7

Quoting Weerahandi, Generalized Confidence Intervals (1993):

  • Confidence interval (Property 1) --- Consider a particular situation of interval estimation of a parameter $\theta$. If the same experiment is repeated a large number of times to obtain new sets of observations, then the $95\%$-confidence intervals will correctly include the true value of the parameter $\theta$ $95\%$ of the time.

  • Generalized confidence interval (Property 2) --- After a large number of independent situations of setting (generalized) $95\%$-confidence intervals for certain parameters of interest, the investigator will have correctly included the true values of the parameters in the corresponding intervals $95\%$ of the time.

  • Property 1 implies Property 2.

This definition of a generalized confidence interval is not clear to me. Is there a mathematical, rigorous phrasing of Property 2? This is my main question.

I'm also not able to figure out what this property means in rigorous terms with the help of the mathematical construction of generalized confidence intervals (using generalized pivotal quantities). How can we "see" Property 2 from this construction?

It is also not clear to me why Property 2 does not imply Property 1. If the same expriment is repeated, these are not two "independent situations" in the sense of Property 2?

Note: It is known that Property 2 does not imply Property 1; a GCI is not a CI in general.


Edit

Theorem 2.1 of this paper gives more information. Its statement is the following one.

For every integer $k \geq 1$, let ${\cal M}_k$ be a statistical model with unknown parameter $\theta_k$. The ${\cal M}_k$'s have independent sample spaces.

Assume there are some observations for each ${\cal M}_k$ and denote by $I_k$ a corresponding generalized $95\%$-confidence interval.

Set $\delta_k=1$ if $\theta_k \in I_k$ and $\bar\delta_n = \frac{\sum_{k=1}^n\delta_k}{n}$. Then $\Pr(\lim_{n\to\infty}\bar\delta_n = 95\%)=1$. That is, as $n\to\infty$, the mean number of the GCIs $I_k$ containing $\theta_k$ tends to $95\%$ almost surely.

Stéphane Laurent
  • 17,425
  • 5
  • 59
  • 101
  • When I Google "generalized confidence interval", this question is the first hit, suggesting that the concept has not caught on, maybe because nobody has been able to understand how it differs from the traditional confidence interval concept. – fblundun Nov 27 '20 at 11:14
  • "Theorem 2.1 of this paper..." --- What paper? Please add a citation or link. – Ben Nov 28 '20 at 00:30
  • @Ben he does in the beginning – Taylor Jul 22 '21 at 01:25
  • @Taylor: Okay, thanks. Perhaps OP could add page numbers to the citations so that it is simple to find the relevant definitions/theorems. – Ben Jul 22 '21 at 07:01

2 Answers2

3

The two properties imply each other. Indeed, the implication is nearly trivial provided we formulate them mathematically, as you have requested: let's begin there.

I would like to remark that the language is confusing because it is attempting to make statements about probabilities by referring to "a large number of": in other words, it is appealing implicitly to laws of large numbers to equate probabilities with asymptotic frequencies in sequences of independent trials. I will avoid such solecisms by translating these statements into what I think they are trying to say about probabilities.

For background, let us understand a "situation" to consist of collecting $n$ independent observations $\mathbf{x}=(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n)$ from some distribution $F$ assumed to lie within a specific family $\Omega$ of distributions.

A "parameter" is a function $\delta:\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$.

An "interval" can be represented as an indexed pair of functions $l_n,u_n:\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}$ with the restriction that $l_n(\mathbf{x})\le u_n(\mathbf{x})$ for all $n\ge 1$ and all $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^n$. For any $\mathbf{x}$, these functions determine the interval $[l_n(\mathbf{x}), u_n(\mathbf{x})]$.

  1. A $1-\alpha$ confidence interval for $\delta$ is a pair $l_n, u_n$ for which $${\Pr}_F(\delta(F)\in [l_n(\mathbf{x}), u_n(\mathbf{x})])=1-\alpha$$ for all $F\in\Omega$ and all $n\ge 1$.

  2. Consider a nonempty set of distributional families and parameters $\mathcal{S}=\{\delta_i:\Omega_i\to\mathbb{R}\}$. This models "a large number of independent situations." A $1-\alpha$ generalized confidence interval for $\mathcal{S}$ is a collection of functions $l_{i;n}, u_{i;n}$ indexed by $i\in\mathcal{S}$ and integers $n\ge 1$ such that for any sequence of length $s$ of samples $\mathbf{x}_j$ of sizes $n_j$ taken from $\Omega_j$, $$\frac{1}{s}\sum_{j=1}^s {\Pr}_F(\delta_{i_j}(\mathbf{x}_j)\in [l_{i_j;n_j}(\mathbf{x}_j), u_{i_j;n_j}(\mathbf{x}_j)])=1-\alpha.\tag{2}$$for all sequences $(F_j)$ with $F_j\in\Omega_j$.

