Mid-p — where it appears
Named by 2 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Also named here as randomised interval — the same set of essays touches all of them, so they are one junction rather than several.
The coin that makes it exact
Every interval for a proportion either covers less than 95% somewhere or more than 95% on average, because a count is discrete. One construction covers exactly 95% at every proportion: it adds a uniform random draw to the count. At thirty trials it is 0.9% wider than Wilson's interval and narrower than both exact ones — and two analysts with the same data report different intervals, and one study in forty that sees nothing reports an empty one.
The coin that is already there
The randomised interval covers exactly 95% at every proportion because it adds a drawn coin to the count, and a drawn coin is why nobody reports it. A sequence of trials already holds one: given the count, the order the successes arrived in is equally likely to be any of its arrangements whatever the proportion is. Used as the coin, it keeps twenty trials' coverage within 0.12 points of 95% from proportions of 0.2 to 0.8, where mid-p strays by 2.8, and it gives the same interval to every analyst. It fails where the count has few arrangements — a count of none has one — and it holds only while the order is read as recorded: an analyst choosing among sixteen orders lifts a 5% test on sixteen trials to 7.68%.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Clopper–PearsonCoverageDiscretenessRandomised intervalReproducibilityBinomial proportionExchangeabilityFuzzy intervalWilson interval