The Bayesian and frequentist approaches to testing a one-sided hypothesis about a multivariate mean

This paper compares the Bayesian and frequentist approaches to testing a one-sided hypothesis about a multivariate mean. First, this paper proposes a simple way to assign a Bayesian posterior probability to one-sided hypotheses about a multivariate mean. The approach is to use (almost) the exact posterior probability under the assumption that the data has multivariate normal distribution, under either a conjugate prior in large samples or under a vague Jeffreys prior. This is also approximately the Bayesian posterior probability of the hypothesis based on a suitably flat Dirichlet process prior over an unknown distribution generating the data. Then, the Bayesian approach and a frequentist approach to testing the one-sided hypothesis are compared, with results that show a major difference between Bayesian reasoning and frequentist reasoning. The Bayesian posterior probability can be substantially smaller than the frequentist p-value. A class of example is given where the Bayesian posterior probability is basically 0, while the frequentist p-value is basically 1. The Bayesian posterior probability in these examples seems to be more reasonable. Other drawbacks of the frequentist p-value as a measure of whether the one-sided hypothesis is true are also discussed.     

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.     

A note on fiducial model averaging as an alternative to checking Bayesian and frequentist models

Just as frequentist hypothesis tests have been developed to check model assumptions, prior predictive p-values and other Bayesian p-values check prior distributions as well as other model assumptions. These model checks not only suffer from the usual threshold dependence of p-values, but also from the suppression of model uncertainty in subsequent inference. One solution is to transform Bayesian and frequentist p-values for model assessment into a fiducial distribution across the models. Averaging the Bayesian or frequentist posterior distributions with respect to the fiducial distribution can reproduce results from Bayesian model averaging or classical fiducial inference.     

The p-values for one-sided hypothesis testing in univariate linear calibration

In this article, we focus on the one-sided hypothesis testing for the univariate linear calibration, where a normally distributed response variable and an explanatory variable are involved. The observations of the response variable corresponding to known values of the explanatory variable are used to make inferences on a single unknown value of the explanatory variable. We apply the generalized inference to the calibration problem, and take the generalized p-value as the test statistic to develop a new p-value for one-sided hypothesis testing, which we refer to as the one-sided posterior predictive p-value. The behavior of the one-sided posterior predictive p-value is numerically compared with that of the generalized p-value, and simulations show that the proposed p-value is quite satisfactory in the frequentist performance.     

Bayesian point null hypothesis testing via the posterior likelihood ratio

This paper gives an exposition of the use of the posterior likelihood ratio for testing point null hypotheses in a fully Bayesian framework. Connections between the frequentist P-value and the posterior distribution of the likelihood ratio are used to interpret and calibrate P-values in a Bayesian context, and examples are given to show the use of simple posterior simulation methods to provide Bayesian tests of common hypotheses.     

BAYESIAN TESTS FOR SOME PRECISE HYPOTHESES ON MULTI-NORMAL MEANS

Bayesian counterparts of some standard tests concerning the means of multi-normal distribution are discussed. In particular the hypothesis that the multi-normal mean is equal to a specified value, and the hypothesis that the means are equal. Lower bounds on the Bayes factor in favour of the null hypothesis are obtained over the class of conjugate priors. The P-value, or observed significance level of the standard sampling-theoretic test procedure are compared with the posterior probability. The results correspond closely with those of Good (1967), Berger & Sellke (1987), Pepple (1988) and others and illustrate the conflict between posterior probabilities and P-values as measures of evidence.     

Some practical considerations in three‐arm non‐inferiority trial design

Non‐inferiority trials aim to demonstrate whether an experimental therapy is not unacceptably worse than an active reference therapy already in use. When applicable, a three‐arm non‐inferiority trial, including an experiment therapy, an active reference therapy, and a placebo, is often recommended to assess assay sensitivity and internal validity of a trial. In this paper, we share some practical considerations based on our experience from a phase III three‐arm non‐inferiority trial. First, we discuss the determination of the total sample size and its optimal allocation based on the overall power of the non‐inferiority testing procedure and provide ready‐to‐use R code for implementation. Second, we consider the non‐inferiority goal of ‘capturing all possibilities’ and show that it naturally corresponds to a simple two‐step testing procedure. Finally, using this two‐step non‐inferiority testing procedure as an example, we compare extensively commonly used frequentist p ‐value methods with the Bayesian posterior probability approach. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The discrepancy of P-values and posterior probability: Two-sided hypothesis of variance of normal distribution with unknown mean

This article is concerned with the comparison of P-value and Bayesian measure in point null hypothesis for the variance of Normal distribution with unknown mean. First, using fixed prior for test parameter, the posterior probability is obtained and compared with the P-value when an appropriate prior is used for the mean parameter. In the second, lower bounds of the posterior probability of H₀ under a reasonable class of prior are compared with the P-value. It has been shown that even in the presence of nuisance parameters, these two approaches can lead to different results in the statistical inference.     

