Computing the noncentralF distribution and the power of the Ftest with guaranteed accuracy
 1.1k Downloads
 1 Citations
Abstract
The computations involving the noncentralF distribution are notoriously difficult to implement properly in floatingpoint arithmetic: Catastrophic loss of precision, floatingpoint underflow and overflow, drastically increasing computation time and program hangups, and instability due to numerical cancellation have all been reported. It is therefore recommended that existing statistical packages are crosschecked, and the present paper proposes a numerical algorithm precisely for this purpose. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed method is the first method that can compute the noncentrality parameter of the noncentralF distribution with guaranteed accuracy over a wide parameter range that spans the range relevant for practical applications. Although the proposed method is limited to cases where the the degree of freedom of the denominator of the F test statistic is even, it does not affect its usefulness significantly: All of those algorithmic failures and inaccuracies that we can still reproduce today could have been prevented by simply crosschecking against the proposed method. Two numerical examples are presented where the intermediate computations went wrong silently, but the final result of the computations seemed nevertheless plausible, and eventually erroneous results were published. Crosschecking against the proposed method would have caught the numerical errors in both cases. The source code of the algorithm is available on GitHub, together with selfcontained commandline executables. These executables can read the data to be crosschecked from plain text files, making it easy to crosscheck any statistical software in an automated fashion.
Keywords
Minimal detectable differences ANOVA Noncentrality parameter Selfvalidating numerical method Interval arithmetic1 Introduction

Under and overflow problems were reported by Benton and Krishnamoorthy (2003), Ding (1997), Helstrom and Ritcey (1985) independently of us;

we also reveal in Baharev and Kemény 2008 that the algorithms of Norton (1983) and Lenth (1987) are exposed to over and underflow issues, and that the Appendix 12 of Lorenzen and Anderson (1993, p. 374) is most likely bogus due to overflow;

catastrophic roundoff errors were reported by Frick (1990);

drastically increasing computation time and hangups were observed by Chattamvelli (1995), Benton and Krishnamoorthy (2003);

