Some subset selection problems

Consider that we have a collection of k populations π₁, π₂…,π_k. The quality of the ith population is characterized by a real parameter θ_i and the population is to be designated as superior or inferior depending on how much the θ_i differs from θ_max = max{θ₁, θ₂,…,θ_k}. From the set {π₁, π₂,…,π_k}, we wish to select the subset of superior populations. In this paper we devise rules of selection which have the property that their selected set excludes all the inferior populations with probability at least 1?α, where a is a specified number.     

A two stage procedure for selecting δ∗-optimal means in the normal model

Suppose π₁,…,π_k are k normal populations with π_i having unknown mean μ_i and unknown variance σ². The population π_i will be called δ^?-optimal (or good) if μ_i is within a specified amountδ? of the largest mean. A two stage procedure is proposed which selects a subset of the k populations and guarantees with probability at least P^? that the selected subset contains only δ?-optimal π_i ’s. In addition to screening out non-good populations the rule guarantees a high proportion of sufficiently good π_i’S will be selected.     

Some locally optimal subset selection rules for comparison with a control

Let π₀,π₁,…,π_k be k+1 independent populations. For i=0,1,…,k,π_i has the densit f(x,θ_i), where the (unknown) parameter θ_i belongs to an interval of the real line. Our goal is to select from π₁,… π_k (experimental treatments) those populations, if any, that are better (suitably defined) than π₀ which is the control population. A locally optimal rule is derived in the class of rules for which Pr(π_i is selected)γ_i, i=1,…,k, when θ₀=θ₁=?=θ_k. The criterion used for local optimality amounts to maximizing the efficiency in a certain sense of the rule in picking out the superior populations for specific configurations of θ=(θ₀,…,θ_k) in a neighborhood of an equiparameter configuration. The general result is then applied to the following special cases: (a) normal means comparison — common known variance, (b) normal means comparison — common unknown variance, (c) gamma scale parameters comparison — known (unequal) shape parameters, and (d) comparison of regression slopes. In all these cases, the rule is obtained based on samples of unequal sizes.     

Simultaneous selection of extreme populations:a bayesian approach

The problem of simultaneously selecting two non-empty subsets, S_Land S_U, of k populations which contain the lower extreme population (LEP) and the upper extreme population (UEP), respectively, is considered. Unknown parameters θ₁,…,θ_kcharacterize the populations π₁,…,π_kand the populations associated with θ_[1]=min θ_i. and θ_[k]= max θ_i. are called the LEP and the UEP, respectively. It is assumed that the underlying distributions possess the monotone likelihood ratio property and that the prior distribution of θ= (θ₁,…,θ_k) is exchangeable. The Bayes rule with respect to a general loss function is obtained. Bayes rule with respect to a semi-additive and non-negative loss function is also determined and it is shown that it is minimax and admissible. When the selected subsets are required to be disjoint, it shown that the Bayes rule with respect to a specific loss function can be obtained by comparing certain computable integrals, Application to normal distributions with unknown means θ₁,…,θ_kand a common known variance is also considered.     

Simultaneous estimation of Poisson means of the selected subset

Let _π1,_π2,…,_πp${\pi }_1,{\pi }_2,\dots ,{\pi }_p$ be p   independent Poisson populations with means _λ1,…,_λp${\lambda }_1,\dots ,{\lambda }_p$, respectively. Let {X₁,…,X_p} denote the set of observations, where X_i is from _πi${\pi }_i$. Suppose a subset of populations is selected using Gupta and Huang's (1975) selection rule which selects _πi${\pi }_i$ if and only if _Xi+1?_cX(1)$X_i+1?{\mathit{cX}}_{(1)}$, where X₍₁₎=max{X₁,…,X_p}, and 0<c<1$0<c<1$. In this paper, the simultaneous estimation of the Poisson means associated with the selected populations is considered for the k-normalized squared error loss function. It is shown that the natural estimator is positively biased. Also, a class of estimators that are better than the natural estimator is obtained by solving certain difference inequalities over the sample space. A class of estimators which dominate the UMVUE is also obtained. Monte carlo simulations are used to assess the percentage improvements and an application to a real-life example is also discussed.     

