Interval Estimation for Binomial Proportion, …532980/FULLTEXT01.pdfInterval Estimation for...
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of Interval Estimation for Binomial Proportion, …532980/FULLTEXT01.pdfInterval Estimation for...

Interval Estimation for Binomial Proportion, Poisson Mean, and Negative
binomial Mean
Luchen Liu
Supervisor: Rolf Larsson
Master Thesis in Statistics, May 2012
Uppsala University, Sweden

Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 2 2. Methodology .............................................................................................. 3
2.1 The Actual Coverage Probability .......................................................... 3 2.2 The Expected Length ............................................................................ 3
3. Confidence Intervals for the Binomial Proportion .................................. 4 3.1 The Standard Wald Interval................................................................... 4 3.2 Frequentist Alternative Confidence Intervals......................................... 5 3.3 The Bayesian Alternative Confidence Interval ...................................... 8 3.4 The Expected Length .......................................................................... 10 3.5 Discussion ........................................................................................... 11
4. The Confidence Interval for the Poisson Mean ..................................... 16 4.1 The Wald Interval ............................................................................... 16 4.2 Alternative Confidence Intervals ......................................................... 18 4.3 The Expected Length of The Poisson Intervals .................................... 21
5. The Confidence Interval for the Negative binomial Mean .................... 23 5.1 The Wald Interval ............................................................................... 23 5.2 Alternative Confidence Intervals ......................................................... 25 5.3 The Expected Length of The Negativebinomial Intervals ................... 28
6. Conclusions and Discussions .................................................................. 31 6.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 31 6.2 Discussion ........................................................................................... 31
7. Empirical examples ................................................................................. 33 7.1 Female births proportion ..................................................................... 33 7.2 The horse kick data ............................................................................. 34

1
Interval Estimation for Binomial Proportion, Poisson Mean, and Negative
binomial Mean
Author: Luchen Liu
Supervisor: Rolf Larsson
Abstract
This paper studies the interval estimation of three discrete distributions: the
binomial distribution, the Poisson distribution and the negativebinomial
distribution. The problem is the chaotic behavior of the coverage probability
for the Wald interval. To solve this problem, alternative confidence intervals are
introduced. Coverage probability and expected length are chosen to be the
criteria evaluating the intervals.
In this paper, I firstly tested the chaotic behavior of the coverage
probability for the Wald interval, and introduced the alternative confidence
intervals. Then I calculated the coverage probability and expected length for
those intervals, made comparisons and recommended confidence intervals for
the three cases. This paper also discussed the relationship among the three
discrete distributions, and in the end illustrated the applications on binomial
and Poisson data with brief examples.
Key words: interval estimation, coverage probability, expected length

2
1. Introduction
Interval estimation is one of the most basic methodologies in statistics. There
are a variety of ways to construct confidence intervals, and the most
wellknown is the Wald interval. This interval is used in the textbooks, and it is
also the most commonly used confidence interval in practice. But in the
binomial case, in some studies this interval was proved to have poor coverage
probability. Agresti and Coull (1998) and Brown et. al. (2001) all considered
this problem, and figured out that, even when n is large the chaotic behavior of
the standard interval still exists.
Many other ways of constructing intervals have been taken into
consideration recently. These intervals contain the Wilson interval (also called
the score interval), the Jeffreys equal tailed interval, the ClopperPearson
interval, the likelihoodratio interval, and the Bayesian HPD interval. Agresti
and Coull (1998) recommended the confidence intervals constructed by
approximation methods because they are more efficient than the exact
ClopperPearson interval, although the exact interval is always conservative.
The confidence interval of a binomial proportion is simplest but can
illustrate many problems. In this paper, I tested the chaotic behavior of the
Wald interval of the binomial proportion, and introduced some alternative
intervals, then made a comparison of these intervals, and discussed the
relationship between some intervals. The evaluation criteria I used to compare
the confidence intervals are the coverage probability and the expected length.
To be fair in the comparison of expected length, I plotted the expected length to
the actual coverage probability but not the nominal confidence level, and got
the same conclusion as Agresti and Coull.
I also turned to the confidence interval of Poisson mean and the
Negativebinomial mean, which are two other commonly used discrete
distributions. I tested the behavior of the Wald interval, and the coverage
probability is also quite chaotic, so I tried the score interval, the likelihood ratio
interval, the exact interval, and the Jeffreys interval as the alternative intervals.

3
Then I made a comparison using the coverage probability and the expected
length as criteria, and recommended which confidence interval to choose for
these two cases. In the end I gave two empirical examples to illustrate the
applications on binomial and Poisson data.
2. Methodology
The coverage probability and the expected length are reasonable criteria for us
to find the confidence intervals that have relatively higher probability to
contain the true value and shorter length.
2.1 The Actual Coverage Probability
The coverage probability of a confidence interval is the proportion of the time
that the interval contains the true value of the parameter.
The coverage probability for a confidence interval CI of the parameter
from a distribution ~ (  )XX f x , where (  )Xf x is the probability density
function, is calculated by the equation
( ) ( , ) (  )k
C I k f k
(1)
where
1, ,
( , )0, .
CII k
CI
(2)
2.2 The Expected Length
The expected length is also called the expected width, which evaluates the
accuracy of a confidence interval.
The expected length for confidence interval CI of the parameter
from a distribution ~ (  )XX f x is calculated by the equation
( ) ( ( ) ( )) (  )k
EW U k L k f k
(3)
where ( )U k and ( )L k are the upper and lower limits of CI.

