About: Robust confidence intervals is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 2234 publications have been published within this topic receiving 91535 citations.
TL;DR: The bootstrap is extended to other measures of statistical accuracy such as bias and prediction error, and to complicated data structures such as time series, censored data, and regression models.
Abstract: This is a review of bootstrap methods, concentrating on basic ideas and applications rather than theoretical considerations. It begins with an exposition of the bootstrap estimate of standard error for one-sample situations. Several examples, some involving quite complicated statistical procedures, are given. The bootstrap is then extended to other measures of statistical accuracy such as bias and prediction error, and to complicated data structures such as time series, censored data, and regression models. Several more examples are presented illustrating these ideas. The last third of the paper deals mainly with bootstrap confidence intervals.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors considered the possibility of picking in advance a number (say m) of linear contrasts among k means, and then estimating these m linear contrasts by confidence intervals based on a Student t statistic, in such a way that the overall confidence level for the m intervals is greater than or equal to a preassigned value.
Abstract: Methods for constructing simultaneous confidence intervals for all possible linear contrasts among several means of normally distributed variables have been given by Scheffe and Tukey. In this paper the possibility is considered of picking in advance a number (say m) of linear contrasts among k means, and then estimating these m linear contrasts by confidence intervals based on a Student t statistic, in such a way that the overall confidence level for the m intervals is greater than or equal to a preassigned value. It is found that for some values of k, and for m not too large, intervals obtained in this way are shorter than those using the F distribution or the Studentized range. When this is so, the experimenter may be willing to select the linear combinations in advance which he wishes to estimate in order to have m shorter intervals instead of an infinite number of longer intervals.
TL;DR: In this article, a classical confidence belt construction is proposed to unify the treatment of upper confidence limits for null results and two-sided confidence intervals for non-null results for Gaussian processes with background and Gaussian errors with a bounded physical region.
Abstract: We give a classical confidence belt construction which unifies the treatment of upper confidence limits for null results and two-sided confidence intervals for non-null results. The unified treatment solves a problem (apparently not previously recognized) that the choice of upper limit or two-sided intervals leads to intervals which are not confidence intervals if the choice is based on the data. We apply the construction to two related problems which have recently been a battle-ground between classical and Bayesian statistics: Poisson processes with background, and Gaussian errors with a bounded physical region. In contrast with the usual classical construction for upper limits, our construction avoids unphysical confidence intervals. In contrast with some popular Bayesian intervals, our intervals eliminate conservatism (frequentist coverage greater than the stated confidence) in the Gaussian case and reduce it to a level dictated by discreteness in the Poisson case. We generalize the method in order to apply it to analysis of experiments searching for neutrino oscillations. We show that this technique both gives correct coverage and is powerful, while other classical techniques that have been used by neutrino oscillation search experiments fail one or both of these criteria.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors consider the problem of setting approximate confidence intervals for a single parameter θ in a multiparameter family, and propose a method to automatically incorporate transformations, bias corrections, and so on.
Abstract: We consider the problem of setting approximate confidence intervals for a single parameter θ in a multiparameter family. The standard approximate intervals based on maximum likelihood theory, , can be quite misleading. In practice, tricks based on transformations, bias corrections, and so forth, are often used to improve their accuracy. The bootstrap confidence intervals discussed in this article automatically incorporate such tricks without requiring the statistician to think them through for each new application, at the price of a considerable increase in computational effort. The new intervals incorporate an improvement over previously suggested methods, which results in second-order correctness in a wide variety of problems. In addition to parametric families, bootstrap intervals are also developed for nonparametric situations.
TL;DR: Calonico et al. as mentioned in this paper proposed new theory-based, more robust confidence interval estimators for average treatment effects at the cutoff in sharp regression discontinuity (RD), sharp kink, fuzzy RD, and fuzzy kink RD designs.
Abstract: In the regression-discontinuity (RD) design, units are assigned to treatment based on whether their value of an observed covariate exceeds a known cutoff. In this design, local polynomial estimators are now routinely employed to construct confidence intervals for treatment effects. The performance of these confidence intervals in applications, however, may be seriously hampered by their sensitivity to the specific bandwidth employed. Available bandwidth selectors typically yield a “large” bandwidth, leading to data-driven confidence intervals that may be biased, with empirical coverage well below their nominal target. We propose new theory-based, more robust confidence interval estimators for average treatment effects at the cutoff in sharp RD, sharp kink RD, fuzzy RD, and fuzzy kink RD designs. Our proposed confidence intervals are constructed using a bias-corrected RD estimator together with a novel standard error estimator. For practical implementation, we discuss mean squared error optimal bandwidths, which are by construction not valid for conventional confidence intervals but are valid with our robust approach, and consistent standard error estimators based on our new variance formulas. In a special case of practical interest, our procedure amounts to running a quadratic instead of a linear local regression. More generally, our results give a formal justification to simple inference procedures based on increasing the order of the local polynomial estimator employed. We find in a simulation study that our confidence intervals exhibit close-to-correct empirical coverage and good empirical interval length on average, remarkably improving upon the alternatives available in the literature. All results are readily available in R and STATA using our companion software packages described in Calonico, Cattaneo, and Titiunik (2014d, 2014b).