2
$\begingroup$

i'm currently struggling to find the confidence interval of a statistic.

I'm calculating the coefficient of variation for a specific sample. The coefficient of variation is

$$\frac{\sigma}{\mu}$$

I would like to construct a normal Confidence interval around the estimator.

I'm stuck when i'm trying to get the variance of my estimator.

$$ VAR[\frac{\sigma}{\mu}] = VAR[\frac{\sum(x_i-\bar{x})^2}{\sum(x_i)}] $$

I start expanding it and a lot of it resolves by itself.

However, I'm very confused about the following quantities:

$$ VAR[\frac{\sum(x_i)^2}{\sum(x_i)}] $$ and $$ COV[\frac{\sum(x_i)^2}{\sum(x_i)},X] $$

can anyone lend me a hand here ! Thank you very much!

  • 1
    First, CV makes no sense unless you have all observations positive. Data may be normal provided the mean is more than a few SDs above 0, so that negative values are not encountered. You can google to find many discussions on this topic. [_One of them_](http://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1320&context=agstatconference) contains McKay's approximate CI, and may be a useful place to start.2017-02-07
  • 0
    Actually - i Really like the approximation from the document. thank you for all your 2 complete answers!2017-02-07

1 Answers 1

2

Estimating CVs. The coefficient of variation (CV) $\kappa = \sigma/\mu.$ It can be estimated by $\hat \kappa = K = S/\bar X,$ where $\bar X$ and $S$ are the sample mean and SD, respectively. For small $n,$ this estimate is biased on the low side, but for moderate and large samples the bias is small. Methods of finding confidence intervals (CIs) for the CV depend on the nature of the underlying distribution.

Because the type of population distribution may be unknown, it may be useful to use a nonparametric bootstrap CI for the $\kappa.$ Because the population may be skewed (especially right-skewed) in practice, the bootstrap must anticipate skewness.

Because I found the literature on CIs for the CV to be partly hidden behind dollar barriers, and partly poorly explained, I'm wondering if bootstrap CIs may be the best solution for your application. I gave two examples of bootstrap CIs below, one using a sample from a normal population and one using a sample from a gamma population. At least, you can compare these results with results from formulas you may find in your Internet searches.

Bootstrap CIs. If we knew the distribution of $V = K - \kappa,$ we could find bounds $L$ and $U$ cutting 2.5% from its lower and upper tails, respectively to get $P(L < K - \kappa < U) = 0.95,$ from which we would obtain the 95% CI $(K - U, K - L)$ for $\kappa.$

Not knowing the distribution of $V,$ we re-sample from our data $X = (X_1, X_2, \dots, X_n).$ Iteratively we find re-samples of size $n$ with replacement from $X,$ find $K^* = S^*/\bar X^*$ and then $V* = K^* - \kappa^*$ for each re-sample, where the observed CV $K_{obs}$ from the original sample $X$ is used for $\kappa^*.$ Finally, we get $L^*$ and $U^*$ by cutting 2.5% from each tail of the $V^*$'s, the 'bootstrapped' values of $V$, and use these estimated bounds to get the a 95% bootstrap CI.

Examples of Bootstrap CIs. As a demonstration, I use a sample $X$ if $n = 100$ from $\mathsf{Norm}(\mu = 200, \sigma=25)$ with $\kappa = 0.125.$ In the outline above of the bootstrap procedure, $*$'s represented quantities based on re-sampling. In the R program below we use .re for the same purpose.

Note: It is important to understand that re-sampling does not create additional information. Re-sampling exploits information in existing data to do statistical analysis.

Normal. For the particular normal sample we used $K_{obs} = 0.118$, and the 95% nonparametric bootstrap CI obtained is $(0.102, 0.135).$ Because bootstrap procedures involve random re-sampling, each run of the program may give a slightly different CI, but not much different with as many as $B = 10^5 = 100,000$ iterations.

x = rnorm(100,  200, 25)
k.obs = sd(x)/mean(x);  k.obs
## 0.1180088
B = 10^5;  v.re = numeric(B)
for(i in 1:B) {
  x.re = sample(x, 100, repl=T)
  k.re = sd(x.re)/mean(x.re)
  v.re[i] = k.re - k.obs }
UL = quantile(v.re, c(.975,.025))
k.obs - UL
##     97.5%      2.5% 
## 0.1018754 0.1350186 

Gamma. This bootstrap procedure is called 'nonparametric' because it does not assume any particular type of distribution for the data. A second sample of size $n = 100$ was taken from the distribution $\mathsf{Gamma}(shape=\alpha = 4, rate=\lambda=.1)$ with $\kappa = \sqrt{\alpha}/\alpha = 1/2.$ This sample has $K = 0.507$ and the 95% nonparametric bootstrap CI is $(0.442, 0.579).$ A second run of the bootstrap program with the same data gave the CI $(0.442, 0.580).$

  • 0
    Thanks, i really like this approach as it makes sense since I might not want to assume normality in the distribution. However, i'm very thight on processing power and that's why i was looking for a normal IC. (I guess i can't use CLT for this ?)2017-02-07
  • 0
    Since you like the CI for the CV of a normal population from the Payton paper, let's explore it a bit. In the notation of my Answer this 95% CI is $(1/\sqrt{U(1-K^2)/nK^2},\; 1/\sqrt{L(1-K^2)/nK^2}),$ where $L$ and $U$ cut 2.5% from the lower and upper tails, respectively, of $\mathsf{Chisq}(n-1).$ For my normal sample above, $K = 0.118$ and $n = 100.$ This CI is $(0.105, 0.139)$ compared with the nonparametric bootstrap CI $(0.102, 0.135).$ This is very good agreement, especially since the bootstrap CI does not use the information that the population is normal. ...2017-02-07
  • 0
    ... If you have an idea the normal $n,\, \mu$ and $\sigma$ for your appl, I could do a simulation to see what % of the time the CI from the paper actually contains $\kappa = \sigma/\mu.$ (Maybe also check out how it performs for pop's with other dist'ns, since Payton claims the CI works for gamma data.) // You say you have limited computer power, I'm not sure what that means. Traditionally, bootstrap CIs used only $B = 1000$ iterations and got useful results. R is free at `www.r-project.org` and will run on most computers. // Anyhow, I'm glad Peyton's CI seems to work for you.2017-02-07