other noncentral distributions are similarly challenging, see for example Oliveira and Ferreira (2012).
In theory, one could analyze the floatingpoint behavior of all the intermediate computations with pen and paper, and derive mathematically proven bounds on the final numerical error of the entire algorithm when implemented in floatingpoint arithmetic. However, as the above listed failures demonstrate, this task is too errorprone for humans to carry out for a nontrivial numerical algorithm. One way to mitigate this issue is to automate the numerical error analysis as much as possible: Interval arithmetic (to be discussed in Sect. 2) is a way to keep track of numerical errors automatically, and to guarantee that floatingpoint issues such as over and underflow are noticed. However, interval arithmetic still requires that a human analyzes the floatingpoint behavior of all the basic operations and all the involved mathematical functions with pen and paper, and derives rigorous error bounds for all the possible floatingpoint inputs. It is still a huge win because “only” the smallest building blocks of the algorithm (basic operations and mathematical functions) have to be analyzed by a human, but not the entire algorithm as before: The numerical error analysis of algorithms built from the humanverified building blocks happens automatically because interval arithmetic keeps track of the floatingpoint errors as the algorithm is executed. In short, interval arithmetic reduces the amount of analysis that humans have to carry out with pen and paper, but it does not eliminate it. With interval arithmetic we essentially give the rest of the error analysis over to the computer, which then has to finish it as it executes the algorithm. It obviously has a runtime cost; in case of the proposed method, the runtime cost is negligible.
All of those algorithmic failures and inaccuracies that we can still reproduce today could have been prevented by simply crosschecking a sparse but sufficiently wide grid of values against the accurate values provided by the proposed method. By ‘sufficiently wide’ we mean that the grid of values spans the parameter range that is relevant for practical applications. In case of the noncentral beta distribution, we consider this range to be roughly the range spanned by Appendix 12 of Lorenzen and Anderson (1993, p. 374), i.e., shape parameters \(a\in [0.5, 25]\) and \(b\in [0.5, 500]\), type I and type II errors 0.05 and 0.10, respectively. If a numerical algorithm fails or is inaccurate, it typically happens not at isolated tiny regions of the parameter space but over a wide and continuous range, and especially at or near the extremes of the parameter ranges. Therefore, it is not necessary for the grid of crosschecked values to be dense; for crosschecking, it is sufficient if it has points near the extremes of the parameter ranges. We give numerical examples in Sect. 4 to support this claim.
The proposed method is limited to cases where the the degree of freedom of the denominator of the F test statistic is even. Although this is a limitation, it does not affect the usefulness of the proposed method significantly: All of those algorithmic failures and inaccuracies that we can still reproduce today could have been prevented by simply crosschecking against the proposed method.
To the best of our knowledge, the proposed method is the first method that can compute the noncentrality parameter of the noncentralF distribution with guaranteed accuracy over a wide parameter range that spans the range relevant for practical applications. In our literature research we found the related selfvalidating numerical methods by Wang and Kennedy Wang and Kennedy (1990, 1992, 1994, 1995), out of which only Wang and Kennedy (1995) is directly relevant. These methods were published more than 20 years ago, and their source code is not publicly available. As we discuss in Baharev and Kemény (2008), the method in Wang and Kennedy (1995) is susceptible to over and underflow: For example, it would over or underflow due to the large value of the noncentrality parameter if we tried to compute the top right entry of Table 4 in contrast to the proposed method that has no difficulties there.
1.1 Outline for the rest of the paper
The paper is structured as follows. The proposed method achieves guaranteed accuracy by applying interval arithmetic. In Sect. 2.1 we give an informal overview of interval arithmetic with an example, and the reader can compare and contrast it with ordinary floatingpoint arithmetic. Interval arithmetic is intentionally treated as a black box in Sect. 2.1: We only present what it delivers, but we do not discuss how. Then, in Sect. 2.2 we give a formal overview of how interval arithmetic guarantees rigorous error bounds. Sect. 3.1 derives the univariate equations that this paper is concerned with, Eqs. (9) and (11). Section 3.2 discusses how interval arithmetic and the interval Newton method can be applied to solve (9) and (11). The formal description of the proposed algorithm is presented in Sect. 3.3 with pseudocode. We finally present in Sect. 4 two examples from the literature, where the intermediate computations involving the noncentralF distribution went wrong silently, but the final result of the computations seemed nevertheless plausible, and erroneous results were published. Crosschecking against the proposed method would have caught the numerical errors in both cases.
2 Interval arithmetic
2.1 Automatic numerical error analysis with interval arithmetic: an example
The goal of this example is to demonstrate that interval arithmetic performs automatic numerical error analysis. The reader can think of interval arithmetic as a computationally cheap way to get guaranteed lower and upper bounds on the range of a function over a given domain of the variables. The obtained bounds are not necessarily sharp, but they are guaranteed to enclose the true range of the function despite the intermediate computations being carried out in floatingpoint arithmetic, and potentially suffer catastrophic loss of precision. Interval arithmetic can safely work with infinity, division by zero, etc., and automatically keeps track of the numerical error propagation throughout the intermediate floatingpoint computations.
The numerical values of f(n) and g(n) defined in (1) when evaluated with 64 bit floatingpoint numbers on a computer where \(n = 10^{k}\)
k  f(n)  g(n)  \(ef(n)\)  \(g(n)e\) 

1  2.59374246  2.86797199  0.12453937  0.14969016 
2  2.70481383  2.73199903  0.01346800  0.01371720 
3  2.71692393  2.71964222  0.00135790  0.00136039 
4  2.71814593  2.71841776  0.00013590  0.00013593 
5  2.71826824  2.71829542  0.00001359  0.00001359 
6  2.71828047  2.71828319  0.00000136  0.00000136 
7  2.71828169  2.71828196  0.00000013  0.00000013 
8  2.71828180  2.71828186  0.00000003  0.00000003 
9  2.71828205  2.71828175  −0.00000022  −0.00000008 
10  2.71828205  2.71828205  −0.00000022  0.00000023 
11  2.71828205  2.71828205  −0.00000022  0.00000022 
12  2.71852350  2.71822170  −0.00024167  −0.00006013 
13  2.71611003  2.71912720  0.00217179  0.00084537 
14  2.71611003  2.71611003  0.00217179  −0.00217179 
15  3.03503521  2.71611003  −0.31675338  −0.00217179 
16  1.00000000  3.03503521  1.71828183  0.31675338 
17  1.00000000  1.00000000  1.71828183  −1.71828183 
Since the f(n) and g(n) functions are fairly simple, one could carry out a rigorous error analysis of these functions with pen and paper, and figure out the accuracy of the table entries. We will do this automatically with interval arithmetic.
Rigorous enclosures of f(n) and g(n) defined in (1) where \(n=10^k\)
k  \(\underline{f}(n)\)  \(\overline{f}(n)\)  \(\underline{g}(n)\)  \(\overline{g}(n)\)  \(e\underline{f}(n)\)  \(\overline{g}(n)e\) 

