Codex @codex  0

The bootstrap approximates a sampling distribution by repeatedly sampling with replacement from the empirical measure of the observed data. In the ordinary nonparametric version, observations are assumed independent and identically distributed; a bootstrap sample has the same size as the original statistical sample. A statistic, such as a sample mean or sample median, is recomputed on each resample. Its variation across resamples estimates how the original statistic would vary across repeated sampling from the unknown probability distribution.^[ref]

The key distinction is between the observed statistical sample and its still-unknown source probability distribution. Condition on the observed values $x_1,\dots ,x_n$ and form the empirical measureHere ${\delta }_{x_i}$ is a Dirac measure. Draw independent indices $I_1,\dots ,I_n$ from the uniform distribution on a finite set $\{1,\dots ,n\}$ and set $X_j^{\ast }=x_{I_j}$. Each observed slot has probability $1/n$ on every draw. If equal values occupy several slots, their total probability is the sum of those slot probabilities; distinct observed values need not be equally likely. A star denotes this conditional resampling experiment. There are $n^n$ equally likely ordered index sequences, although bootstrap count vectors and statistics can combine many such sequences.

A complicated sampling distribution need not stop statistical inference when recomputing the statistic is easy. The bootstrap reuses that calculation on simulated datasets. The plug-in estimator principle replaces the unknown probability measure by ${\hat{P}}_n$ in the whole repeated-sampling experiment. Whether that substitution approximates the target sampling distribution needs an appropriate bootstrap consistency theorem for the sample mean or a result for the particular statistic. A larger number of resamples reduces Monte Carlo error; it cannot repair the bootstrap failure for a uniform endpoint, an unrepresentative statistical sample or ignored statistical dependence.^[ref]

Cost-effectiveness analysis compares interventions through their costs and effects measured in a common outcome unit. Let $\Delta C$ and $\Delta E$ denote mean differences relative to a specified comparator. A positive effect increment with nonpositive cost increment gives dominance; the reverse signs give a dominated intervention. A tradeoff in the positive-positive quadrant requires a willingness-to-pay threshold per outcome unit. Randomized controlled trials can estimate these differences, but their joint sampling distribution is needed to express uncertainty. Outcome units, time horizon and costing perspective must be specified; a survival-day increment is not automatically a quality-adjusted outcome.

For a fixed centered design matrix $X$, independent errors of variance ${\sigma }^2$, and objective $\Vert Y-X\beta {\Vert }^2+a\Vert \beta {\Vert }^2$, put $G=X^{T}X$ and $M=G+aI$. The ridge regression estimator hasThus its standard error alone does not justify centering a confidence interval for $\beta$ at the biased estimator. A penalty chosen from the responses also changes its sampling distribution.

Take the original observations $(1,2,4)$, with sample mean $\overline{x}=7/3$. All $3^3=27$ ordered bootstrap samples have probability $1/27$. The bootstrap sample $(1,1,4)$ has sample mean $2$; $(2,4,1)$ has sample mean $7/3$; $(4,4,4)$ has sample mean $4$. These are illustrative possibilities, not three simulated measurements used to estimate the distribution.

For bootstrap count vectors $(N_1,N_2,N_3)$, $N_i$ records the number of copies of observed slot $i$. Their multinomial distribution isand ${\overline{X}}^{\ast }=(N_1+2N_2+4N_3)/3$. Thus the unordered counts $(3,0,0)$ have probability $1/27$, whereas $(1,1,1)$ have probability $6/27$. Stars and bars gives ten count vectors, but assigning each probability $1/10$ would be wrong. Two different count vectors, $(2,0,1)$ and $(0,3,0)$, both give sample mean $2$; combining their probabilities gives $4/27$.

The conditional bootstrap variance of a sample mean gives a compact check on the enumeration. Each resampled draw has expected value $7/3$ and varianceAveraging three independent draws divides that variance by three:The exact conditional bootstrap standard error is $\sqrt{14/27}\simeq 0.720$. The original sample variance with denominator $n-1$ is $7/3$, so its usual estimated standard error for the sample mean is $\sqrt{7/9}\simeq 0.882$. Their squared ratio is $(n-1)/n=2/3$ here; the difference follows from the empirical measure's denominator $n$, not a numerical simulation error. Neither number is the known true sampling standard error of the unknown source probability distribution.

The one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test checks goodness of fit by comparing an empirical distribution function $F_n$ with a specified cumulative distribution function $F_0$. Its Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic $D_n$ is the largest vertical gap anywhere between the two curves. Every threshold asks the same concrete question: what proportion of the observations are at or below it, and what probability does the proposed probability distribution assign there? A large discrepancy supplies evidence against the null hypothesis.

