0
$\begingroup$

Let $X_1,...,X_n$ be a random sample from $N(0,\sigma_X^2)$ and let $Y_1,...,Y_m$ be a random sample from $N(0,\sigma_Y^2)$. Define $\alpha := \sigma_Y^2/\sigma_X^2$. Find the level $\alpha$ LRT of $H_0 : \alpha = \alpha_0$ versus $H_1 : \alpha \ne \alpha_0$. Express the rejection region of the LRT in terms of an $F(n,m)$ random variable. (Hint: $F$ can be obtained as the ratio of scaled $\chi^2$ distributions, i.e. $F(n,m) = \frac{\chi^2_n/n}{\chi_m^2/m}$.)

First of all, I find it a little bit confusing to define $\alpha$ as $\sigma_Y^2/\sigma_X^2$. This $\alpha$ is not the same $\alpha$ as the level of the LRT, right?

Anyway, I determined that the LRT is $$\lambda(X,Y) = \frac{\sup_{\sigma_X^2,\sigma_Y^2:\frac{\sigma_Y^2}{\sigma_X^2} = \alpha_0}L(\sigma_X^2|X)L(\sigma_Y^2|Y)}{\sup_{\sigma_X^2,\sigma_Y^2}L(\sigma_X^2|X)L(\sigma_Y^2|Y)}$$

Calculating where the suprema are taken and substituting that gave me $$\lambda(X,Y)=\frac{(n+m)^{(n+m)/2}\alpha_0^{n/2}\big(\sum X_i^2\big)^{n/2}\big(\sum Y_i^2\big)^{m/2}}{n^{n/2}m^{m/2}\big(\alpha_0\sum X_i^2+\sum Y_i^2\big)^{(n+m)/2}}\le c$$

where $c$ still needs to be determined to ensure we have a level $\alpha$ test. However, to do so I would need to know the distribution of this monstrous expression. I know that I can rescale everything a bit to get that e.g. $\sum X_i^2$ is $\chi_n^2$-distributed, but I still do not know what happens if such a distribution is taken to some power, or multiplied by something, etc.

Furthermore, it is not clear to me how I should express the rejection region using this random variable $F$, but maybe this will become clear when I know how to solve the level $\alpha$ LRT. Thank you for any help in clearing things up for me.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree using $\alpha$ to define the ratio of the variances is confusing (and not appropriate) when $\alpha$ is also used to refer to the size of the test. This is likely a typo or an oversight on the author/instructor. $\endgroup$ – Just_to_Answer Jan 4 at 20:25
  • $\begingroup$ Three other notes: (1) Since $\sum X^2_i / \sigma^2_X$ has a $\chi^2$ distribution, it might be beneficial to simplify the likelihood ratio keeping that in mind; (2) If the left-side of the inequality can be written inside a single power, by taking an appropriate root the power can be moved over to the other side and call it a new "constant"; (3) similar idea for any lingering constants on the left side. $\endgroup$ – Just_to_Answer Jan 4 at 20:38
1
$\begingroup$

Here is a somewhat heuristic argument without going into details of a likelihood ratio test:

Suppose $\theta=\sigma_Y^2/\sigma_X^2$, and we are to test $H_0:\theta=\theta_0$ versus $H_1:\theta=\theta_1\,(\ne \theta_0)$.

Recall that the statistics $s_1^2=\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^n X_i^2$ and $s_2^2=\frac{1}{m}\sum\limits_{i=1}^m Y_i^2$ are unbiased and sufficient for $\sigma_X^2$ and $\sigma_Y^2$ respectively. Moreover, $\frac{ns_1^2}{\sigma_X^2}\sim\chi^2_n$ and $\frac{ms_2^2}{\sigma_Y^2}\sim\chi^2_m$ are independently distributed.

Then we readily have

$$F=\frac{ns_1^2/n\sigma_X^2}{ms_2^2/m\sigma_Y^2}=\frac{s_1^2}{s_2^2}\theta\sim F_{n,m}$$

So a test statistic for testing $H_0$ would be $$F=\frac{s_1^2}{s_2^2}\theta_0$$

We can say that expected value of the observed $F$ statistic is $$E(F)=\frac{m}{m-2}\approx 1$$

So it could be argued that the decision rule is "Reject $H_0$ if observed $F<c_1$ or observed $F>c_2$", where $c_1,c_2$ are so chosen that $$P_{H_0}(F<c_1)+P_{H_0}(F>c_2)=\alpha$$

I haven't made much progress with the LR test specifically, but I am pretty sure you would end up with a test of the above form.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.