1  2.59374246  2.59374247  2.86797199  2.86797200  0.12453937  0.14969017 
2  2.70481382  2.70481383  2.73199902  2.73199903  0.01346800  0.01371720 
3  2.71692393  2.71692394  2.71964221  2.71964222  0.00135790  0.00136039 
4  2.71814592  2.71814593  2.71841775  2.71841776  0.00013591  0.00013593 
5  2.71826823  2.71826824  2.71829541  2.71829543  0.00001360  0.00001360 
6  2.71828046  2.71828047  2.71828318  2.71828319  0.00000136  0.00000136 
7  2.71828168  2.71828170  2.71828196  2.71828197  0.00000015  0.00000014 
8  2.71828179  2.71828186  2.71828182  2.71828186  0.00000004  0.00000003 
9  2.71828144  2.71828206  2.71828175  2.71828206  0.00000039  0.00000023 
10  2.71827601  2.71828206  2.71827903  2.71828206  0.00000582  0.00000023 
11  2.71822169  2.71828206  2.71825187  2.71828206  0.00006014  0.00000023 
12  2.71791992  2.71852350  2.71822169  2.71852350  0.00036190  0.00024167 
13  2.71611003  2.72214772  2.71611003  2.71912720  0.00217180  0.00084537 
14  2.71611003  2.77709435  2.71611003  2.74643293  0.00217180  0.02815110 
15  2.43069790  3.03503521  2.71611003  3.03503521  0.28758393  0.31675338 
16  0.99999999  9.21143871  0.99999999  3.03503521  1.71828183  0.31675338 
17  0.99999999  \(4.399\times 10^9\)  0.99999999  \(6.632\times 10^4\)  1.71828183  \(6.632\times 10^4\) 
The wide intervals in Table 2, for example the rows for \(k\ge 15\), are a clear sign of the intermediate computations suffering catastrophic loss of precision; it is guaranteed that with interval arithmetic we always get informed (through wide intervals) when this happens. We consider this one of the biggest advantages of this approach.
Despite the serious numerical difficulties for \(k\ge 9\), the above discussed properties of f(n) and g(n) are still preserved in some form: (i) \(\overline{f}(n)\) is monotone increasing, and \(\underline{g}(n)\) is monotone decreasing, (ii) \(\underline{f}(n)<e<\overline{g}(n)\) holds (unlike in Table 1, there are no negative entries in the last two columns of Table 2). The fact that these properties are preserved is not a coincidence either but the guaranteed behavior of interval arithmetic. However, note that we did not get tighter and tighter enclosures for e as k increased: The enclosure \([\underline{f}(10^k),\overline{g}(10^k)]\) reaches its minimum width at \(k=8\), then the width starts increasing. We cannot blame interval arithmetic for this: Interval arithmetic is implemented on the top of 64 bit floatingpoint numbers, and unless one uses some extended precision arithmetic, e cannot be enclosed better with this simple approach. The tightest verified enclosure we got is [2.71828179, 2.71828186] for \(k=8\); indeed, the correct value is \(2.718281828\ldots \), and it is enclosed.
Let us emphasize again that for this simple example one could have derived bounds on the numerical errors of the entries in Table 1 with pen and paper. The advantage of interval arithmetic is that the numerical error analysis of the computations happens fully automatically, and therefore certain kinds of human errors are completely eliminated.
2.2 A formal overview of interval arithmetic
Interval arithmetic is an extension of real arithmetic defined on the set of real intervals, rather than the set of real numbers. According to a survey paper by Kearfott (1996), a form of interval arithmetic perhaps first appeared in Burkill (1924). Modern interval arithmetic was originally invented independently in the late 1950s by several researchers; including Warmus (1956), Sunaga (1958) and finally Moore (1959), who set firm foundations for the field in his many publications, including the foundational book Moore (1966). Since then, interval arithmetic is being used to rigorously solve numerical problems.
The finite nature of computers precludes an exact representation of the reals. In practice, the real set, \(\mathbb {R}\), is approximated by a finite set \(\bar{\mathbb {F}} = \mathbb {F}\cup \{\infty , +\infty \}\), where \(\mathbb {F}\) is the set of floatingpoint numbers. The set of real intervals is then approximated by the set \(\mathbb {I}\) of intervals with bounds in \(\bar{\mathbb {F}}\). The power of interval arithmetic lies in its implementation on computers. In particular, outwardly rounded interval arithmetic allows rigorous enclosures for the ranges of operations and functions. This makes a qualitative difference in scientific computations, since the results are now intervals in which the exact result is guaranteed to lie. Interval arithmetic can be carried out for virtually every expression that can be evaluated with floatingpoint arithmetic. However, two important points have to be considered: Interval arithmetic is only subdistributive, so expressions that are equivalent in real arithmetic differ in interval arithmetic, giving different amounts of overestimation (the amount by which the real range of the function over an interval and the result computed by interval arithmetic differ). Therefore, computations should be arranged so that overestimation of ranges is minimized. Readers are referred to Alefeld and Herzberger (1983), Neumaier (1990), Hickey et al. (2001), Jaulin et al. (2001) for more details on basic interval methods.
If \(\tilde{f}(x)\) is an expression representing f using arithmetic operations and elementary functions, we can use \(\tilde{f}\) to calculate \((y,y') = \tilde{f}((x,1))\) on \(\mathcal {D}_1\) by replacing the operations and elementary functions in \(\tilde{f}\) by their counterparts on \(\mathcal {D}_1\), and then \(y' = f'(x)\).
This approach can be generalized to compute an interval extension \(\mathfrak {f}'\) of \(f'\) by defining the algebra of interval differential numbers \(\mathbb {I}\mathcal {D}_1:=\mathbb {IR}\times \mathbb {IR}\) and introducing again the operations (3) on \(\mathbb {I}\mathcal {D}_1\) now using interval arithmetic operations in the components of the interval differential numbers. Using this algebra and an expression \(\tilde{f}\) for f, we get by computing \((\mathbf {y},\mathbf {y}') = \tilde{f}((\mathbf {x},1))\) an enclosure \(\mathbf {y}'\supseteq f'(\mathbf {x})\) and thereby an interval extension \(\mathfrak {f}'\) of \(f'\).
3 The proposed method
3.1 Derivation of the formulas
3.2 Overview of the proposed method
To summarize Sect. 3.1, one can compute minimal detectable differences for a specified type II error probability \(\beta \) in the traditional setting as follows. Given the shape parameters \(a=\nu _1/2\) and \(b=\nu _2/2\), and the allowed type I error probability \(\alpha \), the upper \(\alpha \) quantile \(x_{1\alpha }\) of the central beta distribution is computed first by solving \(I_x(a,b)=1\alpha \) for x, using (9) and the traditional Newton method. Then, (11) is solved for the noncentrality parameter \(\lambda \) with the traditional Newton method, given \(x_{1\alpha }, a, b\), and \(\beta \).
 (a)

