Error-budget allocation between prevalence and detection calibration

ID: error-budget-allocation-between-prevalence-and-detection-calibration

Error-budget allocation between prevalence and detection calibration assigns the allowed failure probability of a joint confidence bound between the specimen survey and its detection-calibration experiment. Under the model , an upper bound with failure probability at most and a positive lower bound with failure probability at most give . The union bound guarantees coverage at least . A total budget therefore permits any prespecified positive allocation satisfying ; equal allocation is only one choice.
For independent specimens with zero detections among and all successful detections among known-positive calibration specimens, exact binomial distribution tail inversion gives
The tail construction is the one-sided method described by NIST.[ref] For this anticipated outcome pattern, the uncapped bound becomes
Making larger tightens the numerator but leaves less failure budget for calibration, which lowers and weakens the denominator. The two effects compete.
An original planning example sets , and . Equal allocation gives . A fixed alternative allocation , gives approximately , still with at least 95% joint coverage. For a differentiable interior optimum of this specific objective,
The example is minimized near . It is not a universal optimal split for other counts or detection models.
Prespecified versus data-selected confidence allocations is crucial. Choosing the most favorable allocation after inspecting many outcomes does not inherit this fixed-allocation coverage proof. Design the allocation before observation, or use a construction whose validity includes the selection rule. Calibration must also address the same detection difficulty as the survey; redistributing failure probabilities does not repair an inappropriate calibration population.

New to topics? Read the docs here!