4
Agresti and Coull (1998) suggested that we should choose an approach
giving narrower intervals for which the actual coverage probability could be
less than but usually quite close to the nominal confidence level, so they
recommended the approximation intervals instead of the exact interval.
3. Confidence Intervals for the Binomial Proportion
The interval estimation for the binomial proportion is the simplest of the three
cases, and the most discussed one. Illustrating the problem of the binomial case
can help us understand the problem of the other two distributions, and there are
a variety of alternative confidence intervals for the binomial case. So I choose
to introduce the binomial case in the very beginning.
3.1 The Standard Wald Interval
The standard Wald interval is the most widely used interval in practicing
statistical analysis and econometric research.
The standard normal approximation confidence interval of the binomial
proportion p is in the following form.
2
SpqCI p zn
(4)
where 2
z is the 1 2 quantile of the standard normal distribution, Xp
n
and 1q p .
The coverage probability for any confidence interval CI at the fixed value
of p is
0
( ) ( , ) (1 )n
k n kn
k
nC p I k p p p
k
, (5)
where
1, ,
( , )0, .
p CII k p
p CI
. (6)
Plotting the coverage probability separately by fixing the value of p or n

5
showed that larger n may have lower coverage probability than small n (Figure
1(a)). The coverage probability is less than 0.92 when n=40, and over 0.95
when n=20 (Figure 1(b)), contrary to the textbook. For large sample size like
n=100, the coverage probability can still be poor when p is near the boundary
(Figure 1(c)). The coverage probability is still chaotic for n=2000 when p is
near 0 (Figure 1(d)).
Figure 1: Plot of the coverage probability for the standard interval at: (a) fixed
p=0.2 and n=25 to 100, (b) fixed p=0.5 and n=10 to 50, (c) fixed n=100 and
0

6
21
22212 22
2 2
2 2
2 ( )(4 )W
zz n zX
CI pq nn z n z
(7)
The Wilson interval is the inversion of the equaltail test 0 0:H p p based on
the CLT approximation. The coverage probability of the Wilson interval for
n=50 is shown in Figure 2(a).
3.2.2 The ClopperPearson Interval
The ClopperPearson (1934) interval is also called the exact interval, for it is
the inversion of the equaltail binomial test. It is based on the exact cumulative
probabilities of the binomial distribution rather than any approximation. The
ClopperPearson interval can be written as
{  ( ( ; ) ) } {  ( ( ; ) ) }2 2p P Bin n p X p P Bin n p X , (8)
where X is the number of successes observed in the sample and ( ; )Bin n p is a
binomial random variable.
Brown et. al. (2001) mentioned that, because of a relationship between the
cumulative binomial distribution and the beta distribution, the ClopperPearson
interval can be presented in an alternate format that uses quantiles of the beta
distribution. For the observed data X x the ClopperPearson interval is in
the following form.
[ ( ), ( )]CP CP CPCI L x U x (9)
where ( )CPL x is the 2 quantile of the Beta(x,nx+1) distribution, and
( )CPU x is the 1 2 quantile of the Beta(x+1,nx) distribution. The coverage
probability of ClopperPearson interval for n=50 is shown in Figure 2(b). The
plot shows that the exact 95% confidence intervals are rather conservative. It
was proved by Wang (2006) that the ClopperPearson interval is the smallest
twosided conservative interval if and only if for 0 1 , (0; ,0.5)BF n ,

7
where ( ; , )BF x n p is the cumulative distribution function of the binomial
distribution.
3.2.3 The AgrestiCoull Interval
Agresti and Coull (1998) pointed out that the ClopperPearson interval is
inefficient, and suggested an adjusted Wald interval in the following form.
2
ACpqCI p zn
(10)
where 2
22
zX X
and 2
2n n z , then Xp n
and 1q p . The
coverage probability of AgrestiCoull interval for n=50 is shown in Figure 2(c).
For a 95% confidence interval, 2 22
1.96 3.84 4z , so if we use 2 instead of
1.96, this is an add 2 successes and 2 failures interval.
The standard interval is simple for classroom presentation, but
unfortunately with poor performance. This interval was suggested by Agresti
and Coull (1998) for that, it is of the familiar form with 2
pqp zn
, and thus
a compromise alternative interval for the Wald interval.
3.2.4 The Likelihood Ratio Interval
The likelihood ratio interval was carried out by Rao (1973), and it is
constructed by the inversion of the likelihood ratio test 0 0:H p p if
2
22log( )n z , where n is the likelihood ratio in the following form.
0 0 0( ) (1 )
( ) ( ) (1 )
X n X
n X n Xp
L p p pX XSup L p n n
(11)
where ( )L is the likelihood function. The coverage probability of the
likelihood ratio interval for n=50 is shown in Figure 2(d). We can see from the
plot that the coverage probability gets quite chaotic when p is close to the