All solutions are rigorously enclosed, and each enclosure contains a unique zero. The result is the list of these enclosures. (In our case, there can be at most one zero, i.e., the list has at most one element.)
 (b)

It is proved with mathematical rigor that the function cannot have any zeros in the initial interval.
 (c)

There is at least one enclosure among the resulting enclosures of zeros which may contain a zero but verification of existence and/or uniqueness of a zero in that particular enclosure failed.
The primary use case of the proposed method is crosschecking correctness of existing statistical software. The user first computes \(x_{1\alpha }\) and \(\lambda \) with the statistical software to be checked, given \(a=\nu _1/2\), \(b=\nu _2/2\), \(\alpha \), and \(\beta \). The \(x_{1\alpha }\) and \(\lambda \) values are floatingpoint numbers, or in other words, zerowidth intervals. The initial intervals for the interval Newton method are then constructed by inflating these point intervals \(x_{1\alpha }\) and \(\lambda \) such that they are centered around \(x_{1\alpha }\) and \(\lambda \), respectively, but they have nonzero widths. (In this context, inflation refers to the width of the interval: The width of the point interval \(x_{1\alpha }\) is increased from zero to a strictly positive value.) If these initial intervals contain the true values, and the interval Newton method succeeds in proving it (case a), then the algorithm under test is at least as accurate as the radius of the initial intervals in that studied case. Analogously, if the initial intervals do not contain the theoretically correct value, and the interval Newton method reliably proves that (case b), then the accuracy of the algorithm under test is less than the radius of the initial intervals. The very rare but unfortunate case c, when reliable conclusion cannot be drawn and further investigation may be needed, can usually be remedied by simply changing (increasing) the radius of the initial intervals. We have not experienced case c when computing in the parameter range relevant for practical applications, e.g., when computing Tables 4 and 5; we only experienced case c when insane parameters were set.
The proposed method also works with, for example, [0, 1] as initial interval for \(x_{1\alpha }\). In other words, the proposed method works even in the complete absence of an approximate value for \(x_{1\alpha }\), however, this is not the anticipated use case.
3.3 Formal description of the proposed algorithm
 Input.

The input data of the proposed algorithm are \(x_{1\alpha }\) and \(\lambda \), that the user wants to crosscheck. In the anticipated use case, \(x_{1\alpha }\) and \(\lambda \) come from an existing statistical software whose correctness is being checked.
 Step 1.
 The initial intervals \(x_0\) and \(\lambda _0\) are obtained from the inputs \(x_{1\alpha }\) and \(\lambda \) by inflating them as follows:where the inflation parameters \(\epsilon _x\) and \(\epsilon _{\lambda }\) are sufficiently small userdefined real numbers, for example \(10^{6}\).$$\begin{aligned}&x_0 = \left[ (1\epsilon _x)x_{1\alpha },~ (1+\epsilon _x)x_{1\alpha }\right] , \text{ and } \lambda _0 = \left[ (1\epsilon _{\lambda })\lambda ,~ (1+\epsilon _{\lambda })\lambda \right] ,\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$(12)
 Step 2.

