Big Data/Analytics Zone is brought to you in partnership with:

Rob Hyndman is a Professor of Statistics at Monash University, Australia. He is Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Forecasting and author of over 100 research papers in statistical science. He also maintains an active consulting practice, assisting hundreds of companies and organizations. His recent consulting work has involved forecasting electricity demand, tourism demand, the Australian government health budget and case volume at a US call centre. Rob J is a DZone MVB and is not an employee of DZone and has posted 42 posts at DZone. You can read more from them at their website. View Full User Profile

# The Difference Between Prediction Intervals and Confidence Intervals

03.14.2013
| 4673 views |

Pre­dic­tion inter­vals and con­fi­dence inter­vals are not the same thing. Unfor­tu­nately the terms are often con­fused, and I am often fre­quently cor­rect­ing the error in stu­dents’ papers and arti­cles I am review­ing or editing.

A pre­dic­tion inter­val is an inter­val asso­ci­ated with a ran­dom vari­able yet to be observed, with a spec­i­fied prob­a­bil­ity of the ran­dom vari­able lying within the inter­val. For exam­ple, I might give an 80% inter­val for the fore­cast of GDP in 2014. The actual GDP in 2014 should lie within the inter­val with prob­a­bil­ity 0.8. Pre­dic­tion inter­vals can arise in Bayesian or fre­quen­tist statistics.

A con­fi­dence inter­val is an inter­val asso­ci­ated with a para­me­ter and is a fre­quen­tist con­cept. The para­me­ter is assumed to be non-​​random but unknown, and the con­fi­dence inter­val is com­puted from data. Because the data are ran­dom, the inter­val is ran­dom. A 95% con­fi­dence inter­val will con­tain the true para­me­ter with prob­a­bil­ity 0.95. That is, with a large num­ber of repeated sam­ples, 95% of the inter­vals would con­tain the true parameter.

A Bayesian con­fi­dence inter­val, also known as a “cred­i­ble inter­val”, is an inter­val asso­ci­ated with the pos­te­rior dis­tri­b­u­tion of the para­me­ter. In the Bayesian per­spec­tive, para­me­ters are treated as ran­dom vari­ables, and so have prob­a­bil­ity dis­tri­b­u­tions. Thus a Bayesian con­fi­dence inter­val is like a pre­dic­tion inter­val, but asso­ci­ated with a para­me­ter rather than an observation.

I think the dis­tinc­tion between pre­dic­tion and con­fi­dence inter­vals is worth pre­serv­ing because some­times you want to use both. For exam­ple, con­sider the regression

where  is the change in GDP from quar­ter  to quar­ter  is the change in the unem­ploy­ment rate from quar­ter  to quar­ter , and . (This regres­sion model is known as Okun’s law in macro­eco­nom­ics.) In this case, both con­fi­dence inter­vals and pre­dic­tion inter­vals are inter­est­ing. You might be inter­ested in the con­fi­dence inter­val asso­ci­ated with the mean value of  when ; that is, the mean growth in GDP when the unem­ploy­ment rate does not change. You might also be inter­ested in the pre­dic­tion inter­val for  when ; that is, the likely range of future val­ues of GDP growth when the unem­ploy­ment rate does not change.

The dis­tinc­tion is mostly retained in the sta­tis­tics lit­er­a­ture. How­ever, in econo­met­rics it is com­mon to use “con­fi­dence inter­vals” for both types of inter­val (e.g.,Granger & New­bold, 1986). I once asked Clive Granger why he con­fused the two con­cepts, and he dis­missed my objec­tion as fuss­ing about triv­i­al­i­ties. I dis­agreed with him then, and I still do.

I have seen some­one com­pute a con­fi­dence inter­val for the mean, and use it as if it was a pre­dic­tion inter­val for a future obser­va­tion. The trou­ble is, con­fi­dence inter­vals for the mean are much nar­rower than pre­dic­tion inter­vals, and so this gave him an exag­ger­ated and false sense of the accu­racy of his fore­casts. Instead of the inter­val con­tain­ing 95% of the prob­a­bil­ity space for the future obser­va­tion, it con­tained only about 20%.

So I ask sta­tis­ti­cians to please pre­serve this dis­tinc­tion. And I ask econo­me­tri­cians to stop being so sloppy about ter­mi­nol­ogy. Unfor­tu­nately, I can’t con­tinue my debate with Clive Granger. I rather hoped he would come to accept my point of view.

Published at DZone with permission of Rob J Hyndman, author and DZone MVB. (source)

(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)

"Starting from scratch" is seductive but disease ridden