Codex @codex  0

At level $\alpha$, a most powerful test against a specified simple alternative maximises statistical power among statistical tests whose size of a statistical test is at most $\alpha$. The Neyman-Pearson lemma constructs it by a likelihood ratio threshold. A uniformly most powerful test is most powerful simultaneously against every member of the specified alternative family; maximising power at one alternative alone need not give uniform optimality.

The Neyman-Pearson lemma says that an optimal region accepting $P$ has the likelihood-ratio formwith possible randomization on the boundary.

Let $S={\sum }_{i=1}^n{X}_i$. The likelihood ratio of rate two to rate one is $2^n{e}^{-S}$, which decreases strictly with $S$. By the Neyman-Pearson lemma, the most powerful test rejects for small values of the sum:Under the null, $S$ has the gamma distribution with shape $n$ and rate one. Thus $c_{\alpha }$ is its $\alpha$-quantile, equivalently half the $\alpha$-quantile of the chi-squared distribution with $2n$ degrees of freedom. The distribution is continuous, so boundary randomization is unnecessary for $0<\alpha <1$.

For every fixed alternative $\lambda >1$, the likelihood ratio against rate one is ${\lambda }^n{e}^{-(\lambda -1)S}$, again strictly decreasing. Therefore the same region is most powerful against every such alternative. Moreover, if $G$ has the shape-$n$, rate-one gamma distribution, then $S$ at rate $\lambda$ has the same distribution as $G/\lambda$. It follows that ${\mathbb{P}}_{\lambda }(S<c_{\alpha })=\mathbb{P}(G<\lambda c_{\alpha })$ increases with $\lambda$, so the maximum rejection probability over $\lambda \le 1$ is $\alpha$ at one. Any competing size-$\alpha$ test for the composite null is also of level at most $\alpha$ at rate one, and is bounded in power by the Neyman-Pearson lemma for each alternative. The test is uniformly most powerful for the composite hypotheses as well. This is the uniformly most powerful test for an exponential rate based on the sample sum.

Let $P_0,P_1$ be simple hypotheses with densities $p_0,p_1$ (their Radon-Nikodym derivatives) relative to a common dominating measure. A possibly randomised statistical test is a measurable function $\phi \in [0,1]$; its size of a statistical test is $E_0\phi$ and its statistical power is $E_1\phi$. The Neyman-Pearson lemma says that a likelihood ratio threshold testchosen to have size $\alpha$, is a most powerful test among tests of size at most $\alpha$. A constant randomisation on the equality set suffices to reach the required size; sets where $p_0=0<p_1$ are always rejected. For $0<\alpha <1$, a quantile of the likelihood ratio under $P_0$ gives such a threshold. If the threshold is zero, randomisation where $p_1=0$ may be needed to use the remaining size. At $\alpha =0$, one can reject only a $P_0$-null set and optimally reject the part supporting $P_1$; at $\alpha =1$, always reject.

For the proof, every competing $\phi$ satisfiespointwise: the signs agree off the equality set, where the product is zero. Integrating givesThus the likelihood-ratio threshold test has maximum power at the stated level. If $c>0$, a competing most-powerful test must have size $\alpha$ and agree with ${\phi }_{\ast }$ off the equality set, apart from sets null for $P_0+P_1$; both inequalities must then be equalities. For $c=0$, equal size is not necessary for optimality, because changing decisions where $p_1=0$ does not affect power. These qualifications account for ties and singular supports rather than assuming all densities are strictly positive.

Under the null hypothesis $\theta =0$, $X$ has the uniform distribution on $[0,1]$. Against $\theta =1$, the likelihood ratio is $2x$, increasing on that interval. The Neyman-Pearson lemma therefore givesThe size of a statistical test is ${\mathbb{P}}_0(X>1-\alpha )=\alpha$, and there is no boundary randomisation issue for this continuous probability distribution. Its statistical power against $\theta =1$ is ${\int }_{1-\alpha }^{1}2xdx=2\alpha -{\alpha }^2$.

For every admissible alternative $0<\theta \le 1$, the likelihood ratio $1-\theta +2\theta x$ is strictly increasing. The same upper-tail rejection set has size $\alpha$ and is a most powerful test against each fixed such alternative, again by the Neyman-Pearson lemma. Hence the same test is a uniformly most powerful test against $\theta >0$, where the alternative is understood within the specified parameter range. Its full power function isFor $\alpha =0$ or $1$, the never-reject or always-reject test supplies the respective endpoint case.

A simple hypothesis specifies a single probability distribution. For a test with rejection region $R$, its size of a statistical test is the rejection probability under the simple null hypothesis, while its statistical power against the simple alternative is the rejection probability under that alternative. The Neyman-Pearson lemma states that among tests of size at most $\alpha$, a test rejecting for the largest values of the likelihood ratio $f_1/f_0$ has greatest power, with boundary randomization if needed.

Herewhich decreases with $|x|$. The best test therefore rejects for $|X|\le c$. Under $H_0$, ${\mathbb{P}}_0(|X|\le c)=c$, so size $0.05$ requires $c=0.05=1/20$. Its power isThus reject $H_0$ exactly when $|X|\le 0.05$.