两组分改良Lilliefors正态性检验

Equilibrium Pub Date : 2021-06-30 DOI:10.24136/eq.2021.016
P. Sulewski
{"title":"两组分改良Lilliefors正态性检验","authors":"P. Sulewski","doi":"10.24136/eq.2021.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research background: Commonly known and used parametric tests e.g. Student, Behrens? Fisher, Snedecor, Bartlett, Cochran, Hartley tests are applicable when there is an evidence that samples come from the Normal general population. What makes things worse is that testers are not fully aware in what degree of abnormality distorts results of parametric tests listed above and suchlike. So, it is no exaggeration to say that testing for normality (goodness-of-fit testing, GoFT) is a gate to proper parametric statistical reasoning. It seems that the gate opens too easily. In other words, most popular goodness-of-fit tests are weaker than statisticians want them to be. \nPurpose of the article: The main purpose of this paper is to put forward the GoFT that is, in particular circumstances, more powerful than GoFTs used until now. The other goals are to define a similarity measure between an alternative distribution and the normal one and to calculate the power of normality tests for a big set of alternatives. And, of course, to interest statisticians in using the GoFTs in their practice. \nMethod: There are two ways to make GoFT more powerful: extensive and intensive one. The extensive method consists in drawing large samples. The intensive method consists in extracting more information from mall samples. In order to make the test method intensive, the test statistics, as distinct from all existing GoFTs, has two components. The first component (denoted by ?) is a classic Kolmogorov / Lilliefors test statistics i.e. the greatest absolute difference between theoretical and empirical cumulative distribution functions. The second component is the order statistics (r) at which the ?_max^((r) ) locate itself. Of course ?_max^((r) ) is the conditional random variable with (r) being the condition. Large scale Monte Carlo simulations provided data sufficient to in-depth study of properties of distributions of ?_max^((r) ) random variable. \nFindings & value-added: Simulation study shows that the Two Component Modified Lilliefors test for normality is the most powerful for some type of alternatives, especially for the symmetrical, unimodal and bimodal distributions with positive excess kurtosis, for symmetrical and unimodal distributions with negative excess kurtosis and small sample sizes. Due to the values of skewness and excess kurtosis, and the defined similarity measure between the ND and an alternative, alternative distributions are close to the normal distribution. Numerous examples of real data show the usefulness of the proposed GoFT.","PeriodicalId":84667,"journal":{"name":"Equilibrium","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two component modified Lilliefors test for normality\",\"authors\":\"P. Sulewski\",\"doi\":\"10.24136/eq.2021.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research background: Commonly known and used parametric tests e.g. Student, Behrens? Fisher, Snedecor, Bartlett, Cochran, Hartley tests are applicable when there is an evidence that samples come from the Normal general population. What makes things worse is that testers are not fully aware in what degree of abnormality distorts results of parametric tests listed above and suchlike. So, it is no exaggeration to say that testing for normality (goodness-of-fit testing, GoFT) is a gate to proper parametric statistical reasoning. It seems that the gate opens too easily. In other words, most popular goodness-of-fit tests are weaker than statisticians want them to be. \\nPurpose of the article: The main purpose of this paper is to put forward the GoFT that is, in particular circumstances, more powerful than GoFTs used until now. The other goals are to define a similarity measure between an alternative distribution and the normal one and to calculate the power of normality tests for a big set of alternatives. And, of course, to interest statisticians in using the GoFTs in their practice. \\nMethod: There are two ways to make GoFT more powerful: extensive and intensive one. The extensive method consists in drawing large samples. The intensive method consists in extracting more information from mall samples. In order to make the test method intensive, the test statistics, as distinct from all existing GoFTs, has two components. The first component (denoted by ?) is a classic Kolmogorov / Lilliefors test statistics i.e. the greatest absolute difference between theoretical and empirical cumulative distribution functions. The second component is the order statistics (r) at which the ?