4
$\begingroup$

My question is following: Suppose that $X\sim N(\theta,1)$. and $\theta \geq 0$. When $X=-2$ is observed, how can I construct a 95% confidence interval for $\theta$? This case is not usual for me because of the condition that $\theta\geq 0$. I've tried to find proper pivot variables but it was not easy.

Is there any proper pivot variable or other ways to construct a 95% confidence interval in this case?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Let's think about this from first principles. A confidence interval (in this context) is given by a pair of functions $l$ and $u.$ Setting $\alpha=95/100,$ their defining properties are

  1. For all numbers $x,$ $l(x) \le u(x).$ This means the interval $[l(x),u(x)]$ is well-defined and non-empty.

  2. No matter what $\theta\in [0,\infty)$ might be, $$\alpha \le \Pr(l(X) \le \theta \le u(X))\tag{1}$$ and there exists at least one such $\theta$ for which this is an equality.

This probability obviously is determined by $\theta$--there's no getting around that--but maybe we can make progress by computing it explicitly.

This task is simplified by adopting the intuitively natural idea that both $l$ and $u$ ought to increase monotonically with $x,$ since larger values of $X$ are more likely to be drawn from distributions with larger $\theta.$ It's also clear we may assume $l$ and $u$ are continuous functions of $x.$ Consequently $l$ and $u$ are invertible and the probability in $(1)$ can be re-expressed in terms of the standard Normal distribution function $\Phi$ as

$$\eqalign{ \alpha&\le \Pr(l(X) \le \theta \le u(X)) \\&= \Pr(X \in [u^{-1}(\theta), l^{-1}(\theta)]) \\&= \Phi(l^{-1}(\theta)-\theta) - \Phi(u^{-1}(\theta)-\theta).\tag{2}}$$

![Figures showing the geometric idea of confidence intervals

The left plot graphs the confidence limits against $X$ and compares them to $\theta.$ Any given $\theta$ will tend to produce values of $X$ near $\theta$ itself. Provided the interval from $u^{-1}(\theta)$ up to $l^{-1}(\theta)$ (shown as the horizontal blue line segment) has at least $95\%$ chance of containing $X,$ no matter what the value of $\theta$ might be, the functions $(l,u)$ will satisfy defining inequality $(1).$ Having observed $X,$ the confidence interval is the vertical red segment. The right plot shows how these limits are changed to accommodate the restriction $\theta\ge 0.$

Forgetting momentarily that $\theta\ge 0,$ it is easy--via inspection--not only to find a pair of such functions $l_0,u_0,$ but even a pair that (a) makes the confidence intervals as narrow as possible and (b) makes the confidence level always equal to $\alpha:$ namely, set

$$l_0^{-1}(\theta) - \theta = \Phi^{-1}((1 - \alpha)/2)$$

and $$u_0^{-1}(\theta) - \theta = \Phi^{-1}(1 - (1 - \alpha)/2).$$

The unique solutions are

$$l_0(x) = x - \Phi^{-1}((1 - \alpha)/2);\ u_0(x) = x - \Phi^{-1}(1 - (1 - \alpha)/2) = x + \Phi^{-1}((1 - \alpha)/2).$$

How should this solution be modified given $\theta\ge 0$? The obvious thing to try is to "clamp" the confidence interval to this range. In other words, take the confidence interval to be the intersection of the interval $[l_0(X),u_0(X)]$ with $[0,\infty).$ That is,

$$l(x) = \max(0, x - \Phi^{-1}((1 - \alpha)/2));\ u(x) = \max(0, x + \Phi^{-1}((1 - \alpha)/2)).$$

Because this does not modify either $l^{-1}$ or $u^{-1}$ for $\theta \gt 0$ (see the right hand figure above), the inequality $(2)$ continues to hold. Thus, $(l,u)$ is a confidence interval for $\theta.$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Am I correct to say that in the OPs example with $x=-2$, the confidence limits are both $0$? Using $\alpha = 0.95$, we have $\Phi^{-1}((1 - 0.95)/2)) \approx -1.96$ so that $-2 - (-1.96) = -0.04$ and $-2 + (-1.96) = -3.96$? Or am I missing something? $\endgroup$ – COOLSerdash Sep 13 at 6:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @COOL That is correct: when $X$ is extremely negative, it's ok to estimate that $\theta=0$ and to erect a minimal confidence interval around that estimate. This is because no matter what value $\theta$ might have, the chance that $X$ is this small is acceptably low. $\endgroup$ – whuber Sep 13 at 12:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.