2
$\begingroup$

This is a homework question. I was given a random sample of independent and identically distributed $X_i$'s and wish to test the hypotheses:

$$H_0: \theta = \theta_0$$ $\text{vs}$
$$H_A: \theta = \theta_A \quad (\theta_A < \theta_0)$$

$f(x;\theta)=0.5(1+\theta \, x)\,$ where $-1\leq \theta \leq 1$ and $-1\leq x \leq1$

In this case, I should apply the Neyman Pearson Lemma, as we are testing for a simple null and simple alternate

However, the question asked to show that there is no most powerful test in this case, and explain why

What I did was applying the N-P Lemma, so

NP: $[(\frac{1}{2^n})\,\prod (1+\theta_A \, x_i)]/[(\frac{1}{2^n})\, \prod (1+\theta_0 \, x_i)]>k$

and if i take the log of it i get

$\sum[\log((1+\theta_A\, x_i)/(1+\theta_0 \, x_i))]\geq \ln k$

And then I concluded, since there is no simple closed way to arrange the LHS to be in the form of a test statistic, of only the data, and the test statistic depends on $\theta_A$, therefore there is no most powerful test in this case, is this a correct assessment of the situation?

Also, please correct my misunderstanding, I was under the assumption that if we are testing for simple null and simple alternate, there is always a most powerful test as the Neyman-Pearson lemma suggests, as evident by this question, my understanding was wrong, but I am not sure in what way does the Neyman-Pearson lemma give the most powerful test?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ 1. You have not correctly applied the lemma. 2. If this is an exercise for some subject please see the help center under "Homework". $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Sep 2 '18 at 6:32
  • $\begingroup$ What is the correct way of applying the lemma? $\endgroup$ – Kazusa Sep 2 '18 at 6:33
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I am not quite understanding what you mean by bringing in a condition that's not part of the lemma, can you please expand on it, thanks $\endgroup$ – Kazusa Sep 2 '18 at 6:41
  • $\begingroup$ The only conditions I know is the Neyman Pearson Lemma, which apply to only simple null and simple alternative, and the likelihood ratio test, which applies for more general alternatives, where the alternative can be composite etc. If you mean by conditions are when the samples are independent, then that was my fault, i forgot to add that. From what I understand, the Neyman Pearson Lemma is comparing the likelihood of the alternate vs the simple at the values specified by the hypothesis. And if it is large enough, one reject H-0. $\endgroup$ – Kazusa Sep 2 '18 at 7:10
  • $\begingroup$ And in this case, where I take the log of the LR and try and get the L.H.S. into some form of test statistic, isolated from the theta_A, and couldn't do so, therefore I conclude (which my reason seems fishy at best) that since the LHS is dependent on the value of theta_A, therefore there is no most powerful test in this case. $\endgroup$ – Kazusa Sep 2 '18 at 7:12
1
$\begingroup$

You are probably supposed to answer something in the direction of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformly_most_powerful_test The NP lemma tells that the likelihood ratio test is most powerful for point hypotheses.


For instance if $$H_0:\theta = \theta_0 \quad \text{and} \quad H_a:\theta=\theta_a$$ then the test: $$\sum[\log((1+\theta_a\, x_i)/(1+\theta_0 \, x_i))]\geq \ln k$$ is most powerful.


But when you look for a range

$$\quad H_a:\theta < \theta_0$$

then the test:

$$\sum[\log((1+\theta_a\, x_i)/(1+\theta_0 \, x_i))]\geq \ln k_a$$

is not anymore most powerful for every $\theta < \theta_0$, since it is only most powerful for $\theta_a$. In the case of some other $\theta_b \neq \theta_a$ you should use

$$\sum[\log((1+\theta_b\, x_i)/(1+\theta_0 \, x_i))]\geq \ln k_b$$

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.