A Bayesian non‐inferiority test for two independent binomial proportions

In drug development, non‐inferiority tests are often employed to determine the difference between two independent binomial proportions. Many test statistics for non‐inferiority are based on the frequentist framework. However, research on non‐inferiority in the Bayesian framework is limited. In this paper, we suggest a new Bayesian index τ = P(π₁ > π₂ ? Δ₀ | X₁,X₂), where X₁ and X₂ denote binomial random variables for trials n₁ and n₂, and parameters π₁ and π₂, respectively, and the non‐inferiority margin is Δ₀ > 0. We show two calculation methods for τ, an approximate method that uses normal approximation and an exact method that uses an exact posterior PDF. We compare the approximate probability with the exact probability for τ. Finally, we present the results of actual clinical trials to show the utility of index τ. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

ON TESTING AGAINST RESTRICTED ALTERNATIVES FOR THE VARIANCES OF GAUSSIAN MODELS

Let π₁,…,π_p be p independent normal populations with means μ₁…, μ_p and variances σ²₁,…, σ²_p respectively. Let X(n_i) be a simple random sample of size n_i from π_i, i = 1,…,p. Given the simple random samples X(n₁),…, X(n_p) from π₁,…,π_p respectively, a test has been proposed for testing the homogeneity of variances H₀: σ²₁=…σ²_p, against the restricted alternative, H₁: σ²₁≥…≥σ²_p, with at least one strict inequality. Some properties of the test are discussed and critical values are tabulated.     

Efficiency comparison of unrelated question models based on same privacy protection degree

In this study, the problem of estimating the proportion π _A of people bearing a sensitive attribute A is considered. Three dichotomous unrelated question mechanisms which are alternative to the well-known Simmons’ model are discussed and their performance is evaluated taking into account both efficiency and respondent privacy protection. The variance of the estimators of π _A is compared under equal levels of confidentiality measures introduced by Lanke (1976) and Leysieffer and Warner (1976).     

The Likelihood Ratio Test with the Box–Cox Transformation for the Normal Mixture Problem: Power and Sample Size Study

Abstract

Through simulation and regression, we study the alternative distribution of the likelihood ratio test in which the null hypothesis postulates that the data are from a normal distribution after a restricted Box–Cox transformation and the alternative hypothesis postulates that they are from a mixture of two normals after a restricted (possibly different) Box–Cox transformation. The number of observations in the sample is called N. The standardized distance between components (after transformation) is D = (μ₂ ? μ₁)/σ, where μ₁ and μ₂ are the component means and σ² is their common variance. One component contains the fraction π of observed, and the other 1 ? π. The simulation results demonstrate a dependence of power on the mixing proportion, with power decreasing as the mixing proportion differs from 0.5. The alternative distribution appears to be a non-central chi-squared with approximately 2.48 + 10N ^?0.75 degrees of freedom and non-centrality parameter 0.174N(D ? 1.4)² × [π(1 ? π)]. At least 900 observations are needed to have power 95% for a 5% test when D = 2. For fixed values of D, power, and significance level, substantially more observations are necessary when π ≥ 0.90 or π ≤ 0.10. We give the estimated powers for the alternatives studied and a table of sample sizes needed for 50%, 80%, 90%, and 95% power.     

A Condition to Obtain the Same Decision in the Homogeneity Testing Problem from the Frequentist and Bayesian Point of View

We develop a Bayesian procedure for the homogeneity testing problem of r populations using r × s contingency tables. The posterior probability of the homogeneity null hypothesis is calculated using a mixed prior distribution. The methodology consists of choosing an appropriate value of π₀ for the mass assigned to the null and spreading the remainder, 1 ? π₀, over the alternative according to a density function. With this method, a theorem which shows when the same conclusion is reached from both frequentist and Bayesian points of view is obtained. A sufficient condition under which the p-value is less than a value α and the posterior probability is also less than 0.5 is provided.     

On ε-contaminated priors with quantile and piece-wise unimodality constraints

In this work we examine the e-contamination model of prior densities γ={π:π=(1-ε)π₀(θ)+εq: qεG}, where π₀(θ) is the base elicited prior, q is a contamination belonging to some suitable class G and ε reflects the amount of error in π₀(θ). Various classes with shape and/or quantile constraints are analysed, and a posterior robust analysis is carried out. It turns out that quantile restrictions alone do not produce asymptotical rational behaviour, so it is unavoidable to introduce shape constraints as well. The conclusions are in line with those of O'Hagan and Berger (1988). Illustrations related to testing hypothesis and likelihood sets are given.     

