3
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathcal{H}_0:\theta\in\Theta_0$ and $\mathcal{H}_1:\theta\in\Theta_1$ be the null and alternative hypotheses. The power of a test $\delta$ is defined as: $$\pi_{\delta}:\Theta\to[0,1] \ s.t.\ \pi_{\delta}(\theta)=\mathbb{P}_{\theta}(\delta(X_1,...,X_n)=1)$$where $\delta(X_1,...,X_n)=1$ if it rejects $\mathcal{H}_0$ and 0 if it doesn't. Also, the size of the test $\delta$ is defined as: $$\alpha_{\delta}^*=\sup_{\theta\in\Theta_0}\pi_{\delta}(\theta)$$ I kind of understand these two concepts mathematically, but they're a bit dry to me yet. Does someone has an intuitive explanation for these concepts, or nice examples, interesting caveats, non-trivial but important remarks, etc. I really would like to have these concepts understood in a deeper way. Thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

I think this is a case when the notation makes it much denser than it really is. $\pi_\delta(\theta)$ gives the probability of rejecting $\mathcal H_0$ given that the "truth" is $\theta$, and the size of the test is like the largest probability of rejecting given that $\mathcal H_0$ is true (hence the supremum only being over $\theta\in\Theta_0$). Also I think what you've written is the type I error rate not the power, since the power would be the probability of correctly rejecting when $\theta\in\Theta_1$.

We're only talking about varying $\theta$ here so the event $\{\delta(\vec X) = 1\}$ is fixed, so we could consider $F := \{x \in \mathbb R^n : \delta(x) = 1\}$ (or we could pull all the way back to the original sample space $\Omega$) and then $\pi_\delta$ gives us the size of this event for different $\theta$. And the size of the test then is the biggest measure we give to this event when we only consider $\theta\in\Theta_0$ (so the term "size" makes sense too).

I think this is a bit reminiscent of the difference between loss and risk in that $\pi_\delta(\theta)$ is a useful thing to know for one particular $\theta$, but we need to make a decision at the level of $\Theta_0$ which can contain uncountably many $\theta$, so we want to reduce this to a univariate summary (to take advantage of the total ordering of $\mathbb R$). Often the two candidates for doing this are integrating or optimizing and in this case optimizing turns out to be useful and intuitive (and the collection $\{\pi_\delta(\theta) : \theta\in\Theta_0\}\subset \mathbb R$ so the least upper bound property of $\mathbb R$ means we don't have to worry about the $\sup$ being well-defined).

One consequence of using the $\sup$ is that we only care about the largest $F$ can be. It doesn't matter if $F$ has a small measure for "most" $\theta\in\Theta_0$ (i.e. for most $\theta\in\Theta_0$ we are unlikely to mistakenly reject); if there are any $\theta\in\Theta_0$ that lead to a large probability of rejection then the test has a large size (i.e. type I error rate). This is a worst-case thing.

$\endgroup$

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.