2
$\begingroup$

I can take samples of a random variable $X \sim U(a, b)$, where the length of $(a, b)$ is known. I am interested in its mean $E[X]$, estimated with $\hat{X_n} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}X_n$, but I need some guarantees for this estimate. Specifically, given a $\delta > 0$, I want to find out how many samples I should take s.t. $(\hat{X_n} - \delta, \hat{X_n} + \delta)$ is a 95% confidence interval.

I would know how to do this for a normally distributed random variable, but I'm not sure about the uniform case. Maybe a very similar or even the same procedure can be justified using the CLT?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The estimator $(X_{(1)}+X_{(n)})/2$ is both unbiased for the mean $(a+b)/2$ and has smaller variance than $\bar X$. You can derive its distribution and derive a confidence interval using a pivot similar to what I describe in stats.stackexchange.com/a/352879/77222 $\endgroup$ – Jarle Tufto Mar 14 at 12:12
1
$\begingroup$
  1. The central limit theorem applies in this situation and the normal approximation is actually good for fairly low numbers of observations (with $n=20$ you should be pretty safe).

  2. However, the midrange (maximum+minimum)/2 is a better estimate than the mean; it has a smaller variance and therefore allows for smaller confidence intervals at the same level.

  3. I don't have the time to look for the exact distribution of the midrange but it may be derived somewhere (sorry, incomplete answer). I don't think I have seen it written down in closed form but I'm pretty sure it can be done, although it may look complex. The Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_uniform_distribution#Estimation_of_midpoint does it for the situation that the lower boundary is known to be zero, which is somewhat easier (more precisely, one can easily derive a CI for half the maximum, which in that case estimates the mean, from what is given there). One can also simulate it (and use equivariance properties for generalising to arbitrary values a and b) or use bootstrap.

  4. It may be that knowledge of the length (b-a) can be used to improve the confidence interval even more, but I'm not quite sure how. This would require more time than I'd be willing to put into a Cross-Validated answer.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer. I have two questions/notes however: (1) if my confidence interval is very small, it is possible that $n=20$ would not be enough, right? (2) I know the midrange value however, since I know $b - a$ (the length of the interval over which $X$ is uniform) $\endgroup$ – corazza Mar 14 at 12:13
  • $\begingroup$ You can only know the midrange if you know both b and a; knowledge of (b-a) isn't enough to know the midrange. But if you know both a and b, the true mean is known to be (b-a)/2, so you don't need to estimate it. I'm not sure what you mean by "very small" for your CI but I'm pretty confident that $n=20$ is large enough a sample size for normal approximation. It's not possible to say more without knowing the precise data and information that you have. $\endgroup$ – Lewian Mar 14 at 12:30
  • $\begingroup$ I think I confused your "(maximum-minimum)/2" for $(b-a)/2$, since $b$ and $a$ are the bounds of my interval and hence the minimum and maximum values. But you're referring to the min/max of the sampled values correct? $\endgroup$ – corazza Mar 14 at 12:35
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I meant "(maximum+minimum)/2", corrected! $\endgroup$ – Lewian Mar 14 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ Also (b+a)/2 in case you know a and b. $\endgroup$ – Lewian Mar 14 at 12:40

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.