8
boundary, but when 0.2

9
1 1( , )2 2Beta , thus the equaltailed Jeffreys prior interval is in the following
form.
[ ( ), ( )]J J JCI L x U x (13)
where ( )JL x is the 2 quantile and ( )JU x is the 1 2
quantile of the
1 1( , )2 2Beta X n X distribution. The coverage probability of Jeffreys
interval for n=50 is shown in Figure 3(a).
As the upper limit of the ClopperPearson interval is the 2 quantile of
the Beta(x,nx+1) distribution, and the lower limit is 1 2 quantile of the
Beta(x+1,nx) distribution, it is pointed out by Brown et. al. (2001) that Jeffreys
interval is always contained in the exact interval, thus corrects the
conservativeness of the exact interval.
3.3.2 The Bayesian HPD Interval
The highest posterior density (HPD) region consists of p that fulfill (  )f p x c
where (  )f p x is the posterior density of p. The highest posterior density
(HPD) interval can be denoted as:
2 ( ) { :[ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )] }H b p P l p l p h p h p b , (14)
where ( )l is the loglikelihood function, and ( )h p is the prior of p (Severini,
1991). The coverage probability of the Bayesian HPD Interval for n=50 with
1 1( , )2 2Beta prior is shown in Figure 3(b). We can see from the plot that the
coverage probability gets quite chaotic when p is close to the boundary, but
when 0.2

10
Figure 3: Plot of the coverage probability for n=50, 0.5 and 0

11
Figure 4: Plot of the expected lengths for confidence intervals at n=50, 0.5
and 0

12
p

13
Figure 6: Plot of the expected length for Bayesian interval at n=50, 0.5
and 0

14
boundary the coverage probabilities have a little difference.
Figure 7: Plot of the coverage probability for Bayesian HPD interval with
1 1( , )2 2Beta prior (blue dotted line) and the LikelihoodRatio Interval (black
solid line) at n=50, 0.5 and 0

15
has the longest expected length. But this is just at the same nominal confidence
level, not the same actual coverage probability. So I plotted the actual coverage
probability to expected length of the Wald interval and its alternative intervals
(Figure 8).
Figure 8: Plot of the actual coverage probability to the expected length of
the ClopperPearson interval (the black solid line) and (a) the Wilson
interval, (b) the AgrestiCoull interval, (c) the likelihood ratio interval and
(d) the Jeffreys interval (the purple dotted line).
We can see from the plot that, when the actual coverage probability is
between 0.96 and 0.97, the expected lengths of the Wilson interval, the
AgrestiCoull interval, the likelihood ratio interval and the Jeffreys interval are
relatively shorter than the exact interval. But we can also get the result that at
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
(a)
expected length
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.250.
850.
900.
951.
00
(b)
expected length
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
(c)
expected length
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
(d)
expected length
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity

16
the same expected length, the ClopperPearson interval always has the largest
actual coverage probability. So it is not proper to say that the ClopperPearson
interval is inefficient, because the expected length of the AgrestiCoull interval
and the ClopperPearson interval at the same actual coverage probability are
not very different at the same nominal confidence level.
So I think we should choose the confidence interval for the binomial
proportion according to the requirement and the purpose of the study. If we are
doing analysis requiring conservativeness of the confidence interval, we should
choose the exact interval, and if we want to obtain a more accurate interval, we
should choose the AgrestiCoull interval instead.
4. The Confidence Interval for the Poisson Mean
The Poisson distribution is another discrete distribution in the exponential
family. The estimation of the Poisson mean is also a commonly discussed
problem in statistical analysis. The Poisson distribution describes the
probability of a given number of events occurring in a fixed interval of time or
space if those events occur with a known average rate and independently of the
time since the last event. Let 1{ , , }nX X be independent, identically
distributed ( )Poisson random variables, then the probability density function
of iX is
( )!
k
ieP X kk
(17)
where k is a nonnegative integer, and is a positive real number, which
equals the expectation of X.
4.1 The Wald Interval
The simplest and most widely used confidence interval for a Poisson mean is
still the Wald interval.
For an independent, identically distributed ( )Poisson random sample

17
1{ , , }nX X , the standard normal approximation confidence interval of the
Poisson mean is in the following form. 1
2
2( )XX z n (18)
where 1
n
ii
X X n
, and 2
z is the 1 2 quantile of the standard normal
distribution.
Barker (2002) gives a method of computing the coverage probability and
expected length of confidence intervals for the Poisson mean. For 1
n
ii
T X
which is sufficient for , the coverage probability of a confidence interval is
in the form:
0( ) ( { ( ) ( )}) ( !)n nn
iC I L i n U i e i i
(19)
where {}I is the indicator function of the bracketed event, 1
2
2( ) ( )L T T z T ,
and 1
2
2( ) ( )U T T z T .
By plotting the coverage probability of the Poisson mean we can see that
the behavior for the Wald interval is also quite chaotic for the Poisson case
(Figure 8). The plot also shows that the coverage behavior is less chaotic when
n is large (Figure 8(a), (b)), and for big values of , the coverage behavior
is less erratic than for small values of (Figure 8(c),(d)).

