Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with neyman-pearson-lemma
Search options not deleted
user 331303
A theorem stating that likelihood ratio test is the most powerful test of point null hypothesis against point alternative hypothesis. DO NOT use this tag for Neyman-Pearson approach to hypothesis testing, this tag is for the lemma only.
1
vote
1
answer
57
views
Show a composite test is the most powerful after deriving a similar most powerful simple test
Let $X$ be a real-valued random variable with density $f(x) = (2\theta x + 1 - \theta) \mathbb{1}(x \in [0,1])$ where $1$ here is the indicator function and $-1 < \theta < 1$. I am trying to derive th …
- 216