A Bayes-type estimator for the Bradley-Terry model for paired comparison

A Bayes-type estimator is proposed for the worth parameter π_i and for the treatment effect parameter ln π_i in the Bradley-Terry Model for paired comparison. In contrast to current Bayes estimators which require iterative numberical calculations, this estimator has a closed form expression. This estimation technique is also extended to obtain estimators for the Luce Multiple Comparison Model. An application of this technique to a 2³ factorial experiment with paired comparisons is presented.     

A note on some negative dependence notions

A random vector X = (X ₁,…,X _n ) is negatively associated if and only if for every pair of partitions X ₁ = (X _π(1),…,X _π(k)), X ₂ = (X _π(k+1),…,X _π(n)) of X , P( X ₁ ? A, X ₂ ? B) ≤ P( X ₁ ? A)P( X ₂ ? B) whenever A and B are open upper sets and π is any permutation of {1,…,n}. In this paper, we develop some of concepts of negative dependence, which are weaker than negative association but stronger than negative orthant dependence by requiring the above inequality to hold only for some upper sets A and B and applying the arguments in Shaked.     

A note on estimating the false discovery rate under mixture model

In this note, we focus on estimating the false discovery rate (FDR) of a multiple testing method with a common, non-random rejection threshold under a mixture model. We develop a new class of estimates of the FDR and prove that it is less conservatively biased than what is traditionally used. Numerical evidence is presented to show that the mean squared error (MSE) is also often smaller for the present class of estimates, especially in small-scale multiple testings. A similar class of estimates of the positive false discovery rate (pFDR) less conservatively biased than what is usually used is then proposed. When modified using our estimate of the pFDR and applied to a gene-expression data, Storey's q-value method identifies a few more significant genes than his original q-value method at certain thresholds. The BH like method developed by thresholding our estimate of the FDR is shown to control the FDR in situations where the p  -values have the same dependence structure as required by the BH method and, for lack of information about the proportion _π0${\pi }_0$ of true null hypotheses, it is reasonable to assume that _π0${\pi }_0$ is uniformly distributed over (0,1).     

The rank transformation as a method of discrimination with some examples

The procedure of statistical discrimination Is simple in theory but so simple in practice. An observation x₀possibly uiultivariate, is to be classified into one of several populations π₁,…,π_k which have respectively, the density functions f₁(x), ? ? ? , f_k(x). The decision procedure is to evaluate each density function at X₀ to see which function gives the largest value f_i(X₀) , and then to declare that X₀ belongs to the population corresponding to the largest value. If these den-sities can be assumed to be normal with equal covariance matricesthen the decision procedure is known as Fisher’s linear discrimi-nant function (LDF) method. In the case of unequal covariance matrices the procedure is called the quadratic discriminant func-tion (QDF) method. If the densities cannot be assumed to be nor-mal then the LDF and QDF might not perform well. Several different procedures have appeared in the literature which offer discriminant procedures for nonnormal data. However, these pro-cedures are generally difficult to use and are not readily available as canned statistical programs.

Another approach to discriminant analysis is to use some sortof mathematical trans format ion on the samples so that their distribution function is approximately normal, and then use the convenient LDF and QDF methods. One transformation that:applies to all distributions equally well is the rank transformation. The result of this transformation is that a very simple and easy to use procedure is made available. This procedure is quite robust as is evidenced by comparisons of the rank transform results with several published simulation studies.     

Importance tempering

Simulated tempering (ST) is an established Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method for sampling from a multimodal density π(θ). Typically, ST involves introducing an auxiliary variable k taking values in a finite subset of [0,1] and indexing a set of tempered distributions, say π _k (θ)∝ π(θ) ^k . In this case, small values of k encourage better mixing, but samples from π are only obtained when the joint chain for (θ,k) reaches k=1. However, the entire chain can be used to estimate expectations under π of functions of interest, provided that importance sampling (IS) weights are calculated. Unfortunately this method, which we call importance tempering (IT), can disappoint. This is partly because the most immediately obvious implementation is naïve and can lead to high variance estimators. We derive a new optimal method for combining multiple IS estimators and prove that the resulting estimator has a highly desirable property related to the notion of effective sample size. We briefly report on the success of the optimal combination in two modelling scenarios requiring reversible-jump MCMC, where the naïve approach fails.