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

Wald interval — where it appears

An estimate plus and minus a normal multiple of its standard error, which is the interval most software prints. For a proportion its coverage oscillates and can fall far below its nominal level, which is why an interval whose coverage is summed exactly is worth the trouble.

Named by 9 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Coverage of four nominal 95% intervals, n = 20. Computed exactly by summing over all 21 possible counts, not simulated. The Wald interval drops to 18.2% and is jagged everywhere; Clopper–Pearson never falls below 95% and pays for it in width.

What the 95% refers to

An interval that claims 95% is making a checkable statement about a procedure, not about the interval in front of you. Build every possible sample and count, and the interval taught first turns out to cover 87.6% of the time.

intervals · Coverage Coverage against sample size, true proportion 0.15. Coverage does not improve monotonically. n = 19 covers 93.8% while the larger n = 20 covers 81.9%. The sample space is discrete, so the endpoints jump as n changes.

More data is not monotonically better

Coverage of an interval for a proportion does not improve smoothly as the sample grows. It oscillates, and there are larger samples that cover materially worse than smaller ones — a sample of twenty covers twelve points worse than a sample of nineteen.

intervals · Oscillation Robust, at the sample sizes it is reached for. Counted coverage of five 95% intervals for a slope, at six sample sizes, under an error variance leaning towards the edges of the design (γ = 0.8), over 20000 draws at the small end. The model-based interval sits at about 87.06% everywhere and does not improve with the sample, because it is a claim about a variance it is not estimating. The robust ones do improve: HC0 covers 88.73% at 20 rows, 92.70% at 50 and 94.93% at 1,000. Its promise is asymptotic and its use is not, and the gap between those two facts is this picture. The leave-one-out correction read against a t on n − 2 is the only line that is near its promise at the small end: 94.55% at 20 rows.

Robust is not free

A robust standard error's promise is asymptotic and its use is not. Its 95% interval covers 88.73% at twenty rows, and under mild heteroskedasticity it is the worse of the two intervals until a hundred.

sandwich · Misspecification One cohort of 40, and two intervals around the end of its curve. A single simulated study of 40 subjects with exponential survival at rate 0.35, dropout at rate 0.15 and follow-up to 6 — the first seed from 8811 upward whose plain band reaches below −0.05, chosen to show the failure rather than its frequency. The step curve is Kaplan–Meier and the smooth curve the truth. The plain band, the estimate plus and minus 1.96 Greenwood standard errors, first dips below zero at t = 3.78 and reaches −0.052; early on it also rises to 1.023, above one. At t = 5 the estimate is 0.069 with 1 subject still under observation, the plain interval runs from −0.052 to 0.191 and the log-log interval from 0.006 to 0.251, against a truth of 0.174. The log-log band is built on a scale that cannot leave [0, 1], and it bends away from the edge rather than through it.

The interval at the end of the curve

The interval most software prints around a survival curve covers 89.7% at five years, where 3.3 of forty subjects are still being watched and where the curve is actually read. The same variance carried on a log–log scale covers 94.8% there — and the failure was never the width.

survival · Censoring 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 covers, after a design that read the data. 800 experiments of 12 runs, all at the same truth. The first pair is a design fixed in advance; the second is one whose settings were chosen from the first stage's own outcomes. If choosing the design from the data broke the inference, the second pair would sit below the first, and it does not — 91.3% against 92.6%. What does move the coverage is the shape of the interval rather than the design: the Wald interval assumes the estimate is normal around its own standard error and falls short under both designs, and the profile interval, computed from the same residual sums of squares with no derivative in it, covers 94.3% and 94.9%.

What a design chosen from the data costs

Two fields on this site measured what happens when a rule reads the data, and the error rate broke both times. A design that reads the data to decide where to put its runs breaks nothing — and the control that proves it also finds what the real shortfall is.

robust · Local design Which samples Wilson and Clopper–Pearson each cover, n = 50, p = 0.2. Each bar is the probability of one count, shaded by which interval built on that count contains 0.2. Both cover 95.1% of samples, only Wilson 0.0%, only Clopper–Pearson 1.6%, neither 3.3%. The correlation between their hits is 0.810, so on shared draws the variance of their difference is 4.891 times smaller than on independent ones.

The same draws for both methods

Two intervals computed on the same simulated datasets give a difference in coverage whose variance can be 4.891 times smaller than on separate datasets — or, for a pair that covers different samples, 1.164 times larger. Which one a comparison gets is an exact sum over the counts each interval covers, and a standard error that ignores the sharing covers 100.00% for one pair and 93.07% for the other.

method · Seeds Four 95% intervals for the odds after 2 of 20. credible, transformed: 0.0218 to 0.3964. Wald, transformed: -0.0305 to 0.3012. delta method on the odds: -0.0512 to 0.2734. delta method on the log-odds: 0.0258 to 0.4789. The first two are the same intervals for the proportion with their endpoints put through the odds; the last two are fresh approximations made on the new scale.

An interval for something else

An interval for the odds is free — put the endpoints through the odds and the coverage does not move, exactly, for any interval at all. The method everyone uses instead computes a new standard error on the new scale, and at twenty trials that costs four points of coverage, produces negative odds, and has no value at all when nothing was observed.

bayes · Credible 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

Named alongside it

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

CoverageConfidence intervalBinomial proportionMonte CarloSample sizeDiscretenessInterval widthClopper–PearsonClosed formConservative intervalCredible intervalMonotone transformation

All concepts