2
$\begingroup$

I'm considering the scenario described in this question, namely:

  • we have IID $X_i, i = 1, ..., n$ sampled from a population with mean $\mu$, variance $\sigma^2$ unknown
  • the goal is to put a confidence interval on the sample mean, $\bar{X}_n$
  • we believe the population is not normal, say it is trimodal
  • set $S_n^2 = \frac{\sum (X_i - \bar{X}_n)^2}{n-1}$ (sample variance)
  • if the sample size $n$ is sufficiently large, we know by the CLT that $\bar{X}_n$ is approximately sampled from $N(\mu, S_n/\sqrt{n}$, which provides confidence intervals form the normal distribution.

The previous question was how to know if $n$ is sufficiently large, and the answer was boostrapping to gain a diagnostic:

  • for $i = 1, ..., 10,000$, sample $Y_j(i)$ for $j = 1, ..., n$ with replacement from $\{X_1, ..., X_n\}$, and take their sample mean $\bar{Y}(i,n)$.
  • use a QQ plot or other method to investigate if the bootstrapped sample means $\{ \bar{Y}(i,n): i = 1, ..., 10,000\}$ is indeed normal.
  • If so, then $n$ is large enough to use the confidence intervals from $N(\mu, S_n/\sqrt{n})$ on $\bar{X}_n$.

Question:

I am trying to understand the math underpinning of using this boostrapping + QQ plot technique as a diagnostic for $n$. I believe the desired theorems for this algorithm is as follows:

  1. If $n$ is large enough that the sample mean $\bar{X}_n$ is (approximately) $N(\mu, S_n/n)$, then the bootstrapped sample means $\{ \bar{Y}(i,n): i = 1, ..., 10,000\}$ are (approximately) too.
  2. If $n$ is large enough that the bootstrapped sample means $\{ \bar{Y}(i,n): i = 1, ..., 10,000\}$ are (approximately) normal, then sample mean $\bar{X}_n$ is (approximately) from the same normal too.

I believe I can prove 1. via these two facts:

  • $Y_j(i)$ are IID samples of $\{X_1, ..., X_n\}$
  • $\bar{Y}(i,n) - \bar{X}_n \to 0$ as $n\to \infty$ by CLT for each $i$

How do we prove 2? Here is a start:

  • Suppose the bootstrapped sample means $\{ \bar{Y}(i,n): i = 1, ..., 10,000\}$ are (approximately) normal.
  • We know from CLT that $\bar{Y}(i,n)$ are approximately $N(\bar{X}_n, S_n/n)$.
  • ??

I think the missing piece is (roughly speaking) this statement: "the sample mean's distribution is approximately the same as the bootstrapped sample means' empirical distribution" but that is not a rigorous statement, nor do I know how to prove it. Also, given the proliferation of bootstrapping, I think some more general version holds: "the sample statistic's distribution is approximately the same as the bootstrapped sample statistics' empirical distribution"

I have run a few simulations to verify that the former seems true.

If this is not the correct formulation of a needed math formulation to trust the bootstrapping diagnostic algorithm, what is?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ the sample mean's distribution is approximately the same as the bootstrapped sample means' empirical distribution Didn't Efron prove something to this effect in the early bootstrap work? I even think what Efron showed was more general. $\endgroup$
    – Dave
    Commented Jul 13, 2023 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for mentioning Efron (i'm not from a stats background, so am unaware of him/the history). Using some googlefu and your suggestion, I found this biostat.jhsph.edu/courses/bio623/misc/…, which states "The bootstrap was introduced by Brad Efron in the late 1970s. It is a computer-intensive method for approximating the sampling distribution of any statistic derived from a random sample." How to prove that fact is the remaining question! $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 13, 2023 at 20:31
  • $\begingroup$ I think some of Efron’s papers have the proofs. $\endgroup$
    – Dave
    Commented Jul 13, 2023 at 20:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't see how this could be proven when stated so generally, because in a sample of size $n$ you could easily miss the extreme $3/n\times 100\%$ tail of the underlying distribution, which potentially could be so extreme as to render the sampling distribution non-Normal no matter what the sample size. Thus, you can only hope to prove a statement of the form "when the bootstrap distribution of a statistic is within $\epsilon$ of Normal (measured somehow), then with $100(1-\alpha)\%$ confidence the sampling distribution of that statistic is within $\delta(\epsilon)$ of Normal." $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Jul 14, 2023 at 21:12
  • $\begingroup$ (Continued) Proving something like that looks straightforward: if the sampling distribution is not within $\delta(\epsilon)$ of Normal, then show that the bootstrap distribution has at most a $100\alpha\%$ chance of being within $\epsilon$ of Normal. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Jul 14, 2023 at 21:23

0

Your Answer

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