IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/strimo/v21y2003i4-2003p301-326n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which power of goodness of fit tests can really be expected: intermediate versus contiguous alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Janssen Arnold

Abstract

The present paper studies envelope power functions for goodness of fit models for asuitable submodel of infinite dimension of all continuous distributions on the real line. It turns out that after rescaling our alternatives with the factor 1/√n various envelope power bounds hold uniformly w.r.t. sample size n. The two-sided Neyman-Pearson power, the maximin and optimum mean power bounds of dimension d are studied in detail. It is shown that the latter envelope power bounds become flat for high dimensions d of alternative if they are compared with the power of Neyman-Pearson tests which serve as benchmark. These results can be used to compare intermediate and Pitman efficiency of goodness of fit tests. It is pointed out that contiguous alternatives can be used to discriminate competing tests whereas the intermediate efficiency is some sort of consistency only. It is also pointed out that no overall superior adaptive goodness of fit test exist. Agood comparison of competing tests can be done by their level points. It is shown that the level points of the maximin tests of dimension d grow with the rate d1/4.

Suggested Citation

  • Janssen Arnold, 2003. "Which power of goodness of fit tests can really be expected: intermediate versus contiguous alternatives," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 21(4), pages 301-326, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:strimo:v:21:y:2003:i:4/2003:p:301-326:n:2
    DOI: 10.1524/stnd.21.4.301.25350
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1524/stnd.21.4.301.25350
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1524/stnd.21.4.301.25350?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tadeusz Inglot & Teresa Ledwina, 2001. "Intermediate Approach to Comparison of Some Goodness-of-Fit Tests," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 53(4), pages 810-834, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. R. Eubank, 2009. "Comment on ‘Parametric versus nonparametrics: two alternative methodologies’," Journal of Nonparametric Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 407-410.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jan Mielniczuk & Małgorzata Wojtyś, 2010. "Estimation of Fisher information using model selection," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 163-187, September.
    2. M. Bogdan & K. Bogdan & A. Futschik, 2002. "A Data Driven Smooth Test for Circular Uniformity," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 54(1), pages 29-44, March.
    3. Nicolai Bissantz & Gerda Claeskens & Hajo Holzmann & Axel Munk, 2009. "Testing for lack of fit in inverse regression—with applications to biophotonic imaging," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(1), pages 25-48, January.
    4. Escanciano, J. Carlos & Lobato, Ignacio N., 2009. "An automatic Portmanteau test for serial correlation," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 151(2), pages 140-149, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:strimo:v:21:y:2003:i:4/2003:p:301-326:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.