7
$\begingroup$

First timer here. I'm reviewing a section of Casella and Berger on inverting a hypothesis test to get a Confidence Interval (CI), and came across a proof which I believe is missing a tiny piece. Here's the statement of the theorem verbatim from CB:


Theorem: For each $\theta_0 \in \Theta$, let $A(\theta_0)$ be the acceptance region of a level $\alpha$ test of $H_0: \theta = \theta_0$. For each $\boldsymbol{x} \in \mathcal{X}$, define a set $C(\boldsymbol{x})$ in the parameter space by $$C(\boldsymbol{x}) = \{\theta_0: \boldsymbol{x} \in A(\theta_0)\}$$ then the random set $C(\boldsymbol{X})$ is a $1-\alpha$ confidence set.

Proof: We want to show that the confidence coefficient is equal to $1-\alpha$. Fix some $\theta_0 \in \Theta$ and define $R(\theta_0)$ as the rejection region of the aforementioned level $\alpha$ test of $H_0: \theta = \theta_0$. Then:

\begin{align*} P_{\theta_0}(\theta_0 \in C(\boldsymbol{X})) &= P_{\theta_0}(\boldsymbol{X} \in A(\theta_0))\\ &= 1 - P_{\theta_0}(\boldsymbol{X} \in R(\theta_0))\\ &\geq 1-\alpha \end{align*} Where the last step follows from the fact that the hypothesis test is level $\alpha$. This is true for any $\theta_0 \in \Theta$, so thus $C(\boldsymbol{X})$ is a $1-\alpha$ confidence set.


Qualm: My problem with this proof is that we have shown that all the coverage probabilities are $\geq 1-\alpha$, but we have not shown that the confidence coefficient is equal to $1-\alpha$ (confidence coefficient = infimum of the coverage probabilities). More precisely, the the definition of a $1-\alpha$ confidence set $C(\boldsymbol{X})$ is: $$\inf_{\theta} P_{\theta}(\theta \in C(\boldsymbol{X})) = 1-\alpha$$ It appears to me that the conclusion of the proof only shows that $$\inf_{\theta} P_{\theta}(\theta \in C(\boldsymbol{X})) \geq 1-\alpha$$ I suppose this is a "better" conclusion, but still.

This is a very nitpicky detail. Nevertheless I'm curious what I'm missing. CB don't mention anything else in their presentation, so I figure I'm just having a brain freeze. Any pointers?

ANSWERED: After some deliberation with MansT below, we found it to be a typo in Casella and Berger. The correct theorem statement should read: $$\textrm{...then the random set } C(\boldsymbol{X}) \textrm{ has confidence coefficient } \geq 1-\alpha$$

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you define your CI's as having at least coverage $1-\alpha$ everything works. It's often impossible to get exactly $1-\alpha$ (consider a binomial, for example - the sample is discrete so the distribution of possible values that the MLE of the continuous parameter takes is discrete). $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Jun 5, 2013 at 22:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, you're absolutely right. But it's not defined that way in Casella and Berger. Given how classic of a text it is, I'm convinced that I'm just missing something... $\endgroup$
    – gogurt
    Jun 5, 2013 at 22:43

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

First of all, welcome to the site!

As Glen_b pointed out in a comment, for discrete distributions $P_\theta(\theta\in C(\mathbf{X}))$ won't be exactly equal to $1-\alpha$ for all $\theta$. You are however correct in that the classic defintion of a confidence interval is that $\inf_{\theta\in\Theta}P_\theta(\theta\in C(\mathbf{X}))=1-\alpha$ and not just that $\inf_{\theta\in\Theta}P_\theta(\theta\in C(\mathbf{X}))\geq 1-\alpha$.

The tiny piece that is missing is the following. $R(\theta)$ is the rejection region of a level $\alpha$ test. This means that $$P_{\theta}(\mathbf{X}\in R(\theta))\leq \alpha\qquad\forall \theta\in\Theta,$$ a fact that is used in the proof. But, by definition, it also means that $$\sup_{\theta\in\Theta} P_{\theta}(\mathbf{X}\in R(\theta))=\alpha.$$ Consequently, it follows that $$\inf_{\theta\in\Theta}P_\theta(\theta\in C(\mathbf{X}))=\inf_{\theta\in\Theta}\Big(1- P_{\theta}(\mathbf{X}\in R(\theta))\Big)=1-\sup_{\theta\in\Theta} P_{\theta}(\mathbf{X}\in R(\theta))=1-\alpha,$$ just as we were hoping.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Hi MånsT! Thanks for this. I actually thought about this, but it doesn't quite compute either. Casella and Berger make the distinction between a level alpha test and a size alpha test, and a level alpha test is defined as one for which the supremum is less than or equal to alpha. I suspect that there is a typo and the text is supposed to say "size alpha." Or maybe this is just a typo in my copy of the text? $\endgroup$
    – gogurt
    Jun 6, 2013 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ @gogurt: Right! You need a size alpha test in order to have infimum coverage probability $1-\alpha$ (as can be seen from the last line in my answer)... so it's a typo of some sorts - probably the authors getting their own terminology confused :) $\endgroup$
    – MånsT
    Jun 6, 2013 at 17:37
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! I went ahead and checked the errata for Casella and Berger, and it is indeed a typo. Here's the link (page 422): web.stat.ufl.edu/~casella/class/errata7.pdf $\endgroup$
    – gogurt
    Jun 6, 2013 at 17:43

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.