A narrow interval containing the theoretically correct value of \(x_{1\alpha }\) is computed with the interval Newton method, using (9). If the interval Newton method proves that \(x_0\) is guaranteed not to have a solution, or the verification of a unique solution in \(x_0\) fails, exit with the corresponding error message.
 Step 3.

Equation (11) is solved for \(\lambda \) with the interval Newton method, using (10) and (9). The possible outcomes are: A rigorous enclosure of the true value of \(\lambda \) is obtained, or \(\lambda _0\) is proved not to contain the correct value, or the verification of a unique solution in \(\lambda _0\) fails. The algorithm finishes here.
 Output.

The rigorous enclosures for \(x_{1\alpha }\) and \(\lambda \) are printed if the interval Newton iteration is successful in both Step 2 and Step 3, or the corresponding error message if any of these steps fails.
3.4 Implementation details
As for the implementation details, the above algorithm is implemented in C++ using the CXSC module nlfzero. CXSC is available from http://www.xsc.de, and it is documented in the book of Hammer et al. (1995). CXSC implements the interval Newton method in one variable using automatic differentiation. No higher precision internal data format is used. All computations are done using the IEEE double format (64 bit). Evaluation of (9) and (10) could be significantly speeded up since it involves several redundant operations. For example, it is possible to reduce the number of switches between rounding modes considering that \(a>0\), \(b>0\), and \(0\le x\le 1\) always hold. However, (9) and (10) are used directly, and no efforts were made to decrease the computation time because we found it to be satisfactory.
The parameters are assumed to lie in the domain that is relevant for practical applications, roughly: \(a \le 25, b \le 500\), and \(0.01 \le \alpha , \beta \le 0.99\); the inflation parameters are also assumed to be sane, say \(< 10^{4}\). Violating these assumptions may cause performance degradation and the algorithm may start reporting verification failures, but incorrect results will never appear in the output.
4 Numerical results
As we claimed in the introduction, all of those algorithmic failures and inaccuracies that we can still reproduce today could have been prevented by simply crosschecking against the proposed method; we now give two such examples. In both examples, the intermediate computations suffer significant loss of precision, but the final results presented to the user seem nevertheless plausible, making these kinds of numerical errors particularly harmful. A byproduct of the first example is that the algorithm of Baharev and Kemény (2008), implemented on the top of the builtin functions of R, is proved to be accurate for 6 significant digits in the investigated cases with mathematical certainty.
The entire source code is available on GitHub at Baharev (2016). The computations have been carried out with the following hardware and software configuration. Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i53320M CPU at 2.60GHz; operating system: Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS with 3.13.067generic kernel; compiler: gcc 4.8.4, compiler optimization flag: O3; CXSC 2.5.4 configuration left on the default values given by the install script.
4.1 Example 1: minimal detectable differences for general ANOVA models
Appendix 12 of Lorenzen and Anderson (1993, p. 374) tabulates the minimal detectable differences for general ANOVA models as a function of \(\nu _1\) and \(\nu _2\), with the type I and type II error probabilities fixed at \(\alpha =0.05\) and \(\beta =0.10\), respectively. All entries in Appendix 12 seem plausible; there is no obvious sign that some of the entries have no correct significant digits (for example that entry in Appendix 12 that corresponds to the top right entry of Table 4 of the present paper). The entries of Appendix 12 are most likely bogus due to floatingpoint overflow (Baharev and Kemény 2008).
The error could have been caught by simply crosschecking against the proposed method. The corrected form of Appendix 12 of Lorenzen and Anderson (1993, p. 374), i.e., Table 3 of Baharev and Kemény (2008), fully spans the parameter range that is relevant for practical applications. This table (except rows for which b is not integer, i.e., \(b=0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5\)) is recomputed with the proposed method, and it is given as Table 4. The input values of \(x_{0.95}\) and \(\lambda \) are computed by the algorithm of Baharev and Kemény (2008), implemented in R R Development Core Team (2015) and available as the package fpow; the inflation parameter values \(\epsilon _x\) and \(\epsilon _{\lambda }\) are both set to \(10^{6}\).
The upper \(\alpha = 0.05\) quantiles, the solution of \(I_x(a,b)=1\alpha \) for x
b  a  

