4
$\begingroup$

Say $X \sim \mathrm{Unif}[0, \theta]$. Denote the observations as $x_i$ $(i=1, \cdots, n)$.

Show that any test $\phi$ that satisfies the following two conditions is most powerful test of level $\alpha$ for $H_0 : \theta = \theta_0$ vs. $H_1 : \theta = \theta_1$ $(\theta_1 > \theta_0)$.

  • $\phi^{*}(x_1, \cdots, x_n) = 1 \ \ (\mathrm{if} \max\{x_1, \cdots, x_n\}) > \theta_0$

  • $\mathbb{E}_{\theta_0} \phi^{*}(X) = \alpha$


Try

By Neyman-Pearson lemma, any test that satisfies

  • $\phi^{*}(x_1, \cdots, x_n) = \begin{cases} 1 & (\mathcal{L}(\theta_1 | x_1, \cdots, x_n)/\mathcal{L}(\theta_0 | x_1, \cdots, x_n) > k) \\ \gamma & (\mathcal{L}(\theta_1 | x_1, \cdots, x_n)/\mathcal{L}(\theta_0 | x_1, \cdots, x_n) = k) \\ 0 & (\mathcal{L}(\theta_1 | x_1, \cdots, x_n)/\mathcal{L}(\theta_0 | x_1, \cdots, x_n) < k) \end{cases} $

(for some $\gamma \in [0,1]$)

  • $\mathbb{E}_{\theta_0} \phi^{*}(X) = \alpha$

is an MP test for $H_0$ vs. $H_1$.

Since

$$ \begin{aligned} \mathcal{L}(\theta_1 | x_1, \cdots, x_n)/\mathcal{L}(\theta_0 | x_1, \cdots, x_n) &= (\theta_0 / \theta_1)^n I(\max x_i \le \theta_1)/I(\max x_i \le \theta_0) \\ &= \begin{cases} (\theta_0/\theta_1)^n & (\max x_i > \theta_0) \\ \infty & (\max x_i \le \theta_0) \end{cases} \end{aligned} $$

we have

$$ \phi^{*}(x_1, \cdots, x_n) = \begin{cases}1 & (\max x_i > \theta_0) \\ \alpha & (\max x_i \le \theta_0) \end{cases} $$

is an MP test for $H_0$ vs. $H_1$.

But this does not mean ANY test that satisfies

  • $\phi^{*}(x_1, \cdots, x_n) = 1 \ \ (\mathrm{if} \max\{x_1, \cdots, x_n\}) > \theta_0$

  • $\mathbb{E}_{\theta_0} \phi^{*}(X) = \alpha$

is an MP test, but rather just provides an example of MP test.

Is there anyone to help me out?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ You might want to check the inequality signs when you say $\begin{cases} (\theta_0/\theta_1)^n & (\max x_i > \theta_0) \\ \infty & (\max x_i \le \theta_0) \end{cases}$ as I suspect you intended these the other way round. It does not affect the rest of your argument $\endgroup$
    – Henry
    Nov 30, 2018 at 1:44

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

The logic is:

  • Any test which satisfies the two conditions has the same significance level $\alpha$ and power $1-\left(\frac{\theta_0}{\theta_1}\right)^n +\alpha\left(\frac{\theta_0}{\theta_1}\right)^n$ as the particular test you found; the

  • Given that your test is most powerful of all tests with significance level $\alpha$, all the other tests satisfying the two conditions are also most powerful with significance level $\alpha$

If you want to check, consider the significance level and power of these two deterministic tests

  • $\phi^{*}(x_1, \cdots, x_n) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{ when }\max x_i > \theta_0 \sqrt[n]{1-\alpha} \\ 0 & \text{ when }\max x_i \le \theta_0 \sqrt[n]{1-\alpha} \end{cases}$
  • $\phi^{*}(x_1, \cdots, x_n) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{ when }\max x_i > \theta_0 \\ 0 & \text{ when }\min x_i \gt \theta_0 \left(1- \sqrt[n]{1-\alpha}\right) \text{ and } \max x_i \le \theta_0 \\ 1 & \text{ when }\min x_i \le \theta_0 \left(1- \sqrt[n]{1-\alpha}\right) \end{cases}$
$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ Could you please explain the meaning of the $\phi^*$ notation? My book doesn't use that notation, and I'm finding it extraordinarily confusing. $\endgroup$ Aug 18, 2021 at 18:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AdrianKeister - I copied it from the question. I doubt that the $*$means anything important. $\phi^*$ here is just a function applied to the observations giving $1$ when the test suggests rejecting $H_0$ and $0$ when the test does not suggest that $\endgroup$
    – Henry
    Aug 18, 2021 at 23:43
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, Henry, that's helpful. Could you please elaborate on where the $\sqrt[n]{\alpha}$ came from? I'm not following how that arises in your $\phi^*$. Thanks again! $\endgroup$ Aug 19, 2021 at 17:59
  • $\begingroup$ @AdrianKeister The aim is to get the probability of all $n$ observations being in the desired region to be $1-\alpha$ (so raising the probability each observation is in a suitable interval to the power $n$, so in reverse taking the $n$th root) - but one of my expressions needed a slight correction $\endgroup$
    – Henry
    Aug 19, 2021 at 20:09
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, I'm one of those people who find it very difficult to follow outlines of proofs instead of step-by-step proofs worked out in complete detail (a good bit of the time). Do you have a book or web reference I can examine that solves this problem step-by-step? Thanks again for your time! $\endgroup$ Aug 19, 2021 at 20:17

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.