4
$\begingroup$

I am a bit curious as to how I can show this. I am aware that you can find this by using the union-intersection test, but it has been hinted that one can use the LRT test to find that LRT for $H_0$ is given by the F test.

my work:

I have that $L(\theta\mid y)=\prod^k_{i=1}\prod^{n_i}_{j=1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2}}\exp[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}(y_{ij}-\theta_i)^2]$.

Since $\sum^k_{i=1}\sum^{n_i}_{j=1}(y_{ij}-\theta_i)^2=\sum^k_{i=1}\sum^{n_i}_{j=1}(y_{ij}-\bar{y}_{i.})^2+\sum^k_{i=1}n_i(\bar{y}_{i.}-\theta_i)^2= SSW+\sum^k_{i=1}n_i(\bar{y}_{i.}-\theta_i)^2$

we get that $L(\theta\mid y)=(\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^2})^{NK/2}\exp[-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}(SSW+\sum^k_{i=1}n_i(\bar{y}_{i.}-\theta_i)^2)]$.

Now under $H_0$, I see that $\sum^k_{i=1}n_i(\bar{y}_{i.}-\theta_i)^2=\sum^k_{i=1}n_i(\bar{y}_{i.}-\bar{y}_{..})^2$.

However, I do not know where to go from here to show that the LRT of $H_0:\theta_1=\cdots=\theta_k$ is given by the F test.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

I am going to state the known facts because the complete derivation is rather lengthy.

You have $y_{ij}\sim N(\theta_i,\sigma^2)$ independently for $i=1,\ldots,k;j=1,\ldots,n_i$ where $\sigma^2$ is unknown.

To test $$H_0:\theta_1=\theta_2=\cdots=\theta_k=\theta \text{ (say)}\quad\text{ vs. } \quad H_1:\text{not }H_0$$

Suppose $\boldsymbol\theta=(\theta_1,\theta_2,\ldots,\theta_k)$ and $\sum\limits_{i=1}^k n_i=n(>k)$.

Then likelihood function given the sample $\boldsymbol y=(y_{ij})_{i,j}$ is

$$L(\boldsymbol\theta,\sigma^2\mid \boldsymbol y)=\frac1{(\sigma\sqrt{2\pi})^n}\exp\left[-\frac1{2\sigma^2}\sum_{i,j}(y_{ij}-\theta_i)^2\right]$$

Unrestricted MLEs of $\boldsymbol\theta$ and $\sigma^2$ are

$$\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta}=(\overline y_1,\overline y_2,\ldots,\overline y_k)\quad,\quad \widehat{\sigma}^2=\frac{\text{SSE}}{n}$$

where $\overline y_{i\cdot}=\frac1{n_i}\sum_j y_{ij}$ is the $i$th group mean for all $i$ and $\text{SSE}=\sum_{i,j}(y_{ij}-\overline y_{i\cdot})^2$.

Restricted MLEs under $H_0$ are

$$\widehat{\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta}}=(\overline y,\overline y,\ldots,\overline y) \quad,\quad \widehat{\widehat{\sigma}}^2=\frac{\text{TSS}}{n}$$

where $\overline y=\frac1n\sum_i n_i\overline y_{i\cdot}$ is the grand mean and $$\text{TSS}=\sum_{i,j}(y_{ij}-\overline y)^2=\underbrace{\sum_i n_i(\overline y_{i\cdot}-\overline y)^2}_{\text{SSB}}+\underbrace{\sum_{i,j}(y_{ij}-\overline y_{i\cdot})^2}_{\text{SSE}}$$

The likelihood ratio simplifies as

$$ \Lambda(\boldsymbol y)=\frac{L\left(\widehat{\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta}}, \widehat{\widehat{\sigma}}^2\mid \boldsymbol y\right)}{L\left(\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta},\widehat{\sigma}^2\mid \boldsymbol y\right)} =\left(\frac{\widehat{\sigma}^2}{\widehat{\widehat{\sigma}}^2}\right)^{n/2} =\frac1{\left(\frac{\text{TSS}}{\text{SSE}}\right)^{n/2}} =\frac1{\left(1+\frac{\text{SSB}}{\text{SSE}}\right)^{n/2}} $$

We reject $H_0$ when $\Lambda(\boldsymbol y)<\text{constant}$, i.e. when $$\frac{\text{SSB}}{\text{SSE}}>\text{constant}$$

Now $\frac1{\sigma^2}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n_i}(y_{ij}-\overline y_{i\cdot})^2 \sim \chi^2_{n_i-1}$ independently for all $i$, so that $$\frac{\text{SSE}}{\sigma^2}\sim \chi^2_{n-k}$$

Again $\overline y_{i\cdot}\stackrel{H_0}\sim N\left(\theta,\frac{\sigma^2}{n_i}\right)$ independently for all $i$, so as argued here,

$$\frac{\text{SSB}}{\sigma^2}\stackrel{H_0}\sim \chi^2_{k-1}$$

Moreover $\text{SSB}$ and $\text{SSE}$ are independent because $(y_{ij}-\overline y_{i\cdot},\overline y_{i\cdot}-\overline y)_{i,j}$ is jointly normal and

$$\operatorname{Cov}(y_{ij}-\overline y_{i\cdot},\overline y_{i\cdot}-\overline y)=0\quad,\forall\,i,j$$

These results are of course part of the Fisher-Cochran theorem.

Finally the test statistic is $$\frac{\text{SSB}/(k-1)}{\text{SSE}/(n-k)}\stackrel{H_0}\sim F_{k-1,n-k}$$

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Plugging the MLEs into the expression for the multivariate normal density, the maximum likelihoods under each hypothesis $H_j$, $j=0,1$, is easily seen to be $$ \newcommand{\SSE}{\text{SSE}} (2\pi \SSE_j/n))^{-n/2}e^{-n/2}, $$ where $\SSE_j$, $j=0,1$, are the residual sums of squares. Hence, the ratio between the two maximum likelihoods is a strictly monotonic function of $$ \SSE_0/\SSE_1, $$ which in turn is a strictly monotonic function of $$ F=\frac{(\SSE_0-\SSE_1)/(p_1-p_0)}{\SSE_1/(n-p_1)}. $$ Hence the $F$-test is equivalent to the likelihood ratio test.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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