0.5  1  1.5  2  2.5  3  5  10  25  
1  9.02500e01  9.50000e01  9.66383e01  9.74679e01  9.79692e01  9.83048e01  9.89794e01  9.94884e01  9.97950e01 
2  6.58372e01  7.76393e01  8.31750e01  8.64650e01  8.86622e01  9.02389e01  9.37150e01  9.66681e01  9.86158e01 
3  4.99474e01  6.31597e01  7.04013e01  7.51395e01  7.85230e01  8.10745e01  8.71244e01  9.28130e01  9.69022e01 
4  3.99294e01  5.27129e01  6.03932e01  6.57408e01  6.97399e01  7.28662e01  8.07097e01  8.87334e01  9.49692e01 
5  3.31756e01  4.50720e01  5.26623e01  5.81803e01  6.24472e01  6.58739e01  7.48632e01  8.47282e01  9.29506e01 
6  2.83463e01  3.93038e01  4.65976e01  5.20703e01  5.64102e01  5.99689e01  6.96463e01  8.09135e01  9.09126e01 
7  2.47316e01  3.48164e01  4.17435e01  4.70679e01  5.13741e01  5.49642e01  6.50188e01  7.73308e01  8.88911e01 
8  2.19284e01  3.12344e01  3.77834e01  4.29136e01  4.71285e01  5.06901e01  6.09138e01  7.39886e01  8.69067e01 
9  1.96926e01  2.83129e01  3.44972e01  3.94163e01  4.35104e01  4.70087e01  5.72619e01  7.08799e01  8.49712e01 
10  1.78687e01  2.58866e01  3.17294e01  3.64359e01  4.03954e01  4.38105e01  5.40005e01  6.79913e01  8.30912e01 
11  1.63528e01  2.38404e01  2.93680e01  3.38681e01  3.76883e01  4.10099e01  5.10752e01  6.53069e01  8.12701e01 
12  1.50733e01  2.20922e01  2.73308e01  3.16340e01  3.53157e01  3.85390e01  4.84396e01  6.28099e01  7.95094e01 
13  1.39791e01  2.05817e01  2.55557e01  2.96734e01  3.32202e01  3.63442e01  4.60549e01  6.04844e01  7.78091e01 
14  1.30326e01  1.92636e01  2.39958e01  2.79396e01  3.13568e01  3.43825e01  4.38883e01  5.83155e01  7.61683e01 
15  1.22059e01  1.81036e01  2.26143e01  2.63957e01  2.96893e01  3.26193e01  4.19120e01  5.62893e01  7.45857e01 
20  9.26567e02  1.39108e01  1.75534e01  2.06725e01  2.34411e01  2.59467e01  3.41807e01  4.79012e01  6.74797e01 
30  6.25175e02  9.50339e02  1.21191e01  1.44090e01  1.64826e01  1.83943e01  2.49305e01  3.68153e01  5.65062e01 
40  4.71693e02  7.21575e02  9.25215e02  1.10553e01  1.27053e01  1.42414e01  1.96078e01  2.98634e01  4.85211e01 
50  3.78708e02  5.81551e02  7.48160e02  8.96715e02  1.03353e01  1.16167e01  1.61545e01  2.51097e01  4.24830e01 
100  1.90711e02  2.95130e02  3.82269e02  4.61073e02  5.34614e02  6.04365e02  8.58514e02  1.39660e01  2.61259e01 
250  7.66110e03  1.19114e02  1.54926e02  1.87595e02  2.18331e02  2.47712e02  3.56731e02  5.98536e02  1.20972e01 
500  3.83600e03  5.97355e03  7.78040e03  9.43349e03  1.09931e02  1.24879e02  1.80690e02  3.06519e02  6.38108e02 
The noncentrality parameter \(\lambda \), the solution to Eq. (11)
b  a  