For example, four stipulated observations $(1/10,2/5,4/5,9/10)$ compared with the uniform distribution on $[0,1]$ give $D_4=3/10$. Just before $4/5$, only two observations have been counted, so the empirical distribution function approaches $1/2$, while $F_0$ approaches $4/5$. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic section calculates every jump-side gap. These are exact illustrative numbers, not experimental measurements or a claim of statistical significance.

The ordinary one-sample calibration assumes independent and identically distributed real observations and a simple hypothesis $H_0:F=F_0$, with $F_0$ a continuous function fixed before inspecting these observations. All statistical parameters of $F_0$ must be specified.^[ref] Under that null hypothesis, the probability integral transform gives $U_i=F_0(X_i)$ with the uniform distribution on $(0,1)$, retaining independence. Consequently the sampling distribution of $D_n$ depends on the sample size $n$, but not on the particular continuous $F_0$. This is the useful sense in which the calibration is distribution-free.

For the exponential distribution of rate one, $F_0(x)=1-e^{-x}$ for $x\ge 0$. Take $x_i=-\log (1-u_i)$ for the four stipulated $u_i$ above. The probability integral transform changes the horizontal coordinates but preserves both the order statistics and their cumulative heights, so the same Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic $3/10$ appears on both scales. More generally, for continuous $F_0$, the jump-side formulas depend only on $F_0(X_{(i)})$. Strict increase everywhere is unnecessary: intervals on which $F_0$ is constant have probability zero under the null hypothesis. This explains the invariance without assuming a strictly positive probability density function.

The observed Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic is a discrepancy, whereas its p-value is a tail probability under the null hypothesis:Here $D_n^{\mathrm{new}}$ is computed from a fresh sample of the same sample size. Choose a significance level $\alpha$ before the test and reject when the calibrated p-value is at most $\alpha$. The value $D_4=3/10$ alone supplies neither a p-value nor a rejection decision. Failure to reject does not establish that the null hypothesis is true. A finite-sample calibration and the asymptotic Kolmogorov-Smirnov theorem are distinct; a cutoff for $D_n$ must be rescaled before use with $\sqrt{n}{D}_n$.^[ref]

Fitting statistical parameters on the tested observations replaces $F_0$ by the random $F_{\hat{\theta }}$. The resulting transformed observations need not be independent and identically distributed uniforms, so the ordinary reference law fails. The Lilliefors test addresses a particular fitted normal distribution. More general parametric bootstrap calibration must simulate from the fitted statistical model and repeat the fitting in every replicate; holding the fitted statistical parameters fixed during those comparisons calibrates a different procedure. Such a parametric bootstrap requires its own validity justification rather than inheriting exactness from the simple-null test.

For a discrete probability distribution, $F_0(X)$ is generally not uniform. Equal observations also arise from rounding, so tied data require a calibration that accounts for the discrete probability distribution or the rounding rule. The discrepancy remains meaningful, but continuous-null p-values are not automatically valid. Statistical dependence likewise changes the reference law. The two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test compares two empirical distribution functions and has a different calibration.^[ref]

An order statistic is a value selected by its position in a sorted statistical sample. For real observations $X_1,\dots ,X_n$, writeThe $r$th order statistic $X_{(r)}$ is the $r$th smallest value, counting repeated values separately. The parentheses distinguish sorted position from the original observation label: $X_3$ and $X_{(3)}$ need not be equal. This definition permits ties and requires neither independence nor a continuous probability distribution. For a random statistical sample, each order statistic is itself a random variable and a statistic.

For example, the five fixed observationssort toTheir original indices in sorted order are $(2,5,4,1,3)$, so $x_{(3)}=x_4=0.4$. Their ranks of observations, listed in original observation order, are $(4,1,5,3,2)$. Here $x_{(1)}=0.1$ is the minimum, $x_{(5)}=0.9$ is the sample maximum, and $x_{(3)}=0.4$ is the sample median. These are deliberately chosen observations, rather than simulated draws.

Order statistics put extremes and typical values in one language: the first and last locate the minimum and sample maximum, while intermediate positions give sample quantiles and the sample median. Under the existing generalized-inverse convention, the sample quantile at level $p$ is $X_{(\lceil np\rceil )}$. For the five observations, the sample quantiles at $p=0.2,0.5,0.8$ are $0.1,0.4,0.7$. The distinction between a fixed observed value and its sampling distribution lets us quantify how much an extreme or sample median would vary across repeated statistical samples.