By taking $\mathcal{S}=\{\delta\}$, $(2)$ trivially implies $(1)$. To go the other way, let $l_{i_j;n},u_{i_j;n}$ be a $1-\alpha$ confidence interval for each situation $j$: since all the probabilities appearing in formula $(2)$ exactly equal $1-\alpha$, the mean (on the left) also is $1-\alpha$.

whuber
  • 281,159
  • 54
  • 637
  • 1,101
  • Hello whuber. It is not true that a generalized confidence interval is a confidence interval. Hence Property 2 should not imply Property 1. I should have mentioned this point in my post. – Stéphane Laurent May 14 '17 at 18:17
  • Thank you. In that case, your quotation does not provide a sufficiently clear definition. Could you provide any information to make it less ambiguous? – whuber May 14 '17 at 22:05
  • Hi whuber. I can provide the definition of the construction of a GCI, but I'm not sure this will help. I'll do it later. – Stéphane Laurent May 26 '17 at 10:56
  • Although a construction could help illustrate the GCI, what we need is a sufficiently clear *definition.* – whuber May 26 '17 at 12:23
  • Sure. But if I had a clear definition I would not have opened this question ^^ – Stéphane Laurent May 26 '17 at 13:02
  • Could you quote a definition from the textbook? – whuber May 26 '17 at 13:25
  • This is the only definition I have found. The other "definition" I found is the definition of the construction of a GCI. But maybe I missed something. I'll check again when I'll have the opportunity. – Stéphane Laurent May 26 '17 at 13:40
  • Dear whuber, I've edited my post to include a theorem which makes the definition clearer. Though I personally still need some time to digest it. – Stéphane Laurent May 26 '17 at 14:44
  • Thank you for the edit. I still do not see anything in it that contradicts my definition (2). Indeed, the theorem you quote is a strong law of large numbers following from (2). The only difference I detect between the two settings is that I see no reason to require that the sequence $s$ consist of *distinct* statistical models; it's only necessary that the samples from each one be independent. – whuber May 26 '17 at 14:59
-1

under construction

This is very similar to Why does a 95% Confidence Interval (CI) not imply a 95% chance of containing the mean?

Your first property is more strict because it requires that the confidence interval contains 95% of the time the true parameter, conditional on the true parameter. The second property does not specify this conditional probability.

(The first property is not so explicit but you have this contrast between ”the same experiment is repeated a large number of times” and "After a large number of independent situations".)

This graph below comparing a confidence interval and a credible interval might be helpful to show the difference. In the left image we see that a credible interval will not be containing the true parameter exactly 95% of the time conditional on the particular true parameter value. For some parameters it will be more for others it will be less. But on average (averaging over the prior distribution of the parameter) it contains the parameter 95% of the time.

Why does a 95% Confidence Interval (CI) not imply a 95% chance of containing the mean?

Sextus Empiricus
  • 43,080
  • 1
  • 72
  • 161
  • 2
    Sorry I don't get your point. Why are you introducing the Bayesian stuff? This has nothing to do with the question. – Stéphane Laurent Nov 27 '20 at 12:39
  • @StéphaneLaurent I would disagree that it has not anything to do with it. I believe that **a Bayesian credible interval is an example of a generalized confidence interval**, because it satisfies the condition from the theorem (if the prior is correct). A credible interval will not contain the parameter 95% of the time for a *specific* $\theta_k$ (So it is not a confidence interval). But for all $\theta_k$ it will on average be correct 95% of the time. – Sextus Empiricus Nov 27 '20 at 12:51
  • 1
    That is not true. An obvious counter-example is when you take a prior distribution whose support does not contain the true value of the parameter. Then the posterior interval never catches the true value. – Stéphane Laurent Nov 27 '20 at 12:56
  • @StéphaneLaurent of course the model (like the prior) needs to be correct. The same is true for confidence intervals, they will also be wrong if the model (e.g. the likelihood function) is incorrect. – Sextus Empiricus Nov 27 '20 at 12:59
  • And what is a *correct prior*? And do you have some references to support your claims? – Stéphane Laurent Nov 27 '20 at 13:00
  • @StéphaneLaurent consider a problem statement like this $$X \sim N(\theta,1) \quad \text{where} \quad \theta \sim N(0,\tau^2)$$ which is used in the question and answer [here](https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/444020). In this case the correct prior for $\theta$ is a normal distribution with mean $0$ variance $\tau^2$ (and if we know the problem well enough then this might be even a practical situation and not merely a theoretical one). – Sextus Empiricus Nov 27 '20 at 13:07
  • I agree with you that the *chosen* prior is not always 'correct'. So considering a credible interval as always a generalized confidence interval is not correct either. But consider it just as an *example* about the concept of a generalized confidence interval. A generalized confidence interval contains the parameter 95% of the time, whereas a confidence interval contains the parameter 95% of the time *conditional on the true parameter*. – Sextus Empiricus Nov 27 '20 at 13:07