Accuracy vs Precision

I had a hard time remembering this1, almost as bad as Type 1 vs Type 2 (which are still the worst terminology I’ve ever seen).

Thinking of these by reframing them with actual statistical terms made them easy to remember.


A random variable (the estimator) is accurate if it has low bias.


A random variable is precise if it has low variance.


From these definitions, it’s finally clear to me why neither implies each other. Say your true distribution is a standard (\(\mu = 0, \sigma = 1\)) Gaussian. Consider these cases for your estimator, also a Gaussian with the following parameters:

(\(\mu = 0, \sigma = 1,000\))

Perfectly accurate because it’s unbiased. Imprecise as hell.

(\(\mu = 1,000, \sigma = 0.01\))

Inaccurate. Very precise.

(\(\mu = 1,000, \sigma = 1,000\))

Inaccurate and imprecise.

(\(\mu = 0, \sigma = 0.01\))

Perfectly accurate, more precise than the true distribution because its spread is lower.

  1. 4 years until 10 minutes ago, when I finally thought about it properly. 

Related Posts

Use of emphasis in speech

Generating a lot of language data with a theorem prover

"Litany Against Fear" in Present Tense

When it's time to party we will party hard

these are people who died

divine carrot

the frog

what it’s like to get nail phenolization

Why 0 to the power of 0 is 1

Lines and Points are Circles