scholarly journals Utility Theory as a Method to Minimise the Risk in Deformation Analysis Decisions

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yin Zhang ◽  
Ingo Neumann
Keyword(s):  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Main Idea ◽  
Deformation Monitoring ◽  
Deformation Analysis ◽  
Utility Values ◽  
Alternative Hypotheses ◽  
The Given

AbstractDeformation monitoring usually focuses on the detection of whether the monitored objects satisfy the given properties (e.g. being stable or not), and makes further decisions to minimise the risks, for example, the consequences and costs in case of collapse of artificial objects and/or natural hazards. With this intention, a methodology relying on hypothesis testing and utility theory is reviewed in this paper. The main idea of utility theory is to judge each possible outcome with a utility value. The presented methodology makes it possible to minimise the risk of an individual monitoring project by considering the costs and consequences of overall possible situations within the decision process. It is not the danger that the monitored object may collapse that can be reduced. The risk (based on the utility values multiplied by the danger) can be described more appropriately and therefore more valuable decisions can be made. Especially, the opportunity for the measurement process to minimise the risk is an important key issue. In this paper, application of the methodology to two of the classical cases in hypothesis testing will be discussed in detail: 1) both probability density functions (pdfs) of tested objects under null and alternative hypotheses are known; 2) only the pdf under the null hypothesis is known and the alternative hypothesis is treated as the pure negation of the null hypothesis. Afterwards, a practical example in deformation monitoring is introduced and analysed. Additionally, the way in which the magnitudes of utility values (consequences of a decision) influence the decision will be considered and discussed at the end.

Hypothesis testing with error correction models

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Patrick W. Kraft ◽  
Ellen M. Key ◽  
Matthew J. Lebo
Keyword(s):  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Error Correction ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Correction Coefficient ◽  
Correction Model ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Independent Variable ◽  
The Right ◽  
General Error

Abstract Grant and Lebo (2016) and Keele et al. (2016) clarify the conditions under which the popular general error correction model (GECM) can be used and interpreted easily: In a bivariate GECM the data must be integrated in order to rely on the error correction coefficient, $\alpha _1^\ast$ , to test cointegration and measure the rate of error correction between a single exogenous x and a dependent variable, y. Here we demonstrate that even if the data are all integrated, the test on $\alpha _1^\ast$ is misunderstood when there is more than a single independent variable. The null hypothesis is that there is no cointegration between y and any x but the correct alternative hypothesis is that y is cointegrated with at least one—but not necessarily more than one—of the x's. A significant $\alpha _1^\ast$ can occur when some I(1) regressors are not cointegrated and the equation is not balanced. Thus, the correct limiting distributions of the right-hand-side long-run coefficients may be unknown. We use simulations to demonstrate the problem and then discuss implications for applied examples.

scholarly journals Asymptotic relative submajorization of multiple-state boxes

2021 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gergely Bunth ◽  
Péter Vrana
Keyword(s):  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Standard Form ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
State Discrimination ◽  
Simple Alternative ◽  
Multiple State ◽  
Error Probabilities

AbstractPairs of states, or “boxes” are the basic objects in the resource theory of asymmetric distinguishability (Wang and Wilde in Phys Rev Res 1(3):033170, 2019. 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033170), where free operations are arbitrary quantum channels that are applied to both states. From this point of view, hypothesis testing is seen as a process by which a standard form of distinguishability is distilled. Motivated by the more general problem of quantum state discrimination, we consider boxes of a fixed finite number of states and study an extension of the relative submajorization preorder to such objects. In this relation, a tuple of positive operators is greater than another if there is a completely positive trace nonincreasing map under which the image of the first tuple satisfies certain semidefinite constraints relative to the other one. This preorder characterizes error probabilities in the case of testing a composite null hypothesis against a simple alternative hypothesis, as well as certain error probabilities in state discrimination. We present a sufficient condition for the existence of catalytic transformations between boxes, and a characterization of an associated asymptotic preorder, both expressed in terms of sandwiched Rényi divergences. This characterization of the asymptotic preorder directly shows that the strong converse exponent for a composite null hypothesis is equal to the maximum of the corresponding exponents for the pairwise simple hypothesis testing tasks.