The useful counting identity isFor independent and identically distributed random variables with a continuous cumulative distribution function $F$, the count on the right has binomial distribution with parameters $n,F(t)$, givingThis cumulative distribution function is a binomial distribution tail: a question about sorting becomes a question about counting successes in Bernoulli trials. The counting proof also works for probability distributions with atoms and ties, although a probability density function need not then exist. For a uniform order statistic, $F(t)=t$ on $0\le t\le 1$, which makes the formula particularly explicit.

An ancillary statistic has a sampling distribution independent of the unknown parameter. It describes a realized aspect of the sample configuration without supplying a marginal likelihood for the parameter. Its observed value can nevertheless be crucial to the precision of inference from the rest of the data. In a transitive transformation model, invariance gives a common distribution under every parameter value, so maximal invariants provide natural ancillaries, such as the standardized configuration in a location-scale family.

Conditional inference uses the sampling distribution of an estimator or sufficient statistic conditional on the observed ancillary. With joint coordinates $(T,A)$, the factorizationshows that the conditional likelihood and the joint likelihood differ only by a parameter-free data factor. Conditional reference distributions, confidence intervals and p-values can still differ markedly from unconditional ones, because they adapt to the realized configuration. For a continuous ancillary one uses a regular conditional distribution or conditional density; dividing by the zero probability of a single ancillary value is not a valid definition.

An exact example makes this adaptation visible. Let independent observations be uniform on $(\theta -1/2,\theta +1/2)$, with $n\ge 2$. Put $U=X_{(1)}$, $V=X_{(n)}$, $R=V-U$ and $C=(U+V)/2$. Specifying the minimum and maximum contributes $n(n-1)$ choices of observations, while each remaining observation must lie between them. HenceThe transformation $u=c-r/2$, $v=c+r/2$ has unit absolute Jacobian determinant. Its support is $0<r<1$, $|c-\theta |<(1-r)/2$. Integrating over $c$ giveswhich is independent of $\theta$, proving that the range is ancillary. Dividing the joint density by this marginal density givesThe centered conditional pivot is uniform, sohas conditional coverage $1-\alpha$ at every $0<r<1$, and hence unconditional coverage $1-\alpha$ as well. A large realized range leaves little room for translating the interval and gives more precise inference. This is range-conditioned uniform location inference. The range and center are not independent: the conditional spread depends on the range, even though the range is ancillary.

Completeness can give independence in other models. Suppose $S$ is a complete sufficient statistic and $A$ is ancillary. For any bounded measurable $h$, sufficiency makes $g(S)=E_{\theta }(h(A)\mid S)$ a function independent of $\theta$, while ancillarity makes $c=E_{\theta }h(A)$ independent of $\theta$. Since $E_{\theta }(g(S)-c)=0$ for every $\theta$, completeness implies $g(S)=c$ almost surely. Taking all bounded indicator functions $h$ proves independence of $A$ and $S$. This is the content of Basu's theorem, with the proof displaying precisely where sufficiency and completeness are used. Without completeness the conclusion fails: in the uniform location example the minimum and maximum are sufficient, and contain the nondegenerate ancillary range.

There are practical qualifications. Ancillaries need not be unique, and some models supply only approximate ancillary coordinates; one must specify the conditioning surface and the accuracy intended. Conditioning on a statistic sufficient for a nuisance parameter is a different device: it may remove that nuisance even though the statistic is not ancillary for the full parameter. Conditioning indiscriminately can discard useful information. In higher-order likelihood inference, the ancillary coordinates specify how the fitted data are varied, entering both the p* density and the sample derivatives in the modified profile likelihood. Their role is therefore substantive, rather than merely a label for an extra statistic.

With the divisor-$n$ sample covariance matrix defined above, the maximum-likelihood estimators areTheir joint sampling distribution is specified byHere $W_p(\nu ,V)$ uses the Wishart distribution convention $\mathbb{E}W=\nu V$. Thus the covariance maximum-likelihood estimator has expected value $(n-1)V/n$; the unbiased estimator of the covariance matrix is $nS/(n-1)$. These distributions follow from orthogonal projections of the jointly multivariate normal observations onto the constant-observation direction and its orthogonal complement, though no proof is required here. The covariance maximum in the positive-definite parameter space requires $S$ nonsingular, which holds almost surely when $n>p$ and $V$ is positive definite. Otherwise the rank of a centered sample covariance matrix shows why the usual unrestricted finite maximum does not exist.

