A better formalism for interpreting

condence intervals
When we take a sample mean, we should think of it as a random variable, and our measured sample mean
as a realisation of that random variable. The sample mean is a random variable because it is the result of
random sampling. Repeated sampling involves observing repeated realisations of the random variable.

We should think of condence intervals around this mean as realisations of a random interval, an interval
whose bounds are random variables rather than real numbers. This is an attractive formalism because it
resolves many confusions around the interpretation of condence intervals.

Suppose the true population mean is the number . The mean of a random sample from this population is
the random variable . Then, without being too rigorous about it, the random interval

has a 95% probability of containing .

Suppose in our sample takes the realisation . The sample size is and the standard deviation of the
sample is . So an instance of the above random interval is the condence interval:

The condence interval either contains or does not contain .

Once we have the formal notion of a random interval, interpreting condence intervals becomes easy and
robust:

is a realisation of . The
probability .

The ugly and the bad

Unfortunately, my preferred formalism does not appear to be popular. Let me show some of the alternatives
I have seen and explain why they are inferior.

1
Oxford department of statistics:

The interval is random, not the parameter. Thus, we talk of the probability of the
interval containing the parameter, not the probability of the parameter lying in
the interval.
This is the worst example, and is admittedly rarely seen in print. But in speech I've seen it used often, even
by academics who were trying to explain the correct interpretation of condence intervals! The problem with
this of course is that once you write it down in mathematical language, the probability of the interval
containing the parameter is exactly the same object as the probability of the parameter lying in the interval.
In our example it is simply . It is equal to 1 or 0.

2
Quantitative Economics lecture notes for Oxford undergraduates:

"Were this procedure to be repeated on multiple samples, the calculated condence interval (which
would dier for each sample) would encompass the true population parameter 95% of the time."

I don't like this because:

It invokes the clunky counterfactual "were this procedure to be repeated". What if it's impossible to take
repeated samples? We still want to be able to make statements about our condence interval.
It doesn't have a clear mathematical formalisation. how do I write "95% of the time" in terms of
probabilities?
The actual condence interval we have is nowhere mentioned. For what is supposed to be an
interpretation of that object, that's a little confusing.

My formalism solves these three problems.

3
Wikipedia:

"There is a 90% probability that the calculated condence interval from some future experiment
encompasses the true value of the population parameter."

Similar complaint here: why do we need to refer to future experiments? We want an interpretation of the
condence interval we actually have.

4
Harvard University:

For this reason, for a 95% CI, we say that we have 95% condence that the interval will cover the true
population mean. We use the term condence instead of probability because although the sample
mean is random, the single interval we calculate is xed. We also cannot talk about the probability that
the population mean will lie within a certain interval, since it is also xed.

This needlessly introduces the new concept of 'condence', which is bound to cause confusion. It's much
better to use probabilities, a concept we already understand and for which we have a formal notation.