scholarly journals A Critical Evaluation of the FBST ev for Bayesian Hypothesis Testing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Ly ◽  
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Keyword(s):  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Significance Test ◽  
Bayesian Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Absence Of Evidence ◽  
Evidence Of Absence ◽  
Foregone Conclusion

AbstractThe “Full Bayesian Significance Test e-value”, henceforth FBST ev, has received increasing attention across a range of disciplines including psychology. We show that the FBST ev leads to four problems: (1) the FBST ev cannot quantify evidence in favor of a null hypothesis and therefore also cannot discriminate “evidence of absence” from “absence of evidence”; (2) the FBST ev is susceptible to sampling to a foregone conclusion; (3) the FBST ev violates the principle of predictive irrelevance, such that it is affected by data that are equally likely to occur under the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis; (4) the FBST ev suffers from the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox in that it does not include a correction for selection. These problems also plague the frequentist p-value. We conclude that although the FBST ev may be an improvement over the p-value, it does not provide a reasonable measure of evidence against the null hypothesis.

scholarly journals Bayesian Inference and Testing Any Hypothesis You Can Specify

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Etz ◽  
Julia M. Haaf ◽  
Jeffrey N. Rouder ◽  
Joachim Vandekerckhove
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Inference ◽  
Model Selection ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Special Form ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Bayes Factor ◽  
Alternative Hypotheses ◽  
Competing Models

Hypothesis testing is a special form of model selection. Once a pair of competing models is fully defined, their definition immediately leads to a measure of how strongly each model supports the data. The ratio of their support is often called the likelihood ratio or the Bayes factor. Critical in the model-selection endeavor is the specification of the models. In the case of hypothesis testing, it is of the greatest importance that the researcher specify exactly what is meant by a “null” hypothesis as well as the alternative to which it is contrasted, and that these are suitable instantiations of theoretical positions. Here, we provide an overview of different instantiations of null and alternative hypotheses that can be useful in practice, but in all cases the inferential procedure is based on the same underlying method of likelihood comparison. An associated app can be found at https://osf.io/mvp53/ . This article is the work of the authors and is reformatted from the original, which was published under a CC-By Attribution 4.0 International license and is available at https://psyarxiv.com/wmf3r/ .

Interval estimation and inference

2019 ◽  
pp. 111-138
Author(s):  
M. D. Edge
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Interval Estimation ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Specific Hypothesis ◽  
True Value

Interval estimation is the attempt to define intervals that quantify the degree of uncertainty in an estimate. The standard deviation of an estimate is called a standard error. Confidence intervals are designed to cover the true value of an estimand with a specified probability. Hypothesis testing is the attempt to assess the degree of evidence for or against a specific hypothesis. One tool for frequentist hypothesis testing is the p value, or the probability that if the null hypothesis is in fact true, the data would depart as extremely or more extremely from expectations under the null hypothesis than they were observed to do. In Neyman–Pearson hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis is rejected if p is less than a pre-specified value, often chosen to be 0.05. A test’s power function gives the probability that the null hypothesis is rejected given the significance level γ‎, a sample size n, and a specified alternative hypothesis. This chapter discusses some limitations of hypothesis testing as commonly practiced in the research literature.

scholarly journals A Critical Evaluation of the FBST ev for Bayesian Hypothesis Testing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Ly ◽  
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Keyword(s):  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Significance Test ◽  
P Value ◽  
Bayesian Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Absence Of Evidence ◽  
Evidence Of Absence ◽  
Foregone Conclusion

he “Full Bayesian Significance Test e-value”, henceforth FBST ev, has received increasing attention across a range of disciplines including psychology. We show that the FBST ev leads to four problems: (1) the FBST ev cannot quantify evidence in favor of a null hypothesis and therefore also cannot discriminate “evidence of absence” from “absence of evidence”; (2) the FBST ev is susceptible to sampling to a foregone conclusion; (3) the FBST ev violates the principle of predictive irrelevance, such that it is affected by data that are equally likely to occur under the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis; (4) the FBST ev suffers from the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox in that it does not include a correction for selection. These problems also plague the frequentist p-value. We conclude that although the FBST ev may be an improvement over the p-value, it does not provide a reasonable measure of evidence against the null hypothesis.

