Find Exact Confidence Intervals: Tips & Techniques

  • Thread starter Thread starter logarithmic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    intervals
AI Thread Summary
Finding exact confidence intervals (CIs) requires knowledge of the distribution of the estimator, \hat{\theta}. While textbooks often provide approximate CIs using the Central Limit Theorem (CLT), exact CIs can be derived when the distribution is known, such as with normally distributed data. In cases where the distribution is not easily identifiable, like with exponential data, alternative methods such as large sample approximations or numerical simulations may be necessary. There is no universal method for determining the distribution of all statistics, emphasizing the importance of understanding the specific context of the data. Accurate determination of CIs hinges on the underlying distribution of the sample data.
logarithmic
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know how to find exact confidence intervals? I've looked through textbooks, but they only find approximate CIs using the assumption that \frac{\hat{\theta}-\theta}{se(\hat\theta)}}\rightarrow Z.

So given a estimator, \hat\theta do I have to find an exact distrubution for the above expression first. And is there any nice way to do this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
logarithmic said:
\frac{\hat{\theta}-\theta}{se(\hat\theta)}}\rightarrow Z.
This result is by CLT depending on certain conditions.
Of course exact CI's are available. This depends on distribution of the statistic. Example:
x1,x2,...,xn is a sample from N(mu,sigma). Sigma known. Exact CI for mu can be easily found (available in most of textbooks of appropriate standard).
 
ssd said:
This result is by CLT depending on certain conditions.
Of course exact CI's are available. This depends on distribution of the statistic. Example:
x1,x2,...,xn is a sample from N(mu,sigma). Sigma known. Exact CI for mu can be easily found (available in most of textbooks of appropriate standard).

Yeah, I'm aware of that. Your example relies on the fact that you know exactly the distribution of the expression above, which is normal. But what if you can't find that easily, e.g. if your X_i's are from an exponential distribution.
 
logarithmic said:
Yeah, I'm aware of that. Your example relies on the fact that you know exactly the distribution of the expression above, which is normal. But what if you can't find that easily, e.g. if your X_i's are from an exponential distribution.

Your question does not appear very specific to me. Of course one needs to know the distribution of the statistic. There is no unique or universal way to find distributions of all statistics from all distributions. If the distribution cannot be enumerated then one tries large sample approximations or numerical simulation.
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top