation rule itself generates when the outcomes are held fixed and the rule is re-run. Only the first cell is wrong, and it is wrong in the direction that costs power rather than the one that manufactures findings: 0.0% where 5% is claimed. Either repair works — adjusting for what the rule balanced, or asking the rule what it would have done.

The analysis after three arms

An unadjusted analysis after a two-arm balancing rule rejects 0.6% of true nulls where it claims 5%. With three arms and a deterministic rule it rejects none at all — and the repair is the same repair, which is a sentence and a column in the model.

multiarm · Assignment Four analyses of the same trials, with no treatment effect at all. 700 trials of 120 patients allocated by minimisation at p = 0.8, with the prognostic factors carrying a real effect on the outcome and no treatment effect — every rejection below is a false one. Two statistics, the plain difference and the same after adjusting for the balanced factors, each read against two reference distributions: a t table, and the set of allocations the rule could have produced from these covariates. The unadjusted comparison rejects 0.6% where it claims 5% — conservative, which is a loss of power rather than an error, and nothing on the output says so. Adjusting puts it back at 5.4%. Both re-randomised versions are at their nominal level by construction, whatever statistic goes into them.

The analysis has to know the rule

A trial balanced by minimisation and analysed by comparing the two arms' means rejects a true null 0.6% of the time where it claims 5%, and at full determinism 0.0%. That is not an error anybody complains about — it is a test that has stopped working, paid for by a balance the analysis then refused to use.

covadapt · Assignment The weights may not read the block they weight. A weighted least squares decomposition needs weights that are constants, or at least independent of the differences they multiply. One λ̂ pooled across the trial is estimated on hundreds of degrees of freedom and is effectively a constant; a λ̂ estimated inside each block is estimated on that block's own two or three, and is correlated with the difference it weights. Coverage falls from 94.68% to 82.76% — and the interval gets wider while doing it, 0.5163 against 0.3024, which is the signature of weights that are noise.

The condition that cannot be dropped

The weights may not read the block they weight. Estimate the variance ratio inside each block rather than across the trial and the coverage falls to 83% — on an interval that is at the same time seventy per cent wider.

corner · Allocation The interval that over-covers when the instrument fails. Counted coverage of two nominal 95.0% intervals for the same causal effect, read off the same 2000 draws of 200 rows at each first stage. The exact Anderson–Rubin set covers 95.3% at every setting — flat, because the statistic it inverts is built from y − tβ, which contains no π at all, and is therefore the same number on the same draw whatever the instrument is worth. The conventional interval covers 99.1% at π = 0.02 and 95.6% at π = 0.6: it goes wrong at the weak end by covering too MUCH, at a median width of 7.320, because its standard error is computed from residuals taken at an estimate that has itself gone wrong. A weak instrument does not make this interval lie about its coverage; it makes it useless while telling the truth.

What the first stage does not know

A single weak instrument does not make the conventional interval undercover — it makes it cover 99.1% at a width of 7.320. Where the promise actually breaks is many instruments — coverage falls from 97.2% to 51.5% while the median width falls from 1.454 to 0.583.

instrument · Exclusion A wrong weight costs width; a random weight costs level. Five weightings on a trial whose variance ratio drifts by a factor of 20.1 between the first block and the last, over 4000 runs. The rule that knows every λ_b covers at 95.1% and sets the width. One ratio for the whole trial is wrong for every block and costs nothing in level — 94.8% — while being 20% wider; equal weights are calibrated by an identity and 22% wider. The ratio estimated inside each block is the only rule aimed at the quantity that actually varies, and it is the only one that misses the level, at 92.0%: a weight computed from a handful of degrees of freedom is mostly noise, and noise in a weight is not a wrong weight. Modelling the drift across blocks recovers the oracle's width at 94.8%.

A ratio that changes between blocks

A wrong weight costs width and a random weight costs level. The rule aimed at the quantity that actually varies is the only one that misses its own coverage, and the rule that models it across blocks recovers the whole of what knowing it is worth.

blocks · Nuisance Expected width against coverage, n = 30, p = 0.15. The Wald interval is the shortest and covers 94.2%. Clopper–Pearson covers 98.3% and is 13% wider. Shortness is not a virtue on its own — an interval of zero width is the shortest of all.

The shortest interval is the one that misses

Four intervals for the same data, with their widths and their coverage measured together. The narrowest is the one that fails its stated level, which is exactly why it looks the most appealing.

intervals · Width What the interval actually covers. The coverage of the two-sided interval each rule and window builds, over 400 samples of 120 rows, against the 95% it promises. Not one of the eight reaches it: the best is 91.0% and the worst is 80.8%, on a promise of 95%. So the first thing this instrument says is that the choice between the two windows is a choice inside a range that is already four to fourteen points short, which neither of the other two readings can express at all. The second is the ordering: the tapered window covers better under every one of the four rules, by 5.00, 2.50, 5.75 and 4.00 points — including at a length written into a protocol and at the rule of thumb, where the implied variance says the rectangle wins.

What the interval covers

Eight rules and windows, and not one of them reaches its promised 95%. The range is 80.8% to 91.0%, and the choice between two block windows is a choice inside a shortfall that is four times larger.

readout · Bootstrap Three promises, and no procedure keeps all three. Average coverage and worst-case coverage for four 95% intervals for a proportion at n = 40, computed exactly. Their expected widths are 0.2418, 0.2417, 0.2472, 0.2641 in the same order. The textbook interval and the score interval have the same expected width to four digits — 0.2418 and 0.2417 — and worst-case coverages of 55.31% and 92.21%. The exact interval never breaks its promise and is 9.3% wider than the score interval to do it. Each of the three columns orders the four procedures differently.

An interval that covers and says nothing

A procedure returning the whole line 95% of the time and the empty set otherwise has coverage exactly 95% at every parameter value. Two real intervals at forty observations have expected widths of 0.2418 and 0.2417 and worst-case coverages of 55.31% and 92.21%.

intervals · Coverage Each interval covers one question and not the other. Coverage of each interval for the overall mean, scored against both estimands, over 20,000 two-site studies of 10 observations apiece. The fixed-effect interval covers the mean of the two sites in hand 96.37% of the time and the population mean 54.77%. The random-effects interval covers the population mean 94.96% — exactly its level, from one degree of freedom — and over-covers the two sites in hand at 98.25%. Both are correct; they are answers to different questions printed in the same place.

What a two-unit study should report

The fixed-effect interval covers the mean of the two sites in hand 96.37% of the time and the population mean 54.77%. The random-effects interval covers the population mean 94.96% — exactly its level, from one degree of freedom — and is 11.6 times wider.

multilevel · Levels

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

CoverageInterval widthDegrees of freedomClopper–PearsonExact testMonte CarloReference distributionBlindingConfidence intervalCovariate-adaptive randomisationCovariate adjustmentCritical value

All concepts