<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" 
      xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" 
      xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" 
      xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" 
      version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>topazape</title>
<link>https://topazape.dev/</link>
<atom:link href="https://topazape.dev/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
<description>Statistical modeling and causal inference, with applications in advertising effectiveness measurement.</description>
<generator>quarto-1.10.18</generator>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<item>
  <title>Fieller’s Confidence Interval for Risk Ratios: Removing the Taylor Approximation</title>
  <link>https://topazape.dev/posts/bls-fieller-ci/</link>
  <description><![CDATA[ The <a href="../../posts/bls-bootstrap-validation/">previous post</a> showed that the log-transform delta method CI for <img src="https://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?RR"> achieves its nominal 95% coverage when the expected number of positive control responses <img src="https://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?%5Cmathbb%7BE%7D%5Bx_0%5D%20=%20n%20%5Ccdot%20p_0"> is 20 or more. Below that, the delta method becomes conservative: the <img src="https://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?%5Cfrac%7B1%7D%7Bx_0%7D"> term in the SE formula inflates the interval beyond what the stated confidence level implies. The bootstrap percentile CI, which does not depend on the Taylor approximation, maintained near-nominal coverage across the full range. ]]></description>
  <category>brand-lift</category>
  <category>statistics</category>
  <guid>https://topazape.dev/posts/bls-fieller-ci/</guid>
  <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
  <title>How Reliable Is the Delta Method CI? Bootstrap Validation and Sample Size Planning</title>
  <link>https://topazape.dev/posts/bls-bootstrap-validation/</link>
  <description><![CDATA[ The <a href="../../posts/bls-delta-method-rr/">previous post</a> derived a log-transform delta method CI for the risk ratio <img src="https://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?RR%20=%20%5Cfrac%7Bp_1%7D%7Bp_0%7D">: ]]></description>
  <category>brand-lift</category>
  <category>statistics</category>
  <guid>https://topazape.dev/posts/bls-bootstrap-validation/</guid>
  <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
  <title>Confidence Intervals for Brand Lift: The Delta Method on Risk Ratios</title>
  <link>https://topazape.dev/posts/bls-delta-method-rr/</link>
  <description><![CDATA[ Every Brand Lift Study (BLS) is a 2×2 table: exposed vs.&nbsp;control, positive response vs.&nbsp;not. The risk ratio <img src="https://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?RR%20=%20%5Cfrac%7Bp_1%7D%7Bp_0%7D">, where <img src="https://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?p_1"> and <img src="https://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?p_0"> are the positive response rates in the exposed and control groups, is the most direct measure of how much exposure shifted the outcome. An <img src="https://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?RR"> of <img src="https://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?1.12"> means the exposed group responded positively 12% more often than control. Platforms typically report <img src="https://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?RR%20-%201"> as “relative lift”, but the underlying quantity is a ratio of two binomial proportions. ]]></description>
  <category>brand-lift</category>
  <category>statistics</category>
  <guid>https://topazape.dev/posts/bls-delta-method-rr/</guid>
  <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
