{"title":"Score Statistics for Current Status Data: Comparisons with Likelihood Ratio and Wald Statistics","authors":"M. Banerjee, J. Wellner","doi":"10.2202/1557-4679.1001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we introduce three natural ``score statistics\" for testing the hypothesis that F(t_0)takes on a fixed value in the context of nonparametric inference with current status data. These three new test statistics have natural interpretations in terms of certain (weighted) L_2 distances, and are also connected to natural ``one-sided\" scores. We compare these new test statistics with the analogue of the classical Wald statistic and the likelihood ratio statistic introduced in Banerjee and Wellner (2001) for the same testing problem. Under classical ``regular\" statistical problems the likelihood ratio, score, and Wald statistics all have the same chi-squared limiting distribution under the null hypothesis. In sharp contrast, in this non-regular problem all three statistics have different limiting distributions under the null hypothesis. Thus we begin by establishing the limit distribution theory of the statistics under the null hypothesis, and discuss calculation of the relevant critical points for the test statistics. Once the null distribution theory is known, the immediate question becomes that of power. We establish the limiting behavior of the three types of statistics under local alternatives. We have also compared the power of these five different statistics via a limited Monte-Carlo study. Our conclusions are: (a) the Wald statistic is less powerful than the likelihood ratio and score statistics; and (b) one of the score statistics may have more power than the likelihood ratio statistic for some alternatives.","PeriodicalId":50333,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Biostatistics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2005-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1557-4679.1001","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Biostatistics","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1557-4679.1001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13
Abstract
In this paper we introduce three natural ``score statistics" for testing the hypothesis that F(t_0)takes on a fixed value in the context of nonparametric inference with current status data. These three new test statistics have natural interpretations in terms of certain (weighted) L_2 distances, and are also connected to natural ``one-sided" scores. We compare these new test statistics with the analogue of the classical Wald statistic and the likelihood ratio statistic introduced in Banerjee and Wellner (2001) for the same testing problem. Under classical ``regular" statistical problems the likelihood ratio, score, and Wald statistics all have the same chi-squared limiting distribution under the null hypothesis. In sharp contrast, in this non-regular problem all three statistics have different limiting distributions under the null hypothesis. Thus we begin by establishing the limit distribution theory of the statistics under the null hypothesis, and discuss calculation of the relevant critical points for the test statistics. Once the null distribution theory is known, the immediate question becomes that of power. We establish the limiting behavior of the three types of statistics under local alternatives. We have also compared the power of these five different statistics via a limited Monte-Carlo study. Our conclusions are: (a) the Wald statistic is less powerful than the likelihood ratio and score statistics; and (b) one of the score statistics may have more power than the likelihood ratio statistic for some alternatives.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Biostatistics (IJB) seeks to publish new biostatistical models and methods, new statistical theory, as well as original applications of statistical methods, for important practical problems arising from the biological, medical, public health, and agricultural sciences with an emphasis on semiparametric methods. Given many alternatives to publish exist within biostatistics, IJB offers a place to publish for research in biostatistics focusing on modern methods, often based on machine-learning and other data-adaptive methodologies, as well as providing a unique reading experience that compels the author to be explicit about the statistical inference problem addressed by the paper. IJB is intended that the journal cover the entire range of biostatistics, from theoretical advances to relevant and sensible translations of a practical problem into a statistical framework. Electronic publication also allows for data and software code to be appended, and opens the door for reproducible research allowing readers to easily replicate analyses described in a paper. Both original research and review articles will be warmly received, as will articles applying sound statistical methods to practical problems.