18
Figure 9: Plot of the coverage probability for the standard interval at: (a)
n = 10 to 500, (b) n = 1 to 50, (c) fixed = 5 and n= 5 to 100, and (d) fixed
= 0.2 and n=5 to 100.
4.2 Alternative Confidence Intervals
4.2.1 The Score Interval
The score interval is formed by inverting Raos equal tail test (Rao, 1973) of
0 0:H . Barker (2002) gives the bounds of score interval in the following
form. 2 2 0.5
2 2 2( ) (2 ) ( )[4 ( ) ] (4 )X z n z X z n n (20)
Brown et. al. (2003) mentioned that, in the Poisson case the coverage
probabilities are actually functions of n . So I plotted the coverage probability
of the score interval for n from 2 to 50 (Figure 10(a)).
0 100 200 300 400 500
0.92
0.94
0.96
(a)
nlambda
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
0 10 20 30 40 50
0.92
0.94
0.96
(b)
nlambda
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
20 40 60 80 100
0.86
0.90
0.94
(b)
n
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
20 40 60 80 100
0.86
0.90
0.94
(c)
n
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity

19
4.2.2 The Exact Method
Familiar with the binomial case, the (1 )100% lower confidence limit for
is the smallest value of l that satisfies
0( ) ( !) 2l
Sn i
li
e n i
(21)
where S is 1
n
ii
T X
. If such l does not exist, the lower confidence limit is 0.
the (1 )100% upper confidence limit for c is the largest value of l that
satisfies
( ) ( !) 2ln ili S
e n i
(22)
Fay and Feuer (1997) give the solution to (21) and (22) in the form of the
2 distribution as:
2 1 2 12 2( 1)
1 1[ ( ), ( )] [ ( ) ( 2), ( ) (1 2)]2 2E E E x x
CI L x U x (23)
where 2 1( ) ( )n p is the pth quantile of the 2 distribution with n degrees of
freedom.
The coverage probability of the exact confidence interval for the Poisson
mean with n from 2 to 50 is plotted in Figure 9(b).
4.2.3 The Likelihood Ratio Interval
The likelihood ratio interval for the Poisson case is constructed by the inversion
of the likelihood ratio test 0 0:H . The interval covers if
2
22log( )n z , where n is the likelihood ratio given by
nX n
n nX nX
eX e
(24)

20
The coverage probability of the likelihood ratio confidence interval for the
Poisson mean with n from 2 to 50 is plotted in Figure 9(c).
4.2.4 The Jeffreys Interval
The noninformative Jeffreys prior of the Poisson distribution is proportional to 1 2 , then the posterior distribution of is ~ ( 1 2,1 )X Gamma X n , so the
equaltailed Jefferys interval is in the following form.
[ ( ), ( )]J J JCI L x U x (25)
where ( )JL x is the 2 quantile and ( )JU x is the 1 2
quantile of the
( 1 2,1 )Gamma X n distribution.
The coverage probability of the equaltailed Jeffreys confidence interval
for the Poisson mean with n from 2 to 50 is plotted in Figure 10(d).
Figure 10: Plot of the coverage probability for the Poisson mean with n from
2 to 50 of: (a) the score interval, (b) the exact interval, (c) the likelihood ratio
interval, and (d) the Jeffreys interval.
10 20 30 40 50
0.92
0.96
1.00
(a)
nlambda
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
10 20 30 40 50
0.92
0.96
1.00
(b)
nlambda
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
10 20 30 40 50
0.92
0.96
1.00
(c)
nlambda
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
10 20 30 40 50
0.92
0.96
1.00
(d)
nlambda
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity

21
From the plots we can see that the likelihood ratio interval and the Jeffreys
interval are more chaotic than the score interval and the exact interval, and the
exact interval is the most conservative interval among these four intervals.
The likelihood ratio interval and the Jeffreys interval in the Poisson case
are also close to each other when n is large. As in the binomial case, when
n is close to the boundary 0, the coverage probabilities are slightly different.
4.3 The Expected Length of The Poisson Intervals
The expected length for the Poisson mean is computed by:
0
( ) ( ( ) ( )) ( !)n nni
EW U i L i e i i
(26)
The expected length of the Wald interval for the Poisson mean and the
alternative intervals are plotted below (Figure 10).
Figure 11: Plot of the expected length for the Poisson mean with n from
2 to 50 of: the Wald interval (black solid line), the score interval (blue dashed
line), the likelihood ratio interval (red dashed line), the Jeffreys interval (green
dashed line), and the the exact interval (purple dashed line).
10 20 30 40 50
510
1520
25
Expected Length
nlambda
expe
cted
leng
th

