Multinomial Selection for Comparison with a Standard

The multinomial selection problem is considered under the formulation of comparison with a standard, where each system is required to be compared to a single system, referred to as a “standard,” as well as to other alternative systems. The goal is to identify systems that are better than the standard, or to retain the standard when it is equal to or better than the other alternatives in terms of the probability to generate the largest or smallest performance measure. We derive new multinomial selection procedures for comparison with a standard to be applied in different scenarios, including exact small-sample procedure and approximate large-sample procedure. Empirical results and the proof are presented to demonstrate the statistical validity of our procedures. The tables of the procedure parameters and the corresponding exact probability of correct selection are also provided.     

Unit Root Testing in Heteroscedastic Panels Using the Cauchy Estimator

The Cauchy estimator of an autoregressive root uses the sign of the first lag as instrumental variable. The resulting IV t-type statistic follows a standard normal limiting distribution under a unit root case even under unconditional heteroscedasticity, if the series to be tested has no deterministic trends. The standard normality of the Cauchy test is exploited to obtain a standard normal panel unit root test under cross-sectional dependence and time-varying volatility with an orthogonalization procedure. The article’s analysis of the joint N, T asymptotics of the test suggests that (1) N should be smaller than T and (2) its local power is competitive with other popular tests. To render the test applicable when N is comparable with, or larger than, T, shrinkage estimators of the involved covariance matrix are used. The finite-sample performance of the discussed procedures is found to be satisfactory.     

Multiple Comparison Procedures: The Practical Solution

A practicing statistician looks at the multiple comparison controversy and related issues through the eyes of the users. The concept of consistency is introduced and discussed in relation to five of the more common multiple comparison procedures. All of the procedures are found to be inconsistent except the simplest procedure, the unrestricted least significant difference (LSD) procedure (or multiple t test). For this and other reasons the unrestricted LSD procedure is recommended for general use, with the proviso that it should be viewed as a hypothesis generator rather than as a method for simultaneous hypothesis generation and testing. The implications for Scheffé's test for general contrasts are also discussed, and a new recommendation is made.     

Win-probabilities for comparing two Poisson variables

ABSTRACT

This article considers the problem of choosing between two possible treatments which are each modeled with a Poisson distribution. Win-probabilities are defined as the probabilities that a single potential future observation from one of the treatments will be better than, or at least as good as, a potential future observation from the other treatment. Using historical data from the two treatments, it is shown how estimates and confidence intervals can be constructed for the win-probabilities. Extensions to situations with three or more treatments are also discussed. Some examples and illustrations are provided, and the relationship between this methodology and standard inference procedures on the Poisson parameters is discussed.     

Robust Confidence Intervals for the Bernoulli Parameter

Despite the simplicity of the Bernoulli process, developing good confidence interval procedures for its parameter—the probability of success p—is deceptively difficult. The binary data yield a discrete number of successes from a discrete number of trials, n. This discreteness results in actual coverage probabilities that oscillate with the n for fixed values of p (and with p for fixed n). Moreover, this oscillation necessitates a large sample size to guarantee a good coverage probability when p is close to 0 or 1.

It is well known that the Wilson procedure is superior to many existing procedures because it is less sensitive to p than any other procedures, therefore it is less costly. The procedures proposed in this article work as well as the Wilson procedure when 0.1 ≤p ≤ 0.9, and are even less sensitive (i.e., more robust) than the Wilson procedure when p is close to 0 or 1. Specifically, when the nominal coverage probability is 0.95, the Wilson procedure requires a sample size 1, 021 to guarantee that the coverage probabilities stay above 0.92 for any 0.001 ≤ min {p, 1 ?p} <0.01. By contrast, our procedures guarantee the same coverage probabilities but only need a sample size 177 without increasing either the expected interval width or the standard deviation of the interval width.     

Robustness of three power transformation estimation procedures

Maximum likelihood, goodness-of-fit, and symmetric percentile estimators of the power transformation parameterp, are considered. The comparative robustness of each estimation procedure is evaluated when the transformed data can be made symmetric, but may not necessarily be normal. Seven types of symmetric distributions are considered as well as four contaminated normal distributions over a range of six p values for samples of size 25, 50, and 100. The results indicate that the maximum likelihood estimator was slightly better than the goodness-of-fit estimator, but both were greatly superior to the percentile estimator. In general, the procedures were robust to distributional symmetric departures from normality, but increasing kurtosis caused appreciable increases in variation for estimated p values. The variability of p was found to decrease more than exponentially with decreases in the underlying normal distribution coefficient of variation. The standard likelihood ratio confidence interval procedure was found not to be generally useful.     

