IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jmvana/v99y2008i8p1772-1792.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Likelihood ratio tests for equality of shape under varying degrees of orientation invariance

Author

Listed:
  • Holland, Finbarr
  • Roy Choudhury, Kingshuk

Abstract

We consider a problem from image cytometry where the objective is to describe possible changes in the shape and orientation of cellular nuclei after treatment with a toxin. The shapes of nuclei are represented by individual ellipses. It is argued that the shape comparison problem can be formulated as a generalization of a hypothesis test for the equality of covariance matrices. For many cell types, the test statistic should be invariant with respect to orientations of the cells. For other cell types, the test statistic should be equivariant with respect to orientations of the cells, but invariant with respect to orientations of the images. Likelihood ratio tests (LRTs) are derived under a Wishart model. The likelihood maximization uses a new result about the minimization of the determinant of a sum of matrices under individual rotations. The applicability and limitations of these LRTs are demonstrated by means of simulation experiments. The reference distributions of the test statistics under the null hypothesis are obtained using unrestricted and restricted randomization procedures. Justification for the Wishart model is provided using a residual diagnostic method. The scientific implications of the results are considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Holland, Finbarr & Roy Choudhury, Kingshuk, 2008. "Likelihood ratio tests for equality of shape under varying degrees of orientation invariance," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 99(8), pages 1772-1792, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jmvana:v:99:y:2008:i:8:p:1772-1792
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047-259X(08)00027-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    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:eee:jmvana:v:99:y:2008:i:8:p:1772-1792. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622892/description#description .

    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.