22
We can see from the plot that the expected lengths of the Wald interval
and the likelihood ratio interval are the shortest, the expected length of the
Jeffreys interval is close to the Wald interval, the expected length of the score
interval is a little bit longer, and the exact interval is the longest.
Then we can also plot the expected length to the actual coverage
probability (Figure 12).
Figure 12: Plot of the expected length to the actual coverage probability of the
exact interval (the black solid line) and (a) the Wald interval , (b) the score
interval, (c) the likelihood ratio interval and (d) the Jeffreys interval (the purple
dotted line).
We can see from the plot that, when the actual coverage probability is
close to 0.95, the score interval, the likelihood ratio interval and the Jeffreys
10 15 20 25
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
(a)
expected length
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
10 15 20 25
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
(b)
expected length
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
10 15 20 25
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
(c)
expected length
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
10 15 20 25
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
(d)
expected length
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity

23
interval are relatively shorter than the exact interval. And we can also see that
at the same expected length, the actual coverage probability of the exact
interval is always the largest.
So we should also choose the confidence interval like in the binomial case.
The approximation methods are more accurate but with smaller coverage
probability, thus are proper to be used in the studies requiring efficiency. The
exact method should be used if the study requires conservativeness.
5. The Confidence Interval for the Negative binomial Mean
The probability density function for the negativebinomial variable
~ ( , )X NB r p is in the form.
1(  ) (1 ) , 0,1, ;0 1r x
r xP X x p p p x p
x
(27)
The mean and variance are (1 )( ) r pE Xp
and 2(1 )( ) r pVar X
p
.
The negative binomial variable ~ ( , )X NB r p can describe the number of
failures before the first r success when doing Bernoulli trials.
5.1 The Wald Interval
Let 1{ , , }nX X be independent, identically distributed (1, )NB p random
variables, then ~ (1, )X NB p and 0
~ ( , )n
ii
X NB n p .
The point estimation of the probability of success p is 11
pX
. The
estimation of the mean is X , and the variance of the mean is 2 2(1 )
p
p .
So the standard Wald confidence interval for the negativebinomial mean is in
the following form.

24
222 2
(1 ) S
pCI z X zp
(28)
where 2
z is the 1 2 quantile of the standard normal distribution.
The coverage probability of the confidence intervals for the
negativebinomial mean is calculated by the equation
0
1( ) ( { ( ) ( )}) (1 )r ir
i
r iCP I L i U i p p
i
0
1( { ( ) ( )}) ( ) (1 )r i
i
r i r rI L i U ii r r
(29)
where {}I is the indicator function of the bracketed event, ( )U i and ( )L i
are the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval.
The behavior of the coverage probability of the standard Wald interval for
the negative binomial mean is quite chaotic (Figure 13), and even never
reaches the nominal confidence level. For large values of n (Figure 13(d)) and
(Figure 13(b)) the coverage probability performs less chaotically than for a
small value (Figure 13(a), (c)). The coverage probability of the Wald interval
for the negativebinomial mean is in general quite chaotic as it never reaches
the nominal confidence level even when n=100. But the coverage probability
reaches 0.95 when n=1000 (Figure 17).

25
Figure 13: Plot of the coverage probability of the Wald interval for the
negative binomial mean at: (a) fixed 5 and n=2 to 50, (b) fixed 100
and n=2 to 50, (c) fixed n=20 and 0 to 100, and (d) fixed n=100 and
0 to 100.
5.2 The Alternative Confidence Intervals
5.2.1 The Score Interval
The Raos score interval of the negativebinomial mean given by Brown et. al.
(2003) is in the form
12 22122 2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 ( )
4Rn z z n z
CIn z n z n
(30)
10 20 30 40 50
0.5
0.7
0.9
(a)
n
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
10 20 30 40 50
0.5
0.7
0.9
(b)
n
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.5
0.7
0.9
(c)
mu
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.5
0.7
0.9
(d)
mu
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity

26
The coverage probability of the score interval for from 0 to 100 and
n=50 is plotted in Figure 14(a). The coverage probability of the score interval
is larger and less chaotic than the standard interval.
5.2.2 The Exact Method
Familiar with the former cases, the (1 )100% lower confidence limit for
is the smallest value of l that satisfies
0
1( ) ( ) 2
Sn i
i
n i ni n n
(31)
where S is 1
n
ii
T X
. the (1 )100% upper confidence limit for is the
largest value of u that satisfies
1( ) ( ) 2n i
i S
n i ni n n
(32)
The coverage probability of the exact confidence interval for the
negativebinomial mean with from 0 to 100 and n=50 is plotted in Figure
14(b). As for the former two distributions, the exact interval for the
negativebinomial mean is also always conservative.
5.2.3 The Likelihood Ratio Interval
The likelihood ratio interval for the negativebinomial mean is constructed by
the inversion of the likelihood rario test 0 0:H . if 22
2log( )n z , where
n is the likelihood ratio given by
(1 ) (1 )
nX n
n nX n
p pp p
(33)
where the maximum likelihood estimation for p is 11MLE
pX
.

