I've been studying the Neyman-Pearson theorem and I want to know if my understanding about the relationship between test statistics and the significance level $\alpha$ is correct. My problem to understand it's how we can come up with different cutoffs with the same $\alpha=0.05$. What I didn't realize is the cutoffs are related to the tests and not to the p.d.f. of the distribution (right?). Since the tests $T1$ and $T_2$ are different I can have different cutoffs $C_1$ and $C_2$ with the same $\alpha$. In the context of the Neyman-Pearson theorem, I choose the most powerful test. Am I right?
2026-04-01 10:38:55.1775039935
Am I correct about my intuitive understanding of Neyman-Pearson theorem?
148 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in STATISTICS
- Given is $2$ dimensional random variable $(X,Y)$ with table. Determine the correlation between $X$ and $Y$
- Statistics based on empirical distribution
- Given $U,V \sim R(0,1)$. Determine covariance between $X = UV$ and $V$
- Fisher information of sufficient statistic
- Solving Equation with Euler's Number
- derive the expectation of exponential function $e^{-\left\Vert \mathbf{x} - V\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{a}\right\Vert^2}$ or its upper bound
- Determine the marginal distributions of $(T_1, T_2)$
- KL divergence between two multivariate Bernoulli distribution
- Given random variables $(T_1,T_2)$. Show that $T_1$ and $T_2$ are independent and exponentially distributed if..
- Probability of tossing marbles,covariance
Related Questions in STATISTICAL-INFERENCE
- co-variance matrix of discrete multivariate random variable
- Question on completeness of sufficient statistic.
- Probability of tossing marbles,covariance
- Estimate the square root of the success probability of a Binomial Distribution.
- A consistent estimator for theta is?
- Using averages to measure the dispersion of data
- Confidence when inferring p in a binomial distribution
- A problem on Maximum likelihood estimator of $\theta$
- Derive unbiased estimator for $\theta$ when $X_i\sim f(x\mid\theta)=\frac{2x}{\theta^2}\mathbb{1}_{(0,\theta)}(x)$
- Show that $\max(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ is a sufficient statistic.
Related Questions in HYPOTHESIS-TESTING
- Neyman-Pearson precision problem
- Rejecting null based on the likelihood ratio test
- What statistical test should I use?
- Should We Use a Paired or Two-Sample Test?
- How to prove inadmissibility of a decision rule?
- Statistics Hypothesis Testing of Continuous Variables
- Experimentally proving bias
- Hypothesis testing: mean comparison
- uniformly most powerful test: binomial distribution
- Can significance check be applied and which one?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?

Yes, of course.
$T_1$ and $T_2$ tests have their own distribution that you have to calculate. These distribution can obvioulsy be different from the pdf of the original rv
Limiting the reasoning to a system of simple hypothesis (both simple), Neymann Pearson Lemma grants you to find the Most powerful of all possible tests, say a test with a higher power with respect to any other test with the same (or lower) size $\alpha$
You will see that in many case the distribution of the test can be very hard to find thus you will have to reason on some function of the distribution in order to find the cut off bound(s)
Example
Let's have the following population density
$$f(x,\theta)=\theta x^{\theta-1}$$
where $x \in [0;1]$,$\theta>0$,
Using a simple random sample $(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ let's prove the following system
$$\begin{cases} H_0: & \theta=1 \\ H_1: & \theta=2 \end{cases}$$
First Test
I do not apply NP lemma, I choose a test by myself. I choose the following test
$T_1$: reject $H_0$ if $X_1>0.95$
(I do not mind I have 3 observation, I base my test only on the first observation $X_1$)
Let's calculate $\alpha$:
$$P(X_1>0.95|\theta=1)=\int_{0.95}^{1}dx=0.05$$
So my test has a Type I error of $5\%$...nice. Now let's calculate the power:
$$\gamma=P(X_1>0.95|\theta=2)=\int_{0.95}^{1}2x dx=0.0975\approx 10\%$$
Second Test
I apply NP lemma:
$$\frac{L(\mathbf{x}|\theta_0)}{L(\mathbf{x}|\theta_1)}\leq k$$
$$\frac{1}{8X_1X_2X_3}\leq k$$
taking the logarithm,
$$\Sigma_i(-log X_i)\leq c$$
Observing that $-log X_i\sim Exp(\theta)$
We have that the critical region is
$$Y\leq c$$
where $Y\sim Gamma(3;\theta)$ that is $2\theta Y\sim \chi_{(6)}^2$
Now to compare the two test, let's fix $\alpha=0.05$ also fot $T_2$
$$0.05=P(\chi_{(6)}^2<c) \rightarrow c=1.64$$
that is $Y=0.82$
Finally let's calculate $T_2$ power
$$\gamma=P(Y<0.82|\theta=2)=P(\chi_{(6)}^2<3.27)\approx 22.6\%$$
whichi is greater than $T_1$ power...