Graduate Estimation error from estimation quantile of normal distribution

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on estimating the probability that a normally distributed random variable exceeds a quantile derived from limited observations. Participants suggest estimating the mean and standard deviation to improve quantile calculations, especially for large deviations. They mention that when the standard deviation is unknown, the sample mean follows a t-distribution, which can be used for confidence intervals. The Central Limit Theorem (CLT) allows for assuming normality in large samples, typically over 30 observations. The project may prioritize understanding the distribution of an estimator rather than optimizing quantile estimation methods.
Derk
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

For my (master) project I am trying to find the probability that a random variable, which is normally distributed, exceeds a quantile that is estimated by a limited number of observations. See attached for my attempt.
- Is it correct?
- How to incorporate the fact that the mean and variance of the normal distribution are unknown in reality?

Thanks in advance!
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Why do you estimate it that way if you know your variable has a normal distribution? Find estimates of the mean and the standard deviation, calculate the quantile based on that. It will give you much better estimates especially for large deviations from the mean.
 
I agree with mfb: If/when you don't know the standard deviation from a normal population, then the sample mean ##x_s ## is t-distributed as ( for a two-sided) ##( x_s- t_{ \alpha/2}SE, x_s+ t_{\alpha /2} SE )## where SE is the standard error and ## \alpha ## is the confidence level. Other statistics have different distributions. Do you have any specific one in mind? If you are computing the sampling mean and your sample is large-enough ( n>30 usually; n>= 40 for more accuracy) then you can use the CLT to assume normality.
 
It may be that the purpose of @Derk 's project is not to find an optimal method of estimating a quantile, but rather to work out the distribution of a particular estimator. If he were doing a masters project in engineering, we'd expect something practical, but a mathematical project can be an "academic exercise".
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K