27
The coverage probability of the likelihood ratio confidence interval for the
negativebinomial mean with from 0 to 100 and n=50 is plotted in Figure
14(c).
5.2.4 The Jeffreys Interval
Because the noninformative Jeffreys prior of the negativebinomial mean is
proportional to 1 2 1 2(1 ) , the conjugate prior for p is proportional to
1 2 1(1 ) ( )p p . So the posterior distribution of p is ~ ( 1 2, )p X Beta X n ,
and the equaltailed Jeffreys interval is in the following form.
( ) [ ( ), ( )]J J JCI p L x U x (34)
where ( )JL x is the 2 quantile and ( )JU x is the 1 2
quantile of the
( 1 2 , )Beta X n distribution. Thus the Jeffreys interval for is
( ) ( )( ) [ , ]1 ( ) 1 ( )J J
JJ J
U x L xCI U x L x (35)
The coverage probability of the equaltailed Jeffreys confidence interval
negativebinomial mean with from 0 to 100 and n=50 is plotted in Figure
14(d).
The likelihood ratio interval and the Jeffreys interval in the
negativebinomial case are close to each other when is large, and have
difference when is close to 0, which coincides with the former two cases.

28
Figure 14: Plot of the coverage probability for the negativebinomial mean with
from 0 to 100 and n=50 of: (a) the score interval, (b) the exact interval, (c)
the likelihood ratio interval, and (d) the Jeffreys interval.
5.3 The Expected Length of The Negativebinomial Intervals
The expected length for the negativebinomial mean is computed by:
0
1( ) ( ( ) ( )) ( ) (1 )r in
i
r i r rEW U i L ii r r
(36)
The expected length of the Wald interval for the negativebinomial mean
and the alternative intervals are plotted below (Figure 15).
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.86
0.90
0.94
0.98
(a)
mu
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.86
0.90
0.94
0.98
(b)
mu
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.86
0.90
0.94
0.98
(c)
mu
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.86
0.90
0.94
0.98
(d)
mu
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity

29
Figure 15: Plot of the expected length for the negativebinomial with
from 0 to 100 of: the Wald interval (black solid line), the score interval (grey
dotted line), the likelihood ratio interval (green dotted line), the Jeffreys
interval (blue dotted line), and the the exact interval (red dotted line).
We can see from the plot that, the score interval has the longest expected
length most of the time, and the Wald interval is always the shortest. The
expected length of the likelihood ratio interval and the Jeffreys interval are
close to each other.
Then we can also plot the expected length to the actual coverage
probability (Figure 16)
0 20 40 60 80 100
010
2030
4050
6070
Expected Length of the Negativebinomial Mean
mu
expe
cted
leng
th

30
Figure 16: Plot of the expected length to the actual coverage probability of the
exact interval (the black solid line) and (a) the Wald interval , (b) the score
interval, (c) the likelihood ratio interval and (d) the Jeffreys interval (the purple
dotted line).
We can see from the plot that, when the actual coverage probability is
close to 0.95, the likelihood ratio interval and the Jeffreys interval are relatively
shorter than the exact interval. And we can also see that at the same expected
length, the actual coverage probability of the exact interval is always the largest.
In the negative binomial case, the exact method has the expected length more
close to the approximation methods than in the former two cases, and it is
always conservative.
In the negativebinomial case, we should still see to the requirement of the
study. Choose exact method for conservativeness, and the approximation
method for accuracy.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
(a)
expected length
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
(b)
expected length
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
(c)
expected length
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
(d)
expected length
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity

31
6. Conclusions and Discussions
6.1 Conclusions
From all the three cases we can obtain the following conclusion:
1. The higher coverage probability a confidence interval obtains, the longer
the expected length will be.
2. The exact intervals are always conservative, and subsequently having
longer expected length.
3. The approximation methods and the Bayesian methods have relatively
shorter expected length, and subsequently have more chaotic coverage
probabilities.
4. At the same expected length, the exact method is getting the largest
coverage probability.
6.2 Discussion
The three discrete cases studied in this paper can be asymptotically
approximated to each other. For the binomial case, if the number of trials n is
very large, while p is sufficiently small, such as 100n while 10np , then
the distribution can be approximated by the Poisson distribution ~ ( )X Pois np .
And for the negativebinomial case, if the number of successes n is very large,
then the distribution can be approximated by the Poisson distribution
~ ( (1 ))X Pois n p . So we can also use asymptotic approximation to solve the
confidence interval problem. I plotted the coverage probability for the three
cases when n=1000 (Figure 17(a), (b)), and n=100(Figure 17(c), (d)), both of
10np .