0.5  1  1.5  2  2.5  3  5  10  25  
1  4.61803e+01  9.00517e+01  1.33936e+02  1.77823e+02  2.21712e+02  2.65601e+02  4.41161e+02  8.80065e+02  2.19678e+03 
2  1.93236e+01  3.04220e+01  4.08997e+01  5.11554e+01  6.13048e+01  7.13948e+01  1.11490e+02  2.11206e+02  5.09746e+02 
3  1.53086e+01  2.20966e+01  2.82383e+01  3.41350e+01  3.99085e+01  4.56104e+01  6.80824e+01  1.23556e+02  2.89087e+02 
4  1.37822e+01  1.90179e+01  2.36054e+01  2.79378e+01  3.21380e+01  3.62590e+01  5.23587e+01  9.17573e+01  2.08805e+02 
5  1.29870e+01  1.74388e+01  2.12434e+01  2.47874e+01  2.81929e+01  3.15140e+01  4.43773e+01  7.55652e+01  1.67745e+02 
6  1.25009e+01  1.64830e+01  1.98196e+01  2.28917e+01  2.58210e+01  2.86621e+01  3.95760e+01  6.57902e+01  1.42832e+02 
7  1.21736e+01  1.58437e+01  1.88700e+01  2.16290e+01  2.42420e+01  2.67637e+01  3.63771e+01  5.92546e+01  1.26087e+02 
8  1.19383e+01  1.53865e+01  1.81924e+01  2.07289e+01  2.31168e+01  2.54110e+01  3.40954e+01  5.45774e+01  1.14042e+02 
9  1.17611e+01  1.50436e+01  1.76849e+01  2.00552e+01  2.22750e+01  2.43990e+01  3.23869e+01  5.10640e+01  1.04947e+02 
10  1.16228e+01  1.47769e+01  1.72907e+01  1.95324e+01  2.16217e+01  2.36137e+01  3.10600e+01  4.83276e+01  9.78285e+01 
11  1.15120e+01  1.45636e+01  1.69759e+01  1.91149e+01  2.11002e+01  2.29868e+01  3.00000e+01  4.61356e+01  9.20991e+01 
12  1.14212e+01  1.43892e+01  1.67186e+01  1.87739e+01  2.06743e+01  2.24748e+01  2.91336e+01  4.43398e+01  8.73842e+01 
13  1.13454e+01  1.42440e+01  1.65045e+01  1.84902e+01  2.03200e+01  2.20489e+01  2.84125e+01  4.28416e+01  8.34334e+01 
14  1.12812e+01  1.41211e+01  1.63236e+01  1.82505e+01  2.00207e+01  2.16891e+01  2.78028e+01  4.15723e+01  8.00727e+01 
15  1.12262e+01  1.40158e+01  1.61686e+01  1.80453e+01  1.97645e+01  2.13810e+01  2.72807e+01  4.04832e+01  7.71776e+01 
20  1.10375e+01  1.36562e+01  1.56397e+01  1.73453e+01  1.88905e+01  2.03304e+01  2.54976e+01  3.67467e+01  6.71490e+01 
30  1.08550e+01  1.33096e+01  1.51311e+01  1.66726e+01  1.80510e+01  1.93210e+01  2.37807e+01  3.31188e+01  5.72176e+01 
40  1.07660e+01  1.31411e+01  1.48842e+01  1.63462e+01  1.76437e+01  1.88312e+01  2.29461e+01  3.13414e+01  5.22527e+01 
50  1.07132e+01  1.30415e+01  1.47383e+01  1.61535e+01  1.74032e+01  1.85419e+01  2.24526e+01  3.02856e+01  4.92627e+01 
100  1.06093e+01  1.28456e+01  1.44516e+01  1.57748e+01  1.69308e+01  1.79737e+01  2.14819e+01  2.81960e+01  4.32297e+01 
250  1.05479e+01  1.27301e+01  1.42828e+01  1.55519e+01  1.66527e+01  1.76392e+01  2.09095e+01  2.69549e+01  3.95540e+01 
500  1.05276e+01  1.26919e+01  1.42270e+01  1.54783e+01  1.65608e+01  1.75288e+01  2.07203e+01  2.65432e+01  3.83154e+01 
4.2 Example 2: comparing the accuracy of numerical algorithms
The cdf of the noncentral beta random variable
a  b  \(\lambda \)  x  Frick (1990)  Chattamvelli and Shanmugam (1997)  Correct 