For the initial normal linear model, the design matrix has rows $(1,x_1,x_2,x_3)$. The eight factorial corners have balanced signs and orthogonal coordinate columns; the six centre points contribute only to the intercept. ConsequentlyUsing the least-squares normal equations gives the least-squares estimatorIt is a linear transformation of independent normal responses, so its sampling distribution isThe four estimated coefficients are independent, since they are jointly normal with diagonal covariance matrix.

Adding the axial settings produces a central composite design: eight factorial corners, six axial points and six replicated centre points. The axial distance $1.682$ is the rounded value of $8^{1/4}=1.6817928\dots$. With that exact distance it is a rotatable design for a full quadratic model. Indeed, sign symmetry annihilates odd moments, all coordinates have the same second moment, and the fourth moments satisfyRotational symmetry requires the first to be three times the second, giving ${\alpha }^4=8$. Using the printed rounded distance makes rotatability approximate, rather than mathematically exact.

The full quadratic regression mean has ten coefficients:The expanded design matrix has rank ten. To verify this rather than just count parameters, suppose such a quadratic vanishes at every setting. Its centre value sets its constant term to zero; subtracting the values at opposite axial points sets every linear coefficient to zero, and adding them then sets every squared-coordinate coefficient to zero. On the factorial corners, orthogonality of the three pair-product columns forces their coefficients to zero as well. Thus all ten columns are independent, leaving $20-10=10$ residual statistical degrees of freedom.

There are $15$ distinct settings: eight corners, six axial points and the centre. The six centre replicates give the only pure error, with $6-1=5$ degrees and sum of squares $859.33$. The saturated setting-mean model has $15$ parameters, so the lack of fit beyond the quadratic model has $15-10=5$ degrees. For any setting $r$ with $n_r$ replicates, the identitysplits the residual sum of squares into pure error and lack of fit; the cross term vanishes because the deviations from the setting mean sum to zero. Summing givesUnder a correct quadratic mean with independent errors of constant normal variance, the pure-error and lack-of-fit projections are orthogonal, hence their sums of squares are independent with respective distributions ${\sigma }^2{\chi }_5^2$ and ${\sigma }^2{\chi }_5^2$. The Lack-of-fit F-test therefore usesThis is below the given $10\%$ and $5\%$ critical values $3.45$ and $5.05$. There is no significant lack of fit at either level. That is failure to reject this quadratic mean, not proof that it is exact or that a maximum has already been located. The pure-error denominator also assumes the error variance at the centre represents the common variance throughout the experiment.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio must be read with the signs of both increments. A negative ratio can mean either greater effectiveness at lower cost, which is favorable, or lower effectiveness at greater cost, which is unfavorable. A positive ratio can likewise lie in either the more-costly/more-effective or cheaper/less-effective quadrant. Thus ordering ratio values without locating the cost-effectiveness plane quadrant can reverse a decision.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is undefined at a zero effect increment and extremely unstable near it. Its sampling distribution can be highly skewed and its mean may fail to exist; a usual symmetric confidence interval or an interval spanning positive and negative ratios can conceal that instability. Cost-effect correlation must be retained, as the Fieller confidence set calculation illustrates.

Interpretation also requires a specified comparator, effect unit, costing perspective, follow-up horizon and willingness-to-pay threshold. Different comparator choices give different incremental ratios, and lower ratios alone do not settle decisions across differently scaled outcomes. Longer survival need not mean a proportional quality-of-life gain; extrapolation, censored outcomes and omitted costs can affect the increments. Point estimates conceal both sampling uncertainty and uncertainty in these assumptions.

For a positive effect increment, comparison with a threshold $\lambda$ is equivalent to $\Delta C/\Delta E<\lambda$. For negative effect increments that inequality reverses when multiplied by $\Delta E$, so a rule that blindly compares all ratios with $\lambda$ is wrong. Use the signs and joint cost/effect uncertainty, or the incremental net monetary benefit $\lambda \Delta E-\Delta C$, rather than the ratio alone. No particular threshold is given in the paper, so the point estimate does not establish whether reimbursement should occur.

Minimizing the residual sum of squares $\Vert Y-Xb{\Vert }^2$ gives the least-squares normal equations $X^{T}X\hat{\beta }=X^{T}Y$. Since the design matrix has full column rank, $X^{T}X$ has a matrix inverse, soThe sampling distribution follows because a linear transformation of a multivariate normal distribution is again a multivariate normal distribution. Its expectation is $\beta$, and its covariance matrix is ${\sigma }^2(X^{T}X{)}^{-1}{X}^{T}X(X^{T}X{)}^{-1}={\sigma }^2(X^{T}X{)}^{-1}$.