32
Figure 17: The coverage probability of the Wald interval for: (a) the
binomial proportion at p = 0 to 0.01 (black solid line), n=1000, (b) the
negativebinomial mean at (1p) = 0 to 0.1 (black solid line), n=1000, and the
Poisson mean at = 0 to 10 (blue dotted line), (c) the binomial proportion at p
= 0 to 0.1 (black solid line), n=100, (d) the negativebinomial mean at (1p) = 0
to 0.1 (black solid line), n=100, and the Poisson mean at = 0 to 10 (blue
dotted line).
We can see from the plot that when p is close to 0, the coverage
probability of the binomial and negativebinomial cases coincide with the
Poisson case. The coverage probabilities are closer when n is larger and is
smaller, which coincides with the knowledge that the three discrete cases can
be asymptotically approximated to each other. This suggests that in the study of
0.000 0.004 0.008
0.82
0.88
0.94
(a)
p
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
0.000 0.004 0.008
0.82
0.88
0.94
(b)
1p
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
0.00 0.04 0.08
0.82
0.88
0.94
(c)
p
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity
0.00 0.04 0.08
0.82
0.88
0.94
(d)
1p
cove
rage
pro
babi
lity

33
confidence intervals, when one of the three cases is hard to calculate, we can
use the asymptotical approximation to the other two.
7. Empirical examples
7.1 Female births proportion
To illustrate the differences between the confidence intervals, I will give a brief
example of the binomial case below. The data is the number of girls and boys
born in Paris from 1745 to 1770, and it is from Gelman (2004). It was first
studied by Laplace and was used to estimate the proportion of female births in
a population, to see if the female births in European populations was less than
0.5. A total of 241,945 girls and 251,527 boys were born in that period.
So in this example n=493,472 and the point estimation of the proportion is
0.4902912Xpn
. I calculated the limits and length of the Wald interval and
the alternative confidence intervals for this binomial proportion, and the results
are in Table 1.
Table 1: 95% Confidence intervals for the female births proportion
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.488896465 0.491686020 0.002789555
Wilson 0.488896546 0.491686090 0.002789544
AgrestiCoull 0.488896546 0.491686090 0.002789544
ClopperPearson 0.488895512 0.491687087 0.002791575
Likelihood ratio 0.488896538 0.491686050 0.002789512
Jeffreys 0.488896525 0.491686074 0.002789548
Bayesian HPD 0.488896525 0.491686074 0.002789548
We can see from the table that, the AgrestiCoull interval and Wilson score
interval get the same limits and length, Jeffreys interval and Bayesian HPD

34
interval also get the same results. The ClopperPearson interval is the longest,
and the likelihoodratio interval is the shortest. Among these intervals, only the
Wald interval is symmetric. From this result we can also see that although the
ClopperPearson interval is the longest, if we focus on the aim that to see if the
female births was less than 0.5, it is better to choose the ClopperPearson interval to
suggest that at the 95% confidence level, 0.5 is beyond the upper bound of the
ClopperPearson interval. As the ClopperPearson interval is always
conservative, so even if 0.5 is above the upper limits of all these intervals, the
ClopperPearson interval can support the result best.
7.2 The horse kick data
Quine and Seneta (2006) introduced Bortkiewiczs (1898) horse kick data set,
which describes the numbers on men killed by horse kicks in the Preussian
Army from 1875 to 1894, and Bortkiewicz showed in his book that this data
follows a Poisson distribution.
There are 280 observations from 14 corps in the army over 20 years, so
the variable ijX (i= 1,, 20; j= 1,,14) records the number of deaths by
horse kick in year 1874+i for corps j. Bortkiewicz showed in his book that
~ ( )ij jX Pois , and calculated the point estimator of j by 20
iji
j
X
. I
calculated the limits and length of the Wald interval and the alternative
confidence intervals for these Poisson means, the results of corps G are in
Table 2, and the results of the rest of the 14 corps are in the appendix (Table
3~15).
We can see from these tables that, when n is small, the differences
between different intervals are larger than in the former example. The Wald
interval is of the shortest length, and the exact interval is of the longest. In this
example I would like to recommend the likelihood ratio interval for it is of

35
relatively shorter length, and the behavior of its coverage probability is less
chaotic than the Wald interval.
Table 2: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps G
Corps iji
X j
G 16 0.8
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.408 1.192 0.784
Score 0.492 1.300 0.807
Likelihoodratio 0.469 1.258 0.789
Jeffreys 0.476 1.268 0.792
Exact 0.457 1.299 0.842

References
[1] Agresti, A. & Coull, B.A. 1998, "Approximate is Better than "Exact" for
Interval Estimation of Binomial Proportions", American Statistician, vol. 52,
no. 2, pp. 119126.
[2] Barker, L. 2002, "A comparison of nine confidence intervals for a poisson
parameter when the expected number of events is 5", American Statistician,
vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 8589.
[3] Bortkiewicz, L. von (1898). Das Gesetz der kleinen Zahlen: Teubner,
Leipzig
[4] Brown, L.D., Cai, T.T. & DasGupta, A. 2001, "Interval estimation for a
binomial proportion", Statistical Science, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 101133.
[5] Brown, L.D., Cai, T.T. & DasGupta, A. 2002, "Confidence intervals for a
binomial proportion and asymptotic expansions", Annals of Statistics, vol. 30,
no. 1, pp. 160201.
[6] Brown, L.D., Cai, T.T. & DasGupta, A. 2003, "Interval estimation for
exponential families", Statisticl Sinica, vol. 13, pp. 1949.
[7] Clopper, C. J. & Pearson, E. S. 1934, "The use of confidence or fiducial
limits illustrated in the case of the binomial", Biometrika, vol. 26, pp. 404413.
[8] Fay P. M. & Feuer J. E. 1997, "Confidence intervals for directly
standardized rates: a method based on the gamma distribution", Statistics in
Medicine, vol. 16, pp.791801.

