Is My Application of the Neyman-Pearson Lemma Correct?

  • MHB
  • Thread starter mathjam0990
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Apply
In summary, the conversation discusses finding the critical region for a hypothesis test with a single observation. The formula for the critical region is given and the steps for finding the rejection region are explained. The process is generalized to multiple observations as well.
  • #1
mathjam0990
29
0
View attachment 5426What I have done so far...

View attachment 5427

Is this correct so far? If not, would someone be able to provide an explanation as to how to solve this? I am not sure if I am going in the right direction. Thank you
 

Attachments

  • (4).jpg
    (4).jpg
    34.6 KB · Views: 75
  • (5).jpg
    (5).jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 68
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Your work is fine so far! However, the question states that we only consider a single observation. Therefore, you just have to consider the quotient of the likelihoods for one observation $x$: The critical region $C$ is given by
$$\frac{L(\theta_0 \ | \ x)}{L(\theta_1 \ | \ x)} \geq k.$$
An easy calculation gives
$$\frac{L(\theta_0 \ | \ x)}{L(\theta_1 \ | \ x)} = \frac{\theta_0 (1-\theta_0)^{x-1}}{\theta_1 (1-\theta_1)^{x-1}} = \left(\frac{\theta_0}{\theta_1}\right)\left(\frac{1-\theta_0}{1-\theta_1}\right)^{x-1} \geq k,$$
which implies that (please recheck this)
$$x \geq 1 + \frac{\ln\left(\frac{k \theta_1}{\theta_0}\right)}{\ln\left(\frac{1-\theta_0}{1-\theta_1}\right)} := k^{*}.$$
Hence, by the Neyman-Pearson lemma, the rejection region for the most powerful hypothesis test $H_0: \theta = \theta_0$ and $H_A: \theta =\theta_1$ where $\theta_1>\theta_0$ is given by $x \geq k^{*}$. Note that since the geometric distribution is discrete, this critical region $C = \{k^{*},k^{*}+1,\ldots,\}$. We still need to compute $k^{*}$. This can be done by looking at the type $I$-error, since $\mathbb{P}(H_0 \ \mbox{is false} \ | \ H_0) = \alpha$. Now $H_0$ is false if $x \geq k^{*}$ and hence the type $I$-error satisfies
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}(X \geq k^{*} \ | \theta = \theta_0) = \sum_{k = k^{*}}^{\infty} (1-\theta_0)^{k-1} \theta_0 = \alpha,
\end{align}
from which you can extract $k^{*}$. I think you can also generalize this to multiple observations $x_1,\ldots,x_n$. In that case you will have to determine the distribution of $\overline{x}$ which can be a little bit more messy.
 

Related to Is My Application of the Neyman-Pearson Lemma Correct?

1. What is the Neyman-Pearson Lemma?

The Neyman-Pearson Lemma is a statistical principle that is used to make decisions based on data. It states that when testing two competing hypotheses, the most powerful test is the one that minimizes the probability of making a Type II error (incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis when it is false) subject to a fixed probability of making a Type I error (incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true).

2. How is the Neyman-Pearson Lemma used in scientific research?

The Neyman-Pearson Lemma is commonly used in hypothesis testing, which is a fundamental aspect of scientific research. It helps researchers determine whether their data supports a particular hypothesis or not by calculating the probability of making errors when accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis.

3. What is the difference between the Neyman-Pearson Lemma and other statistical tests?

The Neyman-Pearson Lemma differs from other statistical tests in that it focuses on controlling the probability of making a Type I error, rather than minimizing the overall error rate. This makes it a more powerful test for determining the significance of a particular result.

4. Can the Neyman-Pearson Lemma be applied to all types of data?

Yes, the Neyman-Pearson Lemma can be applied to all types of data as long as the data follows a known probability distribution. It is commonly used for continuous data, but can also be used for categorical or discrete data.

5. Are there any limitations to the Neyman-Pearson Lemma?

One limitation of the Neyman-Pearson Lemma is that it assumes the two competing hypotheses are simple and mutually exclusive. It also requires a fixed significance level, which may not always be appropriate for all research situations. Additionally, it does not take into account the potential costs or consequences of making a Type I or Type II error, which may be important in some contexts.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
431
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
901
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
954
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
964
Back
Top