Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2004 ib Paper 2 21H Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-14
A simple hypothesis specifies one probability distribution. Let the null hypothesis and alternative have probability density functions with respect to a common measure. A possibly randomized statistical test is a measurable function , its conditional probability of rejecting the null hypothesis. Its size of a statistical test is , and its statistical power at the alternative is . A most powerful test at level maximizes power among tests with size at most .
The Neyman-Pearson lemma says to choose and a test of size with where and where , choosing values on the equality set to reach the specified size. Equivalently, threshold the likelihood ratio, treating positive alternative density with zero null density as an infinite ratio. Randomization on a threshold atom ensures exact size when needed. If , all remaining null-only mass can be used to reach size without changing power.
For any test of size at most , the signs of the two factors givepointwise. Integrating provesThis is the required optimality proof. If and another test is equally powerful, both inequalities must be equalities. It must have size and agree with wherever , apart from null sets for the relevant densities. Thus freedom is confined to the equality set and sets null under both hypotheses; at , additional size need not improve power. This also explains the nonuniqueness below.
For the unit-scale Laplace distribution, put . Its likelihood ratio isIt is nondecreasing, so an upper-tail critical region has the Neyman-Pearson lemma form, even if the cutoff lies inside a constant-ratio tail. Solving gives the most powerful test for a Laplace location shift,Continuity of the distribution makes this nonrandomized test exactly size . It need not be the unique most powerful test: within a flat extreme likelihood ratio region, other selections having the same null probability are equally good.
Its statistical power isHere denotes power, not the probability of a type-II error. For , . Thus the power is for , and otherwise. The first branch is at most . On the second branch, power at least is equivalent to . Therefore the required pairs are exactly , with no restriction on the common location.