Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Coverage errors for Student's t confidence intervals comparable to those in Hall (1988)

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2501.07645 v2 pith:3W4ITQGI submitted 2025-01-13 math.ST cs.NAmath.NAstat.TH

Coverage errors for Student's t confidence intervals comparable to those in Hall (1988)

classification math.ST cs.NAmath.NAstat.TH
keywords hallgammaintervalskappatableconfidencecoveragestudent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Table 1 of Hall (1988) contains asymptotic coverage error formulas for some nonparametric approximate 95\% confidence intervals for the mean based on $n$ IID samples. The table includes an entry for an interval based on the central limit theorem using Gaussian quantiles and the Gaussian maximum likelihood variance estimate. It is missing an entry for the very widely used Student's $t$ confidence intervals. This note develops such a formula. The impetus to revisit this issue arose from the surprisingly robust performance of confidence intervals based on Student's t statistic in randomized quasi-Monte Carlo sampling. Hall's table had $0.14\kappa -2.12\gamma^2-3.35$ for normal theory intervals; the corresponding entry for Student's $t$ is $0.14\kappa -2.12\gamma^2$. An earlier version of this note reported that it corrected some coverage error formulas in Hall (1988). Two-sided errors take the form $2\Phi^{-1}(0.975)(A\kappa + \gamma^2+C)\varphi(1.96)/n +O(1/n^{3/2})$ where the error may well be $O(n^{-2})$. Hall's table showed $\Phi^{-1}(0.975)(A\kappa + B\gamma^2+C)$. The version intended as a correction had $2(A\kappa + B\gamma^2+C)$, wider by about $2/1.96\doteq1.02$. So, Hall's table really is proportional to the two-sided coverage errors.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The $L_p$-error rate for randomized quasi-Monte Carlo self-normalized importance sampling of unbounded integrands

    math.NA 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    Rigorous Lp error bounds of order O(N^{-β+ε}) for RQMC self-normalized importance sampling with unbounded integrands on unbounded domains, with β near 1 under QMC-friendly growth conditions.