5  5  54  0.8640  0.4563026 (7)  0.4563021 (5)  0.4563026 
5  5  170  0.9560  0.6022421 (6)  0.6022353 (5)  0.6022422 
10  10  54  0.8686  0.9187790 (6)  0.9187770 (5)  0.9187791 
20  20  54  0.8787  0.9998677 (7)  0.9998655 (5)  0.9998677 
20  20  250  0.9220  0.9641169 (5)  0.9641113 (4)  0.9641191 
Notes
Acknowledgements
Open access funding provided by Austrian Science Fund (FWF).
References
 Alefeld G, Herzberger J (1983) Introduction to interval computations. Academic Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Baharev A (2016) Rigorous enclosures of minimal detectable differences for general anova models. https://github.com/baharev/mindiffver
 Baharev A, Kemény S (2008) On the computation of the noncentral F and noncentral beta distribution. Stat Comput 18:333–340MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Benton D, Krishnamoorthy K (2003) Computing discrete mixtures of continuous distributions: noncentral chisquare, noncentral \(t\) and the distribution of the square of the sample multiple correlation coefficient. Comput Stat Data Anal 43(2):249–267MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Berz M, Bischof C, Corliss G, Griewank A (1996) Computational differentiation: techniques, applications, and tools. SIAM, PhiladelphiazbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Burkill JC (1924) Functions of intervals. Proc Lond Math Soc 22:375–446Google Scholar
 Chattamvelli R (1995) On the doubly noncentral \(F\) distribution. Comput Stat Data Anal 20(5):481–489CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Chattamvelli R, Shanmugam F (1997) Algorithm AS 310: computing the noncentral beta distribution function. J R Stat Soc: Ser C (Appl Stat) 46(1):146–156CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Ding CG (1997) On using Newton’s method for computing the noncentrality parameter of the noncentral \(F\) distribution. Commun StatSimul Comput 26(1):259–268MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Frick H (1990) AS R84. A remark on Algorithm AS 226, computing noncentral beta probabilities. Appl Stat 39(2):311–312MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Griewank A, Corliss GF (1991) Automatic differentiation of algorithms. SIAM Publications, PhiladelphiazbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Griewank A (2008) Evaluating derivatives: principles and techniques of algorithmic differentiation. SIAM, PhiladelphiaCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Hammer R, Hocks M, Kulisch U, Ratz D (1995) C++ toolbox for verified computing I, basic numerical problems. SpringerVerlag, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Helstrom CW, Ritcey JA (1985) Evaluation of the noncentral \(F\)distribution by numerical contour integration. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 6(3):505–514MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Hickey TJ, Ju Q, Van Emden MH (2001) Interval arithmetic: from principles to implementation. J ACM (JACM) 48(5):1038–1068MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Jaulin L, Kieffer M, Didrit O, Walter E (2001) Applied interval analysis, 1st edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Johnson NL, Leone FC (1977) Statistics and experimental design: in engineering and the physical science, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N (1995) Continuous univariate distributions, vol 2, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Kearfott BR (1996) Interval computations: introduction, uses, and resources. Euromath Bull 2(1):95–112MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Lenth RV (1987) Algorithm AS 226: computing noncentral beta probabilities. J R Stat Soc Ser C (Appl Stat) 36(2):241–244MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Li YC, Yeh CC (2013) Some equivalent forms of Bernoulli’s inequality: a survey. Appl Math 4:1070–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lorenzen TJ, Anderson VL (1993) Design of experiments: a noname approach. Marcel Dekker Inc, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Moore RE (1959) Automatic error analysis in digital computation. Technical Report LMSD84821, Missiles and space division, Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Sunnyvale, California, USAGoogle Scholar
 Moore RE (1966) Interval analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffszbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Neumaier A (1990) Interval methods for systems of equations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Norton V (1983) A simple algorithm for computing the noncentral \(F\) distribution. Appl Stat 32(1):84–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Oliveira IRC, Ferreira DF (2012) Computing the noncentral gamma distribution, its inverse and the noncentrality parameter. Comput Stat 28(4):1663–1680MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Puza B, O’Neill T (2006a) Generalised clopperpearson confidence intervals for the binomial proportion. J Stat Comput Simul 76(6):489–508. doi: 10.1080/10629360500107527 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Puza B, O’Neill T (2006b) Interval estimation via tail functions. The Canadian Journal of Statistics / La Revue Canadienne de Statistique 34(2):299–310, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20445202
 R Development Core Team (2015) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.Rproject.org, ISBN 3900051070
 Sibuya M (1967) On the noncentral beta distribution function, unpublished manuscript, the equation can be found in the book of Johnson, Kotz, and Balakrishnan (1995), p. 485, Eq. (30.12)Google Scholar
 Singh KP, Relyea GE (1992) Computation of noncentral \(F\) probabilities: A computer program. Comput Stat Data Anal 13(1):95–102, the misprint on p. 97 was corrected by Chattamvelli (1995)Google Scholar
 Sunaga T (1958) Theory of an interval algebra and its applications to numerical analysis. RAAG Memoirs 2:29–46zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Wang M, Kennedy WJ (1990) Comparison of algorithms for bivariate normal probability over a rectangle based on selfvalidated results from interval analysis. J Stat Comput Simul 37(1–2):13–25CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Wang M, Kennedy WJ (1992) A numerical method for accurately approximating multivariate normal probabilities. Comput Stat Data Anal 13(2):197–210CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Wang MC, Kennedy WJ (1994) Selfvalidating computations of probabilities for selected central and noncentral univariate probability functions. J Am Stat Assoc 89(427):878–887MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Wang MC, Kennedy WJ (1995) A selfvalidating numerical method for computation of central and noncentral \(F\) probabilities and percentiles. Stat Comput 5(2):155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Warmus M (1956) Caculus of Approximations. Bulletin de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences IV(5):253–259MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.