A closed testing procedure for comparing successive exponential populations with respect to location parameter

Consider k independent random samples such that i^th sample is drawn from a two-parameter exponential population with location parameter μ_i and scale parameter θ_i,?i = 1, …, k. For simultaneously testing differences between location parameters of successive exponential populations, closed testing procedures are proposed separately for the following cases (i) when scale parameters are unknown and equal and (ii) when scale parameters are unknown and unequal. Critical constants required for the proposed procedures are obtained numerically and the selected values of the critical constants are tabulated. Simulation study revealed that the proposed procedures has better ability to detect the significant differences and has more power in comparison to exiting procedures. The illustration of the proposed procedures is given using real data.     

Phase I monitoring of generalized linear model-based regression profiles

In some industrial applications, the quality of a process or product is characterized by a relationship between the response variable and one or more independent variables which is called as profile. There are many approaches for monitoring different types of profiles in the literature. Most researchers assume that the response variable follows a normal distribution. However, this assumption may be violated in many cases. The most likely situation is when the response variable follows a distribution from generalized linear models (GLMs). For example, when the response variable is the number of defects in a certain area of a product, the observations follow Poisson distribution and ignoring this fact will cause misleading results. In this paper, three methods including a T²-based method, likelihood ratio test (LRT) method and F method are developed and modified in order to be applied in monitoring GLM regression profiles in Phase I. The performance of the proposed methods is analysed and compared for the special case that the response variable follows Poisson distribution. A simulation study is done regarding the probability of the signal criterion. Results show that the LRT method performs better than two other methods and the F method performs better than the T²-based method in detecting either small or large step shifts as well as drifts. Moreover, the F method performs better than the other two methods, and the LRT method performs poor in comparison with the F and T²-based methods in detecting outliers. A real case, in which the size and number of agglomerates ejected from a volcano in successive days form the GLM profile, is illustrated and the proposed methods are applied to determine whether the number of agglomerates of each size is under statistical control or not. Results showed that the proposed methods could handle the mentioned situation and distinguish the out-of-control conditions.     

Variations of Q–Q Plots: The Power of Our Eyes!

In statistical modeling, we strive to specify models that resemble data collected in studies or observed from processes. Consequently, distributional specification and parameter estimation are central to parametric models. Graphical procedures, such as the quantile–quantile (Q–Q) plot, are arguably the most widely used method of distributional assessment, though critics find their interpretation to be overly subjective. Formal goodness of fit tests are available and are quite powerful, but only indicate whether there is a lack of fit, not why there is lack of fit. In this article, we explore the use of the lineup protocol to inject rigor into graphical distributional assessment and compare its power to that of formal distributional tests. We find that lineup tests are considerably more powerful than traditional tests of normality. A further investigation into the design of Q–Q plots shows that de-trended Q–Q plots are more powerful than the standard approach as long as the plot preserves distances in x and y to be the same. While we focus on diagnosing nonnormality, our approach is general and can be directly extended to the assessment of other distributions.     

Advantages of Variance Stabilization

Abstract. Variance stabilization is a simple device for normalizing a statistic. Even though its large sample properties are similar to those of studentizing, many simulation studies of confidence interval procedures show that variance stabilization works better for small samples. We investigated this question in the context of testing a null hypothesis involving a single parameter. We provide support for a measure of evidence for an alternative hypothesis that is simple to compute, calibrate and interpret. It has applications in most routine problems in statistics, and leads to more accurate confidence intervals, estimated power and hence sample size calculations than standard asymptotic methods. Such evidence is readily combined when obtained from different studies. Connections to other approaches to statistical evidence are described, with a notable link to Kullback–Leibler symmetrized divergence.     

Closed testing procedures for all pairwise comparisons in a randomized block design

We consider multiple comparison test procedures among treatment effects in a randomized block design. We propose closed testing procedures based on maximum values of some two-sample t test statistics and based on F test statistics. It is shown that the proposed procedures are more powerful than single-step procedures and the REGW (Ryan/Einot–Gabriel/Welsch)-type tests. Next, we consider the randomized block design under simple ordered restrictions of treatment effects. We propose closed testing procedures based on maximum values of two-sample one-sided t test statistics and based on Batholomew’s statistics for all pairwise comparisons of treatment effects. Although single-step multiple comparison procedures are utilized in general, the power of these procedures is low for a large number of groups. The closed testing procedures stated in the present article are more powerful than the single-step procedures. Simulation studies are performed under the null hypothesis and some alternative hypotheses. In this studies, the proposed procedures show a good performance.     

Model selection procedures in social research: Monte-Carlo simulation results

Model selection strategies play an important, if not explicit, role in quantitative research. The inferential properties of these strategies are largely unknown, therefore, there is little basis for recommending (or avoiding) any particular set of strategies. In this paper, we evaluate several commonly used model selection procedures [Bayesian information criterion (BIC), adjusted R ², Mallows’ C _p, Akaike information criteria (AIC), AIC_c, and stepwise regression] using Monte-Carlo simulation of model selection when the true data generating processes (DGP) are known.

We find that the ability of these selection procedures to include important variables and exclude irrelevant variables increases with the size of the sample and decreases with the amount of noise in the model. None of the model selection procedures do well in small samples, even when the true DGP is largely deterministic; thus, data mining in small samples should be avoided entirely. Instead, the implicit uncertainty in model specification should be explicitly discussed. In large samples, BIC is better than the other procedures at correctly identifying most of the generating processes we simulated, and stepwise does almost as well. In the absence of strong theory, both BIC and stepwise appear to be reasonable model selection strategies in large samples. Under the conditions simulated, adjusted R ², Mallows’ C _p AIC, and AIC_c are clearly inferior and should be avoided.     

Multinomial Selection Problem: A Study of BEM and AVC Algorithms

The two well-known and widely used multinomial selection procedures Bechhofor, Elmaghraby, and Morse (BEM) and all vector comparison (AVC) are critically compared in applications related to simulation optimization problems.

Two configurations of population probability distributions in which the best system has the greatest probability p _i of yielding the largest value of the performance measure and has or does not have the largest expected performance measure were studied.

The numbers achieved by our simulations clearly show that none of the studied procedures outperform the other in all situations. The user must take into consideration the complexity of the simulations and the performance measure probability distribution properties when deciding which procedure to employ.

An important discovery was that the AVC does not work in populations in which the best system has the greatest probability p _i of yielding the largest value of the performance measure but does not have the largest expected performance measure.     

The Design and Performance of the Multivariate Synthetic-T 2 Control Chart

One of the objectives of research in statistical process control is to obtain control charts that show few false alarms but, at the same time, are able to detect quickly the shifts in the distribution of the quality variables employed to monitor a productive process. In this article, the synthetic-T ² control chart is developed, which consists of the simultaneous use of a CRL chart and a Hotelling's T ² control chart. The ARL is calculated employing Markov chains for steady and zero-state scenarios. A procedure of optimization has been developed to obtain the optimum parameters of the synthetic-T ², for zero and steady cases, given the values of in-control ARL and magnitude of shift which needs to be detected rapidly. A comparison between (standard T ², MEWMA, T ² with variable sample size, and T ² with double sampling) charts reveals that the synthetic-T ² chart always performs better than the standard T ² chart. The comparison with the remaining charts demonstrate in which cases the performance of this new chart makes it interesting to employ in real applications.     

Comparing variances and means when distributions have non-identical shapes

The paper compares several methods for computing robust 1-α confidence intervals for σ ₁ ²-σ ₂ ², or σ ₁ ²/σ ₂ ², where σ ₁ ² and σ ₂ ² are the population variances corresponding to two independent treatment groups. The emphasis is on a Box-Scheffe approach when distributions have different shapes, and so the results reported here have implications about comparing means. The main result is that for unequal sample sizes, a Box-Scheffe approach can be considerably less robust than indicated by past investigations. Several other procedures for comparing variances, not based on a Box-Scheffe approach, were also examined and found to be highly unsatisfactory although previously published papers found them to be robust when the distributions have identical shapes. Included is a new result on why the procedures examined here are not robust, and an illustration that increasing σ ₁ ²-σ ₂ ² can reduce power in certain situations. Constants needed to apply Dunnett’s robust comparison of means are included.     

TWO-WAY CHANGE-POINT MODEL AND ITS APPLICATION

Exact null and alternative distributions of the two-way maximally selected x² for interaction between the ordered rows and columns are derived for each of the normal and Poisson models, respectively. The method is one of the multiple comparison procedures for ordered parameters and is useful for defining a block interaction or a two-way change-point model as a simple alternative to the two-way additive model. The construction of a confidence region for the two-way change-point is then described. An important application is found in a dose-response clinical trial with ordered categorical responses, where detecting the dose level which gives significantly higher responses than the lower doses can be formulated as a problem of detecting a change in the interaction effects.     

Invariance,Optimality, and a 1-Observation Confidence Interval for a Normal Mean

In a 1965 Decision Theory course at Stanford University, Charles Stein began a digression with “an amusing problem”: is there a proper confidence interval for the mean based on a single observation from a normal distribution with both mean and variance unknown? Stein introduced the interval with endpoints ± c|X| and showed indeed that for c large enough, the minimum coverage probability (over all values for the mean and variance) could be made arbitrarily near one. While the problem and coverage calculation were in the author’s hand-written notes from the course, there was no development of any optimality result for the interval. Here, the Hunt–Stein construction plus analysis based on special features of the problem provides a “minimax” rule in the sense that it minimizes the maximum expected length among all procedures with fixed coverage (or, equivalently, maximizes the minimal coverage among all procedures with a fixed expected length). The minimax rule is a mixture of two confidence procedures that are equivariant under scale and sign changes, and are uniformly better than the classroom example or the natural interval X ± c|X|?.     

Reliability Research of Dependent Failure Systems Using Copula

The computation of reliability characteristics of a system that consists of dependent components sometimes becomes difficult, especially when a specific type of dependence is not identified. In this paper, some systems with arbitrary dependent components are studied using copula. In the system, the components are dependent on each other and the dependent relations may be either linear or nonlinear correlation. The efficient formulas are presented to compute the reliability characteristics, such as reliability function, failure rate and meantime to failure of series, parallel and k-out-of-n systems. The reliability functions of dependant systems are compared with independent system. At last, the numerical examples are presented to illustrate the results obtained in this paper.     

Efficiency analysis of ten estimation procedures for quantitative linear models with autocorrelated errors

Many estimation procedures for quantitative linear models with autocorrelated errors have been proposed in the literature. A number of these procedures have been compared in various ways for different sample sizes and autocorrelation parameters values and for structured or random explanatory vaiables. In this paper, we revisit three situations that were considered to some extent in previous studies, by comparing ten estimation procedures: Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), Generalized Least Squares (GLS), estimated Generalized Least Squares (six procedures), Maximum Likelihood (ML), and First Differences (FD). The six estimated GLS procedures and the ML procedure differ in the way the error autocovariance matrix is estimated. The three situations can be defined as follows: Case 1, the explanatory variable x in the simple linear regression is fixed; Case 2,x is purely random; and Case 3x is first-order autoregressive. Following a theoretical presentation, the ten estimation procedures are compared in a Monte Carlo study conducted in the time domain, where the errors are first-order autoregressive in Cases 1-3. The measure of comparison for the estimation procedures is their efficiency relative to OLS. It is evaluated as a function of the time series length and the magnitude and sign of the error autocorrelation parameter. Overall, knowledge of the model of the time series process generating the errors enhances efficiency in estimated GLS. Differences in the efficiency of estimation procedures between Case 1 and Cases 2 and 3 as well as differences in efficiency among procedures in a given situation are observed and discussed.     

On selecting populations better than a control: weibull populations case

Consider k( k ≥ 1) independent Weibull populations and a control population which is also Weibull. The problem of identifying which of these k populations are better than the control using shape parameter as a criterion is considered. We allow the possibility of making at most m(0 ≤ m < k) incorrect identifications of better populations. This allowance results in significant savings in sample size. Procedures based on simple linear unbiased estimators of the reciprocal of the shape parameters of these populations are proposed. These procedures can be used for both complete and Type II-censored samples. A related problem of confidence intervals for the ratio of ordered shape parameters is also considered. Monte Carlo simulations as well as both chi-square and normal approximations to the solutions are obtained.