_max^((r) ) locate itself. Of course ?_max^((r) ) is the conditional random variable with (r) being the condition. Large scale Monte Carlo simulations provided data sufficient to in-depth study of properties of distributions of ?_max^((r) ) random variable. \\nFindings & value-added: Simulation study shows that the Two Component Modified Lilliefors test for normality is the most powerful for some type of alternatives, especially for the symmetrical, unimodal and bimodal distributions with positive excess kurtosis, for symmetrical and unimodal distributions with negative excess kurtosis and small sample sizes. Due to the values of skewness and excess kurtosis, and the defined similarity measure between the ND and an alternative, alternative distributions are close to the normal distribution. Numerous examples of real data show the usefulness of the proposed GoFT.\",\"PeriodicalId\":84667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Equilibrium\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Equilibrium\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2021.016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Equilibrium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2021.016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究背景:常用的参数测试,如Student, Behrens?Fisher, Snedecor, Bartlett, Cochran, Hartley测试适用于有证据表明样本来自正常人群的情况。更糟糕的是,测试人员并没有完全意识到异常在多大程度上扭曲了上述参数测试的结果。因此,可以毫不夸张地说,正态性检验(拟合优度检验,GoFT)是正确参数统计推理的大门。这扇门似乎太容易打开了。换句话说,大多数流行的拟合优度测试都比统计学家希望的要弱。本文的目的:本文的主要目的是提出在特定情况下比目前使用的GoFT更强大的GoFT。另一个目标是定义备选分布和正态分布之间的相似性度量,并计算一组备选分布的正态检验的功率。当然,统计学家也有兴趣在他们的实践中使用goft。方法:通过粗放型和集约型两种途径增强GoFT。广泛的方法包括抽取大量的样本。密集方法包括从小样本中提取更多的信息。为了使测试方法集约化,与所有现有goft不同的测试统计有两个组成部分。第一个分量(用?表示)是经典的Kolmogorov / Lilliefors检验统计量,即理论和经验累积分布函数之间的最大绝对差。第二个组件是?_max^((r))所在的阶统计量(r)。当然,_max^((r))是条件随机变量,(r)是条件。大规模蒙特卡罗模拟为深入研究?_max^((r))随机变量的分布特性提供了足够的数据。结果和增值:模拟研究表明,对于某些类型的替代方案,特别是对于具有正超额峰度的对称、单峰和双峰分布,以及具有负超额峰度和小样本量的对称和单峰分布,双分量修正Lilliefors正态性检验是最有效的。由于偏度和过量峰度的值,以及定义的ND与备选分布之间的相似性度量,备选分布接近于正态分布。大量的实际数据实例表明了所提出的GoFT的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Two component modified Lilliefors test for normality
Research background: Commonly known and used parametric tests e.g. Student, Behrens? Fisher, Snedecor, Bartlett, Cochran, Hartley tests are applicable when there is an evidence that samples come from the Normal general population. What makes things worse is that testers are not fully aware in what degree of abnormality distorts results of parametric tests listed above and suchlike. So, it is no exaggeration to say that testing for normality (goodness-of-fit testing, GoFT) is a gate to proper parametric statistical reasoning. It seems that the gate opens too easily. In other words, most popular goodness-of-fit tests are weaker than statisticians want them to be. Purpose of the article: The main purpose of this paper is to put forward the GoFT that is, in particular circumstances, more powerful than GoFTs used until now. The other goals are to define a similarity measure between an alternative distribution and the normal one and to calculate the power of normality tests for a big set of alternatives. And, of course, to interest statisticians in using the GoFTs in their practice. Method: There are two ways to make GoFT more powerful: extensive and intensive one. The extensive method consists in drawing large samples. The intensive method consists in extracting more information from mall samples. In order to make the test method intensive, the test statistics, as distinct from all existing GoFTs, has two components. The first component (denoted by ?) is a classic Kolmogorov / Lilliefors test statistics i.e. the greatest absolute difference between theoretical and empirical cumulative distribution functions. The second component is the order statistics (r) at which the ?_max^((r) ) locate itself. Of course ?_max^((r) ) is the conditional random variable with (r) being the condition. Large scale Monte Carlo simulations provided data sufficient to in-depth study of properties of distributions of ?_max^((r) ) random variable. Findings & value-added: Simulation study shows that the Two Component Modified Lilliefors test for normality is the most powerful for some type of alternatives, especially for the symmetrical, unimodal and bimodal distributions with positive excess kurtosis, for symmetrical and unimodal distributions with negative excess kurtosis and small sample sizes. Due to the values of skewness and excess kurtosis, and the defined similarity measure between the ND and an alternative, alternative distributions are close to the normal distribution. Numerous examples of real data show the usefulness of the proposed GoFT.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信