IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0255024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Min-max approach for comparison of univariate normality tests

Author

Listed:
  • Tanweer Ul Islam

Abstract

Comparison of normality tests based on absolute or average powers are bound to give ambiguous results, since these statistics critically depend upon the alternative distribution which cannot be specified. A test which is optimal against a certain type of alternatives may perform poorly against other alternative distributions. Thus, an invariant benchmark is proposed in the recent normality literature by computing Neyman-Pearson tests against each alternative distribution. However, the computational cost of this benchmark is significantly high, therefore, this study proposes an alternative approach for computing the benchmark. The proposed min-max approach reduces the calculation cost in terms of computing and estimating the Neyman-Pearson tests against each alternative distribution. An extensive simulation study is conducted to evaluate the selected normality tests using the proposed methodology. The proposed min-max method produces similar results in comparison with the benchmark based on Neyman-Pearson tests but at a low computational cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanweer Ul Islam, 2021. "Min-max approach for comparison of univariate normality tests," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0255024
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255024
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255024&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0255024?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0255024. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.