1
$\begingroup$

I am working on confidence intervals for transformed parameters in dose-response log-logistic model.

For simplicity, let's assume 2 parameter regression model with normal errors, where $\theta=(a,b)$ are the parameters:

$$E[y|x] = \frac{1}{1 + \exp(a(\log x -\log b))}$$

Now, I am interested in finding the confidence interval for $ED_c= g(a,b|c) = \exp{(\frac{c}{a}}-\log b)$, where $c$ is a user-chosen constant.

I know that you can do monotone transformations of confidence intervals for 1-dimensional parameters, e.g., a log transformation of the parameter and both boundaries of the confidence interval.

However, I am not sure if the same can be applied for the transformation I am interested in, since it's a $R^2\rightarrow R$ function and the notion of monotonicity in multiple dimensions kinda vanishes.

Now, I can construct the confidence region (i.e. ellipse) for parameters $a,b$ via LRT test quite easily, let's call this confidence region $C$. My idea is to evaluate my function $g$ on the set $C$ and by finding the minimum and maximum of $g$ on the set $C$ I hope for acquiring the confidence interval for the $ED_c$.

I think it boils down to just implication $\theta \in C \implies g(\theta) \in g(C)$, but I might be missing something.

My intuition is that it should work well, however I struggle to find theoretical justification.

Disclaimer: I know about bootstrapping, Wald type, reparameterization, etc., I am specifically interested in this particular construction.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ EDc is a scalar parameter that can be seen as a parametrization to the original problem, thus you can build a profile likelihood confidence interval or apply the delta method. $\endgroup$
    – utobi
    Commented Feb 28, 2023 at 13:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Re "the notion of monotonicity in multiple dimensions kinda vanishes:" yes, that's correct, but it's misleading. For real-valued functions of one variable, monotonicity implies they are one-to-one. That is the concept you want to generalize to transformations of more than one variable. Indeed, if you apply a set-valued procedure $t$ to random data $X$ where $\theta$ is any property of the distribution of $X$ for which $\Pr(\theta\in t(X))\ge1-\alpha,$ and $h$ is a one-to-one function, then the event $\theta\in t(X)$ is identical to the event $h(\theta)\in h(t(X)).$ $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Feb 28, 2023 at 14:07
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber yes, thanks for the input, you are right. Does it also hold for just for not one-to-one functions? I believe the key is that my transformation is continuous and surjective and I am only interested in one implication, not an equivalence, i.e., does $\theta \in t(X) \implies h(\theta) \in h(t(X))$ for $h$ continuous and surjective? $\endgroup$
    – Golias
    Commented Feb 28, 2023 at 14:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The implication is trivial. If we simplify the notation, let $S$ be a set (playing the role of $t(X)$) and $h:S\to T$ any function. Then $\theta\in S$ implies $h(\theta)\in T$ by the very definition of a function. This triviality should give you pause, because it suggests you ought to be interested in more than this property. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Feb 28, 2023 at 14:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh, you're right, it is actually trivial. Thank you! $\endgroup$
    – Golias
    Commented Feb 28, 2023 at 14:55

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

Since you know that your errors are normal, another approach would be to use the delta method to find the limiting distribution of $g(\hat{a}, \hat{b})$ and find a confidence interval for $g(a, b)$ that way.

I'm going to assume that "normal errors" means that $$ \sqrt{n}((\hat{a}, \hat{b}) - (a, b)) \stackrel{\mathrm{d}}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{N}(0, \Sigma) $$ for some covariance matrix $\Sigma$ that you can estimate. Indeed, this is the case for logistic regression generally.

Now, the delta method implies that $$ \sqrt{n}(g(\hat{a}, \hat{b}) - g(a, b)) \stackrel{\mathrm{d}}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{N}(0, \nabla g(a, b)^{\mathrm{T}} \Sigma \nabla g(a, b)), $$ where in the case of this problem, $$ \nabla g(a, b) = \begin{pmatrix} -c/a^2 \\ -1/b \end{pmatrix} g(a, b), $$ yielding a standard error of $$ \mathrm{se}(g(\hat{a}, \hat{b})) = g(\hat{a}, \hat{b}) \sqrt{(c/\hat{a}^2, 1/\hat{b}) \hat{\Sigma} \begin{pmatrix} c/\hat{a}^2 \\ 1/\hat{b} \end{pmatrix}}, $$ and so a 95% confidence interval of $$ \mathrm{CI}_{0.95} = g(\hat{a}, \hat{b}) \biggl[1 \pm 1.96 \sqrt{(c/\hat{a}^2, 1/\hat{b}) \hat{\Sigma} \begin{pmatrix} c/\hat{a}^2 \\ 1/\hat{b} \end{pmatrix}} \biggr] $$

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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