[9] Gelman, A. (2004). Bayesian data analysis . 2. ed. Boca Raton: Chapman
& Hall
[10] Quine M. P. & Seneta E. 2006, "Bortkiewiczs data and the law of small
numbers", International Statistical Institute, vol. 55, pp. 173181.
[11] Rao, C. R. (1973). Linear statistical inference and its applications: Wiley,
New York.
[12] Severini T. A. 1991, "On the Relationship Between Bayesian and
NonBayesian Interval Estimates", Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.
Series B (Methodological), vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 611618.
[13] Wang, W. 2006, "Smallest confidence intervals for one binomial
proportion", Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, vol. 136, no. 12, pp.
42934306.
[14] Wilson, E. B. 1927, "Probable inference, the law of succession, and
statistical inference", J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., vol. 22, pp. 209212.

Appendix
A.1 Interval estimation results of the horse kick numbers for the 13 corps.
Table 3: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps I
Corps iji
X j
I 16 0.8
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.408 1.192 0.784
Score 0.492 1.300 0.807
Likelihoodratio 0.469 1.258 0.789
Jeffreys 0.476 1.268 0.792
Exact 0.457 1.299 0.842
Table 4: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps II
Corps iji
X j
II 12 0.6
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.261 0.939 0.679
Score 0.343 1.049 0.706
Likelihoodratio 0.321 1.006 0.685
Jeffreys 0.328 1.016 0.688
Exact 0.310 1.048 0.738
Table 5: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps III
Corps iji
X j
III 12 0.6
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length

Wald 0.261 0.939 0.679
Score 0.343 1.049 0.706
Likelihoodratio 0.321 1.006 0.685
Jeffreys 0.328 1.016 0.688
Exact 0.310 1.048 0.738
Table 6: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps IV
Corps iji
X j
IV 8 0.4
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.123 0.677 0.554
Score 0.203 0.789 0.587
Likelihoodratio 0.183 0.745 0.562
Jeffreys 0.189 0.755 0.566
Exact 0.173 0.788 0.615
Table 7: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps V
Corps iji
X j
V 11 0.55
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.225 0.875 0.650
Score 0.307 0.985 0.678
Likelihoodratio 0.286 0.942 0.656
Jeffreys 0.292 0.952 0.660
Exact 0.275 0.984 0.710
Table 8: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps VI
Corps iji
X j

VI 17 0.85
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.446 1.254 0.808
Score 0.531 1.361 0.831
Likelihoodratio 0.507 1.320 0.813
Jeffreys 0.514 1.330 0.816
Exact 0.495 1.361 0.866
Table 9: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps VII
Corps iji
X j
VII 12 0.6
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.261 0.939 0.679
Score 0.343 1.049 0.706
Likelihoodratio 0.321 1.006 0.685
Jeffreys 0.328 1.016 0.688
Exact 0.310 1.048 0.738
Table 10: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps VIII
Corps iji
X j
VIII 7 0.35
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.091 0.609 0.519
Score 0.170 0.723 0.553
Likelihoodratio 0.150 0.677 0.526
Jeffreys 0.157 0.687 0.531
Exact 0.141 0.721 0.580
Table 11: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps IX

Corps iji
X j
IX 13 0.65
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.297 1.003 0.707
Score 0.380 1.112 0.732
Likelihoodratio 0.358 1.070 0.712
Jeffreys 0.364 1.080 0.716
Exact 0.346 1.112 0.765
Table 12: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps X
Corps iji
X j
X 15 0.75
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.370 1.130 0.759
Score 0.455 1.238 0.783
Likelihoodratio 0.432 1.196 0.765
Jeffreys 0.438 1.206 0.767
Exact 0.420 1.237 0.817
Table 13: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps XI
Corps iji
X j
XI 25 1.25
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.760 1.740 0.980
Score 0.847 1.845 0.999
Likelihoodratio 0.822 1.806 0.984
Jeffreys 0.829 1.815 0.986
Exact 0.809 1.845 1.036

Table 14: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps XIV
Corps iji
X j
XIV 24 1.2
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.720 1.680 0.960
Score 0.806 1.786 0.979
Likelihoodratio 0.782 1.746 0.964
Jeffreys 0.789 1.756 0.967
Exact 0.769 1.786 1.017
Table 15: 95% Confidence intervals for the horse kick numbers of the corps XV
Corps iji
X j
XV 8 0.4
Confidence Interval Lower limit Upper Limit Length
Wald 0.123 0.677 0.554
Score 0.203 0.789 0.587
Likelihoodratio 0.183 0.745 0.562
Jeffreys 0.189 0.755 0.566
Exact 0.173 0.788 0.615
A.2 Codes
#Codes for calculating the coverage probability of the Wald interval for the binomial proportion#
Cwb

i

pq