跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究一般二项比例区间估计,不直接涉及所列微观分布效应或其他细分方向。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Lawrence D. Brown
T. Tony Cai
Anirban DasGupta

二项比例置信区间及其渐近展开

研究问题
二项比例的常用 Wald 区间为何覆盖表现欠佳,Wilson、似然比、Jeffreys 和 Agresti–Coull 区间在覆盖与长度上如何比较?
方法与思路
作者对五种区间的覆盖概率和期望长度作渐近展开,并考察参数位于零与一之间时,相对于参数分布的平均覆盖。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,Wald 区间覆盖表现持续欠佳,三种替代区间围绕名义覆盖率波动,Agresti–Coull 区间较保守且期望长度最长。
阅读关注点
应核对离散性造成的覆盖波动、展开的适用范围、参数接近边界时的行为,以及区间长度与覆盖之间的具体权衡。
阅读边界
仅据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;展开条件及有限样本数值未提供,不能将内部参数区间的比较直接推广到边界。

原文摘要

We address the classic problem of interval estimation of a binomial proportion. The Wald interval $\hat{p}\pm z_{\alpha/2} n^{-1/2} (\hat{p} (1 - \hat{p}))^{1/2}$ is currently in near universal use. We first show that the coverage properties of the Wald interval are persistently poor and defy virtually all conventional wisdom. We then proceed to a theoretical comparison of the standard interval and four additional alternative intervals by asymptotic expansions of their coverage probabilities and expected lengths. The four additional interval methods we study in detail are the score-test interval (Wilson), the likelihood-ratio-test interval, a Jeffreys prior Bayesian interval and an interval suggested by Agresti and Coull. The asymptotic expansions for coverage show that the first three of these alternative methods have coverages that fluctuate about the nominal value, while the Agresti–Coull interval has a somewhat larger and more nearly conservative coverage function. For the five interval methods we also investigate asymptotically their average coverage relative to distributions for $p$ supported within (0 1) . In terms of expected length, asymptotic expansions show that the Agresti–Coull interval is always the longest of these. The remaining three are rather comparable and are shorter than the Wald interval except for $p$ near 0 or 1. These analytical calculations support and complement the findings and the recommendations in Brown, Cai and DasGupta (Statist. Sci. (2001) 16 101–133).

笔记与分组