• [astro-ph:0711.4356]
  Transformations between 2MASS, SDSS and BVRI photometric systems: bridging the near infrared and optical S. Bilir et.al.
• [astro-ph:0711.4369]
  SED modeling of Young Massive Stars T. P. Robitaille
• [astro-ph:0711.4387]
  SkyMouse: A smart interface for astronomical on-line resources and services C.-Z. Cui et. al.
• [stat.AP:0711.3765]
  MCMC Inference for a Model with Sampling Bias: An Illustration using SAGE data R. Zaretzki et. al.
• [astro-ph:0711.3640]
  Large-Scale Anisotropic Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies T. Okumura et.al.
• [astro-ph:0711.4598]
  Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters in Hierarchical Cosmology O.Y. Gnedin and J. L. Prieto
• [astro-ph:0711.4795]
  Globular Clusters and Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies S. van den Bergh
• [astro-ph:0711.3897]
  Optical Monitoring of 3C 390.3 from 1995 to 2004 and Possible Periodicities in the Historical Light Curve
  strong assumption on a Gaussian distribution. What would it be if the fitting is performed based on functional data analysis or Bayesian posterior draws? What if we relax strong gaussian assumption and apply robust estimation methods? It seems that modeling and estimating light curves seek more statistical touch!!!
• [astro-ph:0711.3937]
  Sequential Analysis Techniques for Correlation Studies in Particle Astronomy S.Y. BenZvi, B.M. Connolly, and S. Westerhoff
• [astro-ph:0711.4027]
  CCD Photometry of the globular cluster NGC 5466. RR Lyrae light curve decomposition and the distance scale A. A. Ferro et.al.
• [astro-ph:0711.4045]
  Fiducial Stellar Population Sequences for the u’g'r’i'z’ System J. L. Clem, D.A. VandenBerg, and P.B. Stetson
• [astro-ph:0704.0646]
  The Mathematical Universe Max Tegmark
• [stat.ME:0711.3857]
  Periodic Chandrasekhar recursions A. Aknouche and F. Hamdi
• [math.ST:0711.3834]
  On the Analytic Wavelet Transform J. M. Lilly and S. C. Olhede
• [cs.IT:0709.1211]
  Likelihood ratios and Bayesian inference for Poisson channels A. Reveillac
• [astro-ph:0711.4194]
  The Palomar Testbed Interferometer Calibrator Catalog G. T. van Belle et.al.
• [astro-ph:0711.4305]
  2MTF I. The Tully-Fisher Relation in the 2MASS J, H and K Bands Masters, Springob, and Huchra
  Standard candle problems were realizations of various regression problems.
• [astro-ph:0711.4256]
  Observational Window Functions in Planet Transit Searches K. von Braun, and D. R. Ciardi
• [astro-ph:0711.4510]
  The benefits of the orthogonal LSM models Z. Mikulasek

Abstract summary:
The authors investigated issues in interval estimation of the mean in the exponential family, such as binomial, Poisson, negative binomial, normal, gamma, and a sixth distribution. The poor performance of the Wald interval has been known not only for discrete cases but for nonnormal continuous cases with significant negative bias. Their computation suggested that the equal tailed Jeffreys interval and the likelihood ratio interval are the best alternatives to the Wald interval.

Brief summary of the paper without equations:
The objective of this paper is interval estimation of the mean in the natural exponential family (NEF) with quadratic variance functions (QVF) and the particular focus has given to discrete NEF-QVF families consisting of the binomial, negative binomial, and the Poission distributions. It is well known that the Wald interval for a binomial proportion suffers from a systematic negative bias and oscillation in its coverage probability even for large n and p near 0.5, which seems to arise from the lattice nature and the skewness of the binomial distribution. They exemplified this systematic bias and oscillation with Poisson cases to illustrate the poor and erratic behavior of the Wald interval in lattice problems. They proved the bias expressions of the three discrete NEF-QVF distributions and added a disconcerting graphical illustration of this negative bias.

Interested readers should check the figure 4, where the performances of the Wald, score, likelihood ratio (LR), and Jeffreys intervals were compared. Also, the figure 5 illustrated the limits of those four intervals: LR and Jeffreys’ intervals were indistinguishable. They derived the coverage probabilities of four intervals via Edgeworth expansions. The nonoscillating O(n^-1) terms from the Edgeworth expansions were studied to compare the coverage properties of these four intervals. The figure 6 shows that the Wald interval has serious negative bias, whereas the nonoscillating term in the score interval is positive for all three, binomial, negative binomial, and Poission distributions. The negative bias of the Wald interval is also found from continuous distributions like normal, gamma, and NEF-GHS distributions (Figure 7).

As a conclusion, they reconfirmed their findings like LR and Jeffreys intervals are the best alternative to the Wald interval in terms of the negative bias in the coverage and the length. The Rao score interval has a merit of easy presentations but its performance is inferior to LR and Jeffreys’ intervals although it is better than the Wald interval. Yet, the authors left a room for users that choosing one of these intervals is a personal choice.

[Addendum] I wonder if statistical properties of Gehrels’ confidence limits have been studied after the publication. I’ll try to post findings about the statistics of the Gehrels’ confidence limits, shortly(hopefully).