scholarly journals Possibility Measure of Accepting Statistical Hypothesis

Mathematics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 551
Author(s):  
Jung-Lin Hung ◽  
Cheng-Che Chen ◽  
Chun-Mei Lai
Keyword(s):  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Statistical Testing ◽  
Statistical Hypothesis ◽  
Statistical Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Test Statistic ◽  
Possibility Measure ◽  
Testing Approach ◽  
Hypothesis Testing Approach

Taking advantage of the possibility of fuzzy test statistic falling in the rejection region, a statistical hypothesis testing approach for fuzzy data is proposed in this study. In contrast to classical statistical testing, which yields a binary decision to reject or to accept a null hypothesis, the proposed approach is to determine the possibility of accepting a null hypothesis (or alternative hypothesis). When data are crisp, the proposed approach reduces to the classical hypothesis testing approach.

The Kruskal-Wallis Test and Stochastic Homogeneity

1998 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
András Vargha ◽  
Harold D. Delaney
Keyword(s):  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Homogeneity Condition ◽  
Alternative Hypotheses ◽  
Expected Values ◽  
Variance Homogeneity ◽  
Mathematical Derivation ◽  
Robust Anova

For the comparison of more than two independent samples the Kruskal-Wallis H test is a preferred procedure in many situations. However, the exact null and alternative hypotheses, as well as the assumptions of this test, do not seem to be very clear among behavioral scientists. This article attempts to bring some order to the inconsistent, sometimes controversial treatments of the Kruskal-Wallis test. First we clarify that the H test cannot detect with consistently increasing power any alternative hypothesis other than exceptions to stochastic homogeneity. It is then shown by a mathematical derivation that stochastic homogeneity is equivalent to the equality of the expected values of the rank sample means. This finding implies that the null hypothesis of stochastic homogeneity can be tested by an ANOVA performed on the rank transforms, which is essentially equivalent to doing a Kruskal-Wallis H test. If the variance homogeneity condition does not hold then it is suggested that robust ANOVA alternatives performed on ranks be used for testing stochastic homogeneity. Generalizations are also made with respect to Friedman’s G test.

scholarly journals Bayesian inference and testing any hypothesis you can specify

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Etz ◽  
Julia M. Haaf ◽  
Jeffrey N. Rouder ◽  
Joachim Vandekerckhove
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Inference ◽  
Model Selection ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Special Form ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Bayes Factor ◽  
Alternative Hypotheses ◽  
Competing Models

Hypothesis testing is a special form of model selection. Once a pair of competing models is fully defined, their definition immediately leads to a measure of how strongly each model supports the data. The ratio of their support is often called the likelihood ratio or the Bayes factor. Critical in the model selection endeavor is the specification of the models. In the case of hypothesis testing, it is of the greatest importance that we specify exactly what is meant by a "null" hypothesis as well as the alternative to which it is contrasted, and that these are suitable instantiations of theoretical positions. Here, we provide an overview of different instantiations of null and alternative hypotheses that can be useful in practice, while the underlying method of likelihood comparison is universal and identical in all cases. An associated app can be found via https://osf.io/mvp53/.

A parametric approach to kinship hypothesis testing using identity-by-descent parameters

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel García-Magariños ◽  
Thore Egeland ◽  
Ignacio López-de-Ullibarri ◽  
Nils L. Hjort ◽  
Antonio Salas
Keyword(s):  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Family Relationships ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Statistical Hypothesis ◽  
Statistical Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Test Statistic ◽  
Identity By Descent ◽  
Classical Statistics ◽  
Competing Ideas

AbstractThere is a large number of applications where family relationships need to be determined from DNA data. In forensic science, competing ideas are in general verbally formulated as the two hypotheses of a test. For the most common paternity case, the null hypothesis states that the alleged father is the true father against the alternative hypothesis that the father is an unrelated man. A likelihood ratio is calculated to summarize the evidence. We propose an alternative framework whereby a model and the hypotheses are formulated in terms of parameters representing identity-by-descent probabilities. There are several advantages to this approach. Firstly, the alternative hypothesis can be completely general. Specifically, the alternative does not need to specify an unrelated man. Secondly, the parametric formulation corresponds to the approach used in most other applications of statistical hypothesis testing and so there is a large theory of classical statistics that can be applied. Theoretical properties of the test statistic under the null hypothesis are studied. An extension to trios of individuals has been carried out. The methods are exemplified using simulations and a real dataset of 27 Spanish Romani individuals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document