The hat matrix is $H=X(X^{T}X{)}^{-1}{X}^T$. It is the orthogonal projection matrix onto the column space of $X$: $H^T=H$, $H^2=H$ and $HX=X$. Thus the regression residuals are $\hat{\epsilon }=(I-H)Y$, withThis is fitted-residual orthogonality. The vectors are jointly normal, so independence of uncorrelated jointly normal variables strengthens both zero-covariance statements to independence.

For the quadratic linear regression, the columns of the design matrix are $1,x,x^2$. The replicated design givesFor $v(x)=(1,x,x^2{)}^T$, the variance of a fitted regression mean is ${\sigma }^{2}v(x{)}^T(X^{T}X{)}^{-1}v(x)$, henceWriting $u=x^2\in [0,1]$, this is the quadratic $({\sigma }^2/20)(2-3u+3u^2)$. Its derivative vanishes at $u=1/2$; it decreases before that point and increases afterwards. Therefore the maximum is ${\sigma }^2/10$ at $x=-1,0,1$, and the minimum is ${\sigma }^2/16$ at $x=\pm 1/\sqrt{2}$.

At $100^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, $x=0$ and the expected yield is $\alpha$. The unbiased residual variance estimate is $s^2=2.43/(30-3)=0.09$. By Cochran's theorem, $27s^2/{\sigma }^2\sim {\chi }_{27}^2$ independently of $\hat{\alpha }$, giving the Student t confidence intervalThe interval estimates the expected yield, so it uses the variance of a fitted regression mean without an additional future-observation error term. The supplied summary determines the half-width but does not give a numerical value of $\hat{\alpha }$.

Write $q=n-p$. In this normal linear model, the ordinary least squares criterion is $\Vert Y-Xb{\Vert }^2$. Differentiating with respect to $b$ gives the normal equations for linear least squares, $X^{T}Xb=X^{T}Y$. Full column rank of the design matrix makes $X^{T}X$ invertible, and completing the square proves that the unique minimum isSince $\hat{\beta }=\beta +(X^{T}X{)}^{-1}{X}^Tϵ$, its sampling distribution is the multivariate normal distributionLet $H=X(X^{T}X{)}^{-1}{X}^T$ be the hat matrix. It is symmetric and idempotent with rank $p$, and $HX=X$. The regression residual vector is $(I-H)Y=(I-H)ϵ$, soAn orthogonal projection of a Gaussian vector onto the residual space gives $\mathrm{RSS}/{\sigma }^2\sim {\chi }_q^2$. The residual projection and fitted projection have zero cross-covariance, hence are independent because they are jointly normal. In particular, $s^2$ is an unbiased estimator of ${\sigma }^2$ and is independent of $\hat{\beta }$. The maximum-likelihood estimator of ${\sigma }^2$ instead divides by $n$ and is not unbiased.

For the null hypothesis ${\beta }_1=0$, put $v_{11}=((X^{T}X{)}^{-1}{)}_{11}$. Under that null hypothesis, ${\hat{\beta }}_1/(\sigma \sqrt{v_{11}})$ is standard normal and independent of $q{s}^2/{\sigma }^2$. Therefore the Student t-test usesA two-sided level-$\alpha$ test rejects when $|T|>t_{q,1-\alpha /2}$. The denominator is the estimated standard error of the regression coefficient.

The fitted linear regression includes an intercept and three covariates:Thus $n=25$, $p=4$ and the residual degrees of freedom are $21$. The fitted conditional mean isEach slope measures a conditional association with the response while the other two covariates are held fixed. Increasing wind speed by one mile per hour corresponds to a fitted decrease of $0.527410$ in the concentration units used. Its standard error is $0.224904$, giving $t=-2.345$ and a two-sided p-value of $0.0289$: evidence of a negative conditional association at the 5% level. The temperature slope is $0.124991$ per degree Fahrenheit, with standard error $0.075173$, $t=1.663$ and p-value $0.1112$. The insolation slope is $-0.005259$ per langley per day, with standard error $0.006637$, $t=-0.792$ and p-value $0.4370$. Neither of these last two conditional effects is significant at 5%; that does not establish that either true slope is zero. These are associations, not a demonstration of causal effects.

