1
$\begingroup$

Say I have two groups. I collect $n$ data points from the first ($A$) group ($x_i$) and $m$ data points from the second ($B$) group ($y_j$). The null hypothesis is that the means of the two groups are the same.

$$H_0: \mu_B = \mu_A$$ $$=> \mu_B-\mu_A=0$$ The alternate hypothesis is that the mean of group $B$ is larger than the mean of group $A$ by some effect size, $e$. $$H_1: \mu_B=\mu_A+e$$ $$=>\mu_B-\mu_A=e$$

I'll assume that the variances of the two groups are the same. I want to use the Neyman Pearson lemma to show that the test statistic that will yield the most power is the one used in the two-sample t-test (or the Wald test). I've been unable to do this and wanted to see if someone can help.

My attempt:

In a similar theme to the example provided in the Wikipedia article, I first construct the likelihood function:

$$L(\mu_B, \mu_A | x_i, y_j) \propto \exp\left( -\sum_i(x_i-\mu_A)^2 - \sum_j(y_j-\mu_B)^2\right)$$ $$\propto \exp\left(-\left(\sum x_i^2 + \sum y_j^2\right)-2\left(\mu_A \sum x_i+\mu_B\sum y_j\right) +(\mu_A^2+\mu_B^2)\right)$$

Now it seems like when I take the likelihood ratio for the two hypotheses, everything will cancel and the ratio will depend only on $\sum y_j$. This is obviously not right. Where did I go wrong?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ The likelihood is a function of $(\mu_A,\mu_B)$ not $\mu_a-\mu_B$. $\endgroup$
    – Xi'an
    Dec 13, 2021 at 9:39
  • $\begingroup$ Makes sense, updated. $\endgroup$
    – ryu576
    Dec 13, 2021 at 19:53
  • $\begingroup$ The common (unknown) variance must make an appearance in the formulas for the likelihood. $\endgroup$
    – whuber ♦
    Dec 13, 2021 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ Instead of parameterizing the model in terms of $\mu_A$ and $\mu_B$ can you parameterize it in terms of $\mu_A$ and $\theta$ where $\theta\equiv\mu_B-\mu_A$? $\endgroup$
    – Geoffrey Johnson
    Dec 13, 2021 at 20:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Everything cancels if one uses the same parameter values top and bottom. You have to use different parameters top and bottom, eg $(\mu_B, \mu_A)$ and $(\mu_B^\prime, \mu_A^\prime)$. And maximise top and bottom separately under both hypotheses (for the generalised likelihood ratio test, not Neyman-Pearson). $\endgroup$
    – Xi'an
    Dec 14, 2021 at 5:40

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

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