A Nonstochastic Interpretation of Reported Significance Levels

Tests of significance are often made in situations where the standard assumptions underlying the probability calculations do not hold. As a result, the reported significance levels become difficult to interpret. This article sketches an alternative interpretation of a reported significance level, valid in considerable generality. This level locates the given data set within the spectrum of other data sets derived from the given one by an appropriate class of transformations. If the null hypothesis being tested holds, the derived data sets should be equivalent to the original one. Thus, a small reported significance level indicates an unusual data set. This development parallels that of randomization tests, but there is a crucial technical difference: our approach involves permuting observed residuals; the classical randomization approach involves permuting unobservable, or perhaps nonexistent, stochastic disturbance terms.     

A Case Study in Nonresponse: Plaintiff vs. California State Board of Equalization

In any sample survey, nonresponse bias is a potential issue. Even with a moderately high nonresponse rate, however, covariates can sometimes be used to show that the nonresponse bias is likely to be small. This note presents such an argument, which was used by the winning side in a tax case.     

A Bootstrap Stationarity Test for Predictive Regression Invalidity

In order for predictive regression tests to deliver asymptotically valid inference, account has to be taken of the degree of persistence of the predictors under test. There is also a maintained assumption that any predictability in the variable of interest is purely attributable to the predictors under test. Violation of this assumption by the omission of relevant persistent predictors renders the predictive regression invalid, and potentially also spurious, as both the finite sample and asymptotic size of the predictability tests can be significantly inflated. In response, we propose a predictive regression invalidity test based on a stationarity testing approach. To allow for an unknown degree of persistence in the putative predictors, and for heteroscedasticity in the data, we implement our proposed test using a fixed regressor wild bootstrap procedure. We demonstrate the asymptotic validity of the proposed bootstrap test by proving that the limit distribution of the bootstrap statistic, conditional on the data, is the same as the limit null distribution of the statistic computed on the original data, conditional on the predictor. This corrects a long-standing error in the bootstrap literature whereby it is incorrectly argued that for strongly persistent regressors and test statistics akin to ours the validity of the fixed regressor bootstrap obtains through equivalence to an unconditional limit distribution. Our bootstrap results are therefore of interest in their own right and are likely to have applications beyond the present context. An illustration is given by reexamining the results relating to U.S. stock returns data in Campbell and Yogo (2006 Campbell, J. Y. and Yogo, M. (2006), “Efficient Tests of Stock Return Predictability,” Journal of Financial Economics, 81, 27–60.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Supplementary materials for this article are available online.     

An introduction to survival models: in honor of Ross Prentice

I review some key ideas and models in survival analysis with emphasis on modeling the effects of covariates on survival times. I focus on the proportional hazards model of Cox (J R Stat Soc B 34:187–220, 1972), its extensions and alternatives, including the accelerated life model. I briefly describe some models for competing risks data, multiple and repeated event-time data and multivariate survival data.     

Modifications of the Empirical Likelihood Interval Estimation with Improved Coverage Probabilities

The empirical likelihood (EL) technique has been well addressed in both the theoretical and applied literature in the context of powerful nonparametric statistical methods for testing and interval estimations. A nonparametric version of Wilks theorem (Wilks, 1938 Wilks , S. S. ( 1938 ). The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses . Annals of Mathematical Statistics 9 : 60 – 62 .[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) can usually provide an asymptotic evaluation of the Type I error of EL ratio-type tests. In this article, we examine the performance of this asymptotic result when the EL is based on finite samples that are from various distributions. In the context of the Type I error control, we show that the classical EL procedure and the Student's t-test have asymptotically a similar structure. Thus, we conclude that modifications of t-type tests can be adopted to improve the EL ratio test. We propose the application of the Chen (1995 Chen , L. ( 1995 ). Testing the mean of skewed distributions . Journal of the American Statistical Association 90 : 767 – 772 .[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) t-test modification to the EL ratio test. We display that the Chen approach leads to a location change of observed data whereas the classical Bartlett method is known to be a scale correction of the data distribution. Finally, we modify the EL ratio test via both the Chen and Bartlett corrections. We support our argument with theoretical proofs as well as a Monte Carlo study. A real data example studies the proposed approach in practice.     

Regenerative Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Any Distribution

While Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods are frequently used for difficult calculations in a wide range of scientific disciplines, they suffer from a serious limitation: their samples are not independent and identically distributed. Consequently, estimates of expectations are biased if the initial value of the chain is not drawn from the target distribution. Regenerative simulation provides an elegant solution to this problem. In this article, we propose a simple regenerative MCMC algorithm to generate variates for any distribution.     

Bayesian Estimation of Bivariate Exponential Distributions Based on Linex and Quadratic Loss Functions: A Survival Approach with Censored Samples

In this article, four bivariate exponential (BVE) distributions with subject to right censoring samples are presented. Bayesian estimates of the parameters of BVE are obtained through Linex and quadratic loss functions. Gamma prior distribution has been suggested to reforming the posterior function. The estimations and standard errors of parameters have also been obtained through simulation method. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method is employed for the case of Block-Buse bivariate distribution because there was no closed form for estimator criteria. Simulation studies have been conducted to show that the computation parts can be implemented easily and comparing the estimated values due to two methods and with the true values as well.     

A comparison of three methods of estimating the logistic regression coefficients

A Sampling experiment performed using data collected for a large clinical trial shows that the discriminant function estimates of the logistic regression coefficients for discrete variables may be severely biased. The simulations show that the mixed variable location model coefficient estimates have bias which is of the same magnitude as the bias in the coefficient estimates obtained using conditional maximum likelihood estimates but require about one-tenth of the computer time.     

Notes on likelihood intervals and profiling

In many applications, decisions are made on the basis of function of parameters g(θ). When the value of g(theta;) is calculated using estimated values for te parameters, its is important to have a measure of the uncertainty associated with that value of g(theta;). Likelihood ratio approaches to finding likelihood intervals for functions of parameters have been shown to be more reliable, in terms of coverage probability, than the linearization approach. Two approaches to the generalization of the profiling algorithm have been proposed in the literature to enable construction of likelihood intervals for a function of parameters (Chen and Jennrich, 1996; Bates and Watts, 1988). In this paper we show the equivalence of these two methods. We also provide and analysis of cases in which neither profiling algorithm is appropriate. For one of these cases an alternate approach is suggested Whereas generalized profiling is based on maximizing the likelihood function given a constraint on the value of g(θ), the alternative algorithm is based on optimizing g(θ) given a constraint on the value of the likelihood function.