ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
We use a logical device called the Dutch Book to establish epistemic confidence, defined as the sense of confidence emph{in an observed} confidence interval. This epistemic property is unavailable -- or even denied -- in orthodox frequentist inference. In financial markets, including the betting market, the Dutch Book is also known as arbitrage or risk-free profitable transaction. A numerical confidence is deemed epistemic if its use as a betting price is protected from the Dutch Book by an external agent. Theoretically, to construct the Dutch Book, the agent must exploit unused information available in any relevant subset. Pawitan and Lee (2021) showed that confidence is an extended likelihood, and the likelihood principle states that the likelihood contains all the information in the data, hence leaving no relevant subset. Intuitively, this implies that confidence associated with the full likelihood is protected from the Dutch Book, and hence is epistemic. Our aim is to provide the theoretical support for this intuitive notion.
The recent paper Simple confidence intervals for MCMC without CLTs by J.S. Rosenthal, showed the derivation of a simple MCMC confidence interval using only Chebyshevs inequality, not CLT. That result required certain assumptions about how the estimat
Consider a linear regression model with independent and identically normally distributed random errors. Suppose that the parameter of interest is a specified linear combination of the regression parameters. We prove that the usual confidence interval
Consider X_1,X_2,...,X_n that are independent and identically N(mu,sigma^2) distributed. Suppose that we have uncertain prior information that mu = 0. We answer the question: to what extent can a frequentist 1-alpha confidence interval for mu utilize this prior information?
This was a revision of arXiv:1105.2454v1 from 2012. It considers a variation on the STIV estimator where, instead of one conic constraint, there are as many conic constraints as moments (instruments) allowing to use more directly moderate deviations
The general problem of constructing confidence regions is unsolved in the sense that there is no algorithm that provides such a region with guaranteed coverage for an arbitrary parameter $psiinPsi.$ Moreover, even when such a region exists, it may be