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.     

Testing equality of regression coefficients in heteroscedastic normal regression models

This article addresses the problem of testing whether the vectors of regression coefficients are equal for two independent normal regression models when the error variances are unknown. This problem poses severe difficulties both to the frequentist and Bayesian approaches to statistical inference. In the former approach, normal hypothesis testing theory does not apply because of the unrelated variances. In the latter, the prior distributions typically used for the parameters are improper and hence the Bayes factor-based solution cannot be used.We propose a Bayesian solution to this problem in which no subjective input is considered. We first generate “objective” proper prior distributions (intrinsic priors) for which the Bayes factor and model posterior probabilities are well defined. The posterior probability of each model is used as a model selection tool. This consistent procedure of testing hypotheses is compared with some of the frequentist approximate tests proposed in the literature.     

Restricted most powerful Bayesian tests for linear models

Uniformly most powerful Bayesian tests (UMPBTs) are a new class of Bayesian tests in which null hypotheses are rejected if their Bayes factor exceeds a specified threshold. The alternative hypotheses in UMPBTs are defined to maximize the probability that the null hypothesis is rejected. Here, we generalize the notion of UMPBTs by restricting the class of alternative hypotheses over which this maximization is performed, resulting in restricted most powerful Bayesian tests (RMPBTs). We then derive RMPBTs for linear models by restricting alternative hypotheses to g priors. For linear models, the rejection regions of RMPBTs coincide with those of usual frequentist F‐tests, provided that the evidence thresholds for the RMPBTs are appropriately matched to the size of the classical tests. This correspondence supplies default Bayes factors for many common tests of linear hypotheses. We illustrate the use of RMPBTs for ANOVA tests and t‐tests and compare their performance in numerical studies.     

Bounds for the Bayes Error in Classification: A Bayesian Approach Using Discriminant Analysis

We study two of the classical bounds for the Bayes error P _e , Lissack and Fu’s separability bounds and Bhattacharyya’s bounds, in the classification of an observation into one of the two determined distributions, under the hypothesis that the prior probability χ itself has a probability distribution. The effectiveness of this distribution can be measured in terms of the ratio of two mean values. On the other hand, a discriminant analysis-based optimal classification rule allows us to derive the posterior distribution of χ, together with the related posterior bounds of P _e . Research partially supported by NSERC grant A 9249 (Canada). The authors wish to thank two referees, for their very pertinent comments and suggestions, that have helped to improve the quality and the presentation of the paper, and we have, whenever possible, addressed their concerns.     

Blending Bayesian and Classical Tools to Define Optimal Sample-Size-Dependent Significance Levels

ABSTRACT

This article argues that researchers do not need to completely abandon the p-value, the best-known significance index, but should instead stop using significance levels that do not depend on sample sizes. A testing procedure is developed using a mixture of frequentist and Bayesian tools, with a significance level that is a function of sample size, obtained from a generalized form of the Neyman–Pearson Lemma that minimizes a linear combination of α, the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis, and β, the probability of failing to reject a false null, instead of fixing α and minimizing β. The resulting hypothesis tests do not violate the Likelihood Principle and do not require any constraints on the dimensionalities of the sample space and parameter space. The procedure includes an ordering of the entire sample space and uses predictive probability (density) functions, allowing for testing of both simple and compound hypotheses. Accessible examples are presented to highlight specific characteristics of the new tests.     

A Bayesian procedure for assessing process performance based on the third-generation capability index

Capability indices that qualify process potential and process performance are practical tools for successful quality improvement activities and quality program implementation. Most existing methods to assess process capability were derived on the basis of the traditional frequentist point of view. This paper considers the problem of estimating and testing process capability based on the third-generation capability index C _pmk from the Bayesian point of view. We first derive the posterior probability p for the process under investigation is capable. The one-sided credible interval, a Bayesian analog of the classical lower confidence interval, can be obtained to assess process performance. To investigate the effectiveness of the derived results, a series of simulation was undertaken. The results indicate that the performance of the proposed Bayesian approach depends strongly on the value of ξ=(μ?T)/σ. It performs very well with the accurate coverage rate when μ is sufficiently far from T. In those cases, they have the same acceptable performance even though the sample size n is as small as 25.     

On priors that match posterior and frequentist distribution functions

In the multiparameter case, this paper characterizes priors so as to match, up to o(n^-1/2), the posterior joint cumulative distribution function (c.d.f.) of a posterior standardized version of the parametric vector with the corresponding frequentist c.d.f.     

Objective Testing Procedures in Linear Models: Calibration of the p-values

Abstract.  An optimal Bayesian decision procedure for testing hypothesis in normal linear models based on intrinsic model posterior probabilities is considered. It is proven that these posterior probabilities are simple functions of the classical F -statistic, thus the evaluation of the procedure can be carried out analytically through the frequentist analysis of the posterior probability of the null. An asymptotic analysis proves that, under mild conditions on the design matrix, the procedure is consistent. For any testing hypothesis it is also seen that there is a one-to-one mapping – which we call calibration curve – between the posterior probability of the null hypothesis and the classical bi p -value. This curve adds substantial knowledge about the possible discrepancies between the Bayesian and the p -value measures of evidence for testing hypothesis. It permits a better understanding of the serious difficulties that are encountered in linear models for interpreting the p -values. A specific illustration of the variable selection problem is given.     

Ordered Alternatives and the 1 1/2-Tail Test

Under proper conditions, two independent tests of the null hypothesis of homogeneity of means are provided by a set of sample averages. One test, with tail probability P ₁, relates to the variation between the sample averages, while the other, with tail probability P ₂, relates to the concordance of the rankings of the sample averages with the anticipated rankings under an alternative hypothesis. The quantity G = P ₁ P ₂ is considered as the combined test statistic and, except for the discreteness in the null distribution of P ₂, would correspond to the Fisher statistic for combining probabilities. Illustration is made, for the case of four means, on how to get critical values of G or critical values of P ₁ for each possible value of P ₂, taking discreteness into account. Alternative measures of concordance considered are Spearman's ρ and Kendall's τ. The concept results, in the case of two averages, in assigning two-thirds of the test size to the concordant tail, one-third to the discordant tail.     

Inference and Decision Making for 21st-Century Drug Development and Approval

ABSTRACT

The cost and time of pharmaceutical drug development continue to grow at rates that many say are unsustainable. These trends have enormous impact on what treatments get to patients, when they get them and how they are used. The statistical framework for supporting decisions in regulated clinical development of new medicines has followed a traditional path of frequentist methodology. Trials using hypothesis tests of “no treatment effect” are done routinely, and the p-value < 0.05 is often the determinant of what constitutes a “successful” trial. Many drugs fail in clinical development, adding to the cost of new medicines, and some evidence points blame at the deficiencies of the frequentist paradigm. An unknown number effective medicines may have been abandoned because trials were declared “unsuccessful” due to a p-value exceeding 0.05. Recently, the Bayesian paradigm has shown utility in the clinical drug development process for its probability-based inference. We argue for a Bayesian approach that employs data from other trials as a “prior” for Phase 3 trials so that synthesized evidence across trials can be utilized to compute probability statements that are valuable for understanding the magnitude of treatment effect. Such a Bayesian paradigm provides a promising framework for improving statistical inference and regulatory decision making.     

A matching prior based on the modified profile likelihood in a generalized Weibull stress‐strength model

Bayesian inference of a generalized Weibull stress‐strength model (SSM) with more than one strength component is considered. For this problem, properly assigning priors for the reliabilities is challenging due to the presence of nuisance parameters. Matching priors, which are priors matching the posterior probabilities of certain regions with their frequentist coverage probabilities, are commonly used but difficult to derive in this problem. Instead, we apply an alternative method and derive a matching prior based on a modification of the profile likelihood. Simulation studies show that this proposed prior performs well in terms of frequentist coverage and estimation even when the sample sizes are minimal. The prior is applied to two real datasets. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 41: 83–97; 2013 © 2012 Statistical Society of Canada