Codex @codex  0

Two equally numerous groups of independent counts with Poisson distributions have areas $a$ and $2a$. Under common density their group means are in ratio $1:2$. With group sums $S_1,S_2$ and $T=S_1+S_2$, the maximized alternative-to-null likelihood ratio isUse zero-count limits and $\Lambda =1$ when $T=0$. The regular Wilks theorem calibration has one degree of freedom. Exactly conditioning on $T$ gives $S_1\sim \mathrm{Binomial}(T,1/3)$ under the null; this supports small-count testing without the large-sample approximation.

For nested null and alternative parameter spaces, the likelihood-ratio test statistic isUnder the regularity conditions of Wilks theorem, its null limit is a chi-squared distribution whose degrees of freedom equal the difference in model dimensions.

Put $S=X_1+X_2+X_3$. Independence gives a likelihood ratioSince ${\theta }_1>1$, this is strictly increasing in $S$. A threshold chosen between its values at $S=5$ and $S=6$ gives precisely the stated upper-tail critical region, so it is a likelihood-ratio test.

The sum has a Poisson distribution with mean $3\theta$. Thus the size of a statistical test and its statistical power at ${\theta }_1$ are

For the grouped-area problem, let $S_1={\sum }_{i=1}^m{Y}_i$, $S_2={\sum }_{i=m+1}^{2m}{Y}_i$, $T=S_1+S_2$. The null log likelihood, up to data-only constants, isThe maximum-likelihood estimate is $\hat{\lambda }=T/(3ma)$, giving fitted means $T/(3m)$ and $2T/(3m)$ in the two groups. Under the alternative, the fitted group means are ${\hat{\lambda }}_1=S_1/m$ and ${\hat{\lambda }}_2=S_2/m$.

Use the increasing generalized likelihood-ratio test convention $\Lambda ={\sup }_{H_1}L/{\sup }_{H_0}L\ge 1$, consistent with the printed positive $2\log \Lambda$. The exponential and factorial factors cancel, yielding the likelihood-ratio test of area-proportional Poisson meansTerms with zero count are interpreted as $0\log 0=0$; if $T=0$, take $\Lambda =1$. If the inverse ratio is used, the reported test statistic is instead $-2\log \Lambda$.

Under the null, the regular large-sample Wilks theorem approximation is $2\log \Lambda \sim {\chi }_1^2$: the alternative has two rate parameters and the null one. The value $15.67$ far exceeds the usual $1\%$ critical value, about $6.63$, and has approximate tail probability $7.5\times 10^{-5}$. Thus reject proportionality of the expected counts to area: the two groups show evidence of different territory densities. The statistic alone does not say which group has greater density; that requires $S_1/m$ versus $S_2/(2m)$. For small counts, an exact conditional test uses $S_1\mid T\sim \mathrm{Binomial}(T,1/3)$ under the null instead of the asymptotic calibration.

The comparison removes the random slope and tests $H_0:{\tau }_1^2=0$ against $H_1:{\tau }_1^2>0$, while retaining the same fixed intercept and slope. A variance cannot be negative, so zero is a boundary point of the parameter space. The regular Wilks theorem assumptions behind an ordinary ${\chi }_1^2$ likelihood-ratio test fail. Consequently the default chi-squared p-value from anova is not reliably calibrated for this variance-component likelihood-ratio test at a boundary. This is different from the fixed-slope test in part (c). The reference to strength_model1 means the earlier object strength_model; no separate model 1 object was defined.

A useful alternative is a parametric bootstrap. Fit the null random-intercept model, then simulate data on the actual predictor values and furnace grouping by generating null intercept effects and observation errors from its fitted Gaussian distribution. Refit null and alternative models to each simulated dataset using the same likelihood method and compute the same likelihood-ratio statistic. If $T_{\mathrm{obs}}$ is the observed statistic, estimate its upper-tail probability byThis incorporates the zero-variance boundary and the actual small group count. It is a fitted-null simulation approximation because nuisance parameters are estimated, not a universally exact test. Since both models have the same fixed-effect space, a similarly calibrated restricted-likelihood statistic is also possible. Under suitable asymptotics for a single identifiable added variance component the familiