Cyan comments on A Request for Open Problems - Less Wrong

25 Post author: MrHen 08 May 2009 01:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (104)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Cyan 08 May 2009 08:50:57PM *  1 point [-]

That's it. The so-called 50% confidence interval sometimes contains c with certainty. Also, when x_max - x_min is much smaller than 0.5, 50% is a lousy summary of the confidence (ETA: common usage confidence, not frequentist confidence) that c lies between them.

Comment author: AllanCrossman 08 May 2009 08:54:43PM 0 points [-]

If it's less than 0.5, is the confidence simply that value times 2?

Comment author: steven0461 08 May 2009 09:00:26PM *  1 point [-]

"Confidence" in the statistics sense doesn't always have much to do with how confident you are in the conclusion. Something that's the real line in half of all cases and the empty set in the other half of all cases is a 50% confidence interval, but that doesn't mean you're ever 50% confident (in the colloquial sense) that the parameter is on the real line or that the parameter is in the empty set.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 08 May 2009 09:07:19PM 1 point [-]

The Credible interval article on Wikipedia describes the distinction between frequentist and Bayesian confidence intervals.

Comment author: steven0461 08 May 2009 09:16:58PM *  2 points [-]

The general pattern here is that there's something you do care about and something you don't care about, and frequentism doesn't allow you to talk about the thing you do care about, so it renames the thing you don't care about in such a way as to suggest that it's the thing you do care about, and everyone who doesn't understand statistics well interprets it as such.

Comment author: Cyan 08 May 2009 09:10:36PM *  0 points [-]

The interesting thing about the confidence interval I'm writing about is that it has some frequentist optimality properties. ("Uniformly most accurate", if anyone cares.)

Comment author: AllanCrossman 08 May 2009 09:19:28PM 0 points [-]

Well. So if all men were within 10 cm of each other, and uniformly distributed, and we plucked 2 random men out, and they were 4cm apart, would c be between them with 80% probability? Or some other value?

Comment author: steven0461 08 May 2009 09:27:47PM *  0 points [-]

The shorter man can be between c-5 and c+1 with all values equally probable, if he's between c-5 and c-4 or c and c+1 then c is not between them, if he's between c-4 and c then c is between them, so assuming a uniform prior for c the probability is 2/3 if I'm not mistaken.

Comment author: AllanCrossman 08 May 2009 09:34:08PM 0 points [-]

Ah, I see what I did wrong. I think.

Comment author: Cyan 08 May 2009 09:32:57PM *  0 points [-]

Yup. Under the uniform prior the posterior probability that c is between the two values is d/(1 - d), 0 < d < 0.5, where d = x_max - x_min (and the width of the uniform data distribution is 1).

Comment author: Cyan 08 May 2009 09:26:54PM 0 points [-]

The answer to that depends on what you know about c beforehand -- your prior probability for c.

Comment author: Cyan 08 May 2009 09:01:19PM 0 points [-]

Whoops -- "confidence" is frequentist jargon. I'll just say that any better method ought to take x_max - x_min into account.