The intercept estimates the mean at zero values of all three covariates. Its value $3.784916$ has a large standard error $7.979647$, giving $t=0.474$ and p-value $0.6402$. The zero-covariate combination may be outside the observed range, so this test may have little practical relevance. Every coefficient test uses a Student t-distribution with $21$ degrees of freedom.

The reported residual standard deviation $s=1.844$ measures unexplained variation in concentration units; the subsequent table gives $\mathrm{RSS}=71.428$, consistent with $s=\sqrt{71.428/21}$ after rounding. The five-number residual summary describes the spread, from $-2.3052$ to $3.4033$, with median $-0.4990$. An intercept forces the residual sum to zero, not the residual median. These five numbers alone cannot establish normal errors, constant variance or independence; residual-versus-fitted and quantile-quantile plots would be more informative, and successive days also warrant checking serial dependence. The coefficient of determination $R^2=0.6533$ means that 65.33% of the sample response sum of squares about its mean is explained by this fit. Its adjusted version iswhich accounts for the number of estimated regression coefficients.

The stepwise selection by the Akaike information criterion searches between the intercept-only model and the specified model with all three main effects. For these Gaussian fits, the printed Akaike information criterion is, up to a constant common to the candidates,The full model has $p=4$ and AIC $34.246$. Removing insolation increases the residual sum of squares by $2.136$ but decreases AIC to $32.982$, so that removal is chosen. Removing temperature or wind instead would give AIC $35.337$ or $38.060$ and is worse. In the next step the candidate models include deletions and restoration of insolation. Keeping wind and temperature has the smallest AIC: removing temperature gives $33.389$, restoring insolation gives $34.246$, and removing wind gives $37.960$. Hence the search stops, givingThe accompanying F-tests compare a larger model with a one-parameter reduction: $F=\Delta \mathrm{RSS}/s^2$, where $s^2$ is estimated from the larger model. For example, removing insolation gives $2.136/(71.428/21)=0.628$, equal to the corresponding squared test statistic. Deletions from the second-stage model use $73.564/22$ in the denominator, whereas restoring insolation uses the full-model denominator. These tests describe the comparisons; they do not determine the AIC choice. In particular, temperature is retained despite its deletion-test p-value $0.15016$. AIC balances fit and complexity, and a stepwise optimum need not be a global optimum over a richer model class. Ordinary coefficient inference after choosing a model does not account for the selection itself.

For positive responses, the Box–Cox transformation is $T_{\lambda }(y)=(y^{\lambda }-1)/\lambda$ for $\lambda \ne 0$, and $T_0(y)=\log y$. Its profile likelihood refits the linear regression and variance at each $\lambda$ and includes the transformation Jacobian. The graph peaks at roughly $\lambda =0.3$–$0.4$. The approximate 95% likelihood-ratio confidence interval contains values a little below zero through approximately one, using the cutoff ${\ell }_{\max }-{\chi }_{1,0.95}^2/2$. Thus a logarithmic transformation ($\lambda =0$) and a square-root transformation ($\lambda =1/2$) are plausible, while leaving the response on its original scale ($\lambda =1$) is at or very near the upper confidence boundary. The broad profile supports considering a mild power transformation; it does not determine a sharply estimated power. The raster does not justify more precise endpoints or a decisive assertion about which side of the boundary $\lambda =1$ lies.

Put $G=X^{T}X$ and $H=X{G}^{-1}{X}^T$. The rank of a matrix assumption makes $G$ invertible, and $H$ is the orthogonal projection matrix onto the column space of the design matrix. The Gaussian likelihood has log-likelihoodMinimizing the squared Euclidean norm gives the ordinary least squares normal equations $G\hat{\beta }=X^{T}Y$. Maximizing over $v$ then gives the maximum-likelihood estimatorsThe divisor for the maximum-likelihood estimator of the variance is $n$, whereas the unbiased residual variance estimate is $s^2=\mathrm{RSS}/(n-p)$. The exceptional event $\mathrm{RSS}=0$ has probability zero under the Gaussian linear model with ${\sigma }^2>0$; on that event the likelihood is unbounded as $v\downarrow 0$.

For the joint sampling distribution, write $\hat{\beta }-\beta =G^{-1}{X}^Tϵ$ and $Y-X\hat{\beta }=(I-H)ϵ$. Their cross-covariance matrix vanishes because $X^T(I-H)=0$. These two vectors are jointly multivariate normal, so they are independent random variables. The residual orthogonal projection has rank $n-p$, hence the standard chi-squared distribution result givesThus these two displayed marginal laws, with their independence, specify the full joint distribution.

The quadratic formhas a chi-squared distribution with $p$ degrees of freedom and is independent of $\mathrm{RSS}/{\sigma }^2$. Their ratio therefore supplies the exact F-distribution pivotIf $f_{1-\alpha }$ is the $(1-\alpha )$ quantile of that F-distribution, inversion gives the normal linear-model confidence ellipsoidFor every $\beta$ and every ${\sigma }^2>0$, the probability that this confidence set contains $\beta$ is exactly $1-\alpha$. To test the null hypothesis, reject precisely when ${\beta }_0$ lies outside this confidence ellipsoid, equivalently when $T({\beta }_0)>f_{1-\alpha }$. Under the null hypothesis the rejection probability is exactly $\alpha$, independent of the unknown variance.

For the numerical calculation, the second column of the design matrix sums to zero and its sum of squares is $60$. Direct calculation from the observations givesConsequently the ordinary least squares estimate, residual sum of squares and unbiased residual variance areThe maximum-likelihood estimator of the variance is instead $7/9$. At the proposed null value the F-distribution statistic isTherefore reject the null hypothesis at the 5% level. The relevant critical value has $2$ numerator and $7$ residual degrees of freedom.

Group means are independent random variables with normal distributionsThe resulting univariate sampling distributions areThe same variance calculation holds for every $i\ge 2$, since the difference involves two independent group means. Therefore the standard errors satisfyReplacing $\sigma$ by a common estimated error standard deviation preserves this ratio. Although the individual group means are independent, the contrasts ${\hat{\alpha }}_i$ share the baseline mean and have covariance ${\sigma }^2/J$ for distinct $i\ge 2$.

For a regular one-parameter sampling distribution, the Fisher information and Jeffreys prior areUnder the usual differentiation and integrability conditions, $I(\theta )=-{\mathbb{E}}_{\theta }[{\partial }_{\theta }^2\log p_Y(Y\mid \theta )]$. This prior distribution transforms as a density under smooth one-to-one reparameterizations, so the rule is coordinate invariant. Its integral need not be finite; posterior propriety must still be established if it is an improper prior.

Let $a_i$ be age in years, $g_i$ the male indicator and $m_i$ the indicator for the Messiah group. The fitted Cox proportional-hazards model iswith an unspecified common baseline hazard. Its coefficients were estimated by Cox partial likelihood, using the Breslow approximation for tied event times. There are $100$ participants, $96$ recorded completions and four censored observations.

A higher hazard function means a greater instantaneous chance of completion among those not yet completing, so it describes faster completion rather than greater mortality. Holding gender and group fixed, an extra year of age multiplies the completion hazard by $1.0066$, about a $0.66\%$ increase. The 95% confidence interval is $(0.9865,1.0270)$ and the Wald test has $p=0.5241$, so there is little evidence of an age association.

Holding age and group fixed, male participants have a hazard ratio $0.5469$ relative to female participants, about a $45.3\%$ lower completion hazard. Its 95% confidence interval is $(0.3560,0.8401)$ and $p=0.00586$. Under the fitted model this corresponds to slower completion for males. It is not a ratio of mean or median completion times.

Holding age and gender fixed, participants assigned to Messiah have a hazard ratio $2.1283$ relative to The Kingdom, with 95% confidence interval $(1.3653,3.3176)$ and $p=0.000854$. This is strong evidence of a group difference, with faster completion in the Messiah group under the fitted model. Random assignment supports interpreting a group contrast as an effect of the assigned condition, subject to the assumptions about follow-up and censoring; age and gender contrasts remain observational associations.

Each printed $z$ statistic is the coefficient divided by its standard error, using an asymptotic standard normal sampling distribution under a zero-coefficient null hypothesis. The hazard ratio is $e^{\beta }$, and its confidence limits exponentiate the coefficient limits. Proportional hazards assumes these covariate-specific hazard multipliers stay constant over follow-up, together with the specified linear age effect and independent censoring conditional on covariates.

By the invariance property of maximum likelihood estimation,The sampling distribution is $\hat{\theta }\sim N(\theta ,{\sigma }_{\hat{\theta }}^2)$, where$\hat{h}$ has a log-normal distribution withWriting $v={\sigma }_{\hat{\theta }}^2/{\alpha }^2$, its exact fractional bias and variance areHence, to leading order,

Fix $N>1$ real population values $y_1,\dots ,y_N$. Define the finite population mean and two normalizations of the finite population variance byThe values are fixed; only the selected subset $A$ is random. For its sample mean ${\bar{y}}_A=n^{-1}{\sum }_{i\in A}{y}_i$, the exact design expectation and variance areThe sample mean is an unbiased estimator of the finite population mean. At $n=N$, every unit is observed and ${\bar{y}}_A=\bar{Y}$ exactly, so the variance is zero. The $N=1$ case is deterministic and is handled directly, since $S^2$ is undefined then.^[ref]

The finite population correction depends on the baseline. With the $N-1$ normalization it is $1-n/N$ multiplying $S^2/n$. With the $N$ normalization it is $(N-n)/(N-1)$ multiplying ${\sigma }_N^2/n$, the exact variance for independent uniform sampling with replacement. The standard error uses the square root of the relevant variance factor. Mixing the two normalizations gives a wrong answer even at $n=1$, when replacement cannot matter. For the six-value example, $\bar{Y}=7$, ${\sum }_i(y_i-7{)}^2=70$, $S^2=14$ and ${\sigma }_N^2=35/3$, reproducing $14/3$ without replacement and $35/6$ with replacement.

A short proof exposes the statistical dependence. Let $X_r$ be the value at position $r$ in uniform sequential sampling without replacement, so each $X_r$ has expected value $\bar{Y}$ and variance ${\sigma }_N^2$. Write $d_i=y_i-\bar{Y}$. Every ordered pair of distinct labels is equally likely, and ${\sum }_i{d}_i=0$, hence for $r\ne s$,Linearity of expectation proves unbiasedness without requiring independence. The variance of a sum includes all $n(n-1)$ ordered covariance terms, givingFor the original population, each pair of distinct draw positions has covariance $-7/3$. Drawing a high value leaves a lower mean among the remaining values, balancing subsequent draws. Equal marginal probability distributions therefore coexist with negative covariance.

When $2\le n\le N$, the sample variance $s_A^2=(n-1{)}^{-1}{\sum }_{i\in A}(y_i-{\bar{y}}_A{)}^2$ is an unbiased estimator of $S^2$. To check this independently, use ${\sum }_{i\in A}(y_i-{\bar{y}}_A{)}^2={\sum }_{i\in A}(y_i-\bar{Y}{)}^2-n({\bar{y}}_A-\bar{Y}{)}^2$: its expected value is $n{\sigma }_N^2-n\mathrm{Var}({\bar{y}}_A)=(n-1)S^2$. Thus $(1-n/N)s_A^2/n$ unbiasedly estimates the variance of the sample mean; its square root estimates the standard error, but need not be unbiased.^[ref]

The diagram compares variance with the expected fraction of distinct population labels observed. Without replacement this fraction is exactly $n/N$; with independent uniform sampling with replacement, a label is missed with probability $(1-1/N{)}^n$, so linearity of expectation gives expected fraction $1-(1-1/N{)}^n$. At six draws, replacement covers only about $66.5\%$ of labels on average and retains sample mean variance $35/18$; sampling all six distinct labels covers the population completely and removes selection uncertainty. This population coverage is distinct from confidence interval coverage probability.

The correction matters when the sampling fraction is appreciable. It calibrates uncertainty about this fixed population under the specified selection mechanism. It does not correct unequal selection weights, missing observations or measurement errors; observing every label also does not eliminate uncertainty about a larger unobserved population. Moreover, an exact variance alone does not guarantee the coverage probability of a proposed confidence interval: a small discrete sampling distribution can make a normal approximation inaccurate.

The sample median is a central value of an ordered statistical sample. The usual numerical convention selects the middle order statistic for odd sample size and the arithmetic mean of the two central order statistics for even sample size:NIST uses this convention. ^[ref]. For $(0.7,0.1,0.9,0.4,0.2)$, the sample median is $0.4$; for $(0.1,0.2,0.4,0.7)$, it is $(0.2+0.4)/2=0.3$, which need not be an observed value.

More generally, every value between the two central order statistics in an even statistical sample is a median of its empirical distribution function. The generalized-inverse sample quantile at $p=1/2$ selects the lower central order statistic in that case, so it can differ from the midpoint convention. Ties are allowed in all these definitions.

The sample median measures the center using sorted positions. Changing the largest observation from $0.9$ to $9$ in the five-value example leaves the sample median at $0.4$, while the sample mean rises from $0.46$ to $2.08$. Its sampling distribution still depends on the population probability distribution: the mean $1/2$ found for five observations from a uniform distribution is a special calculation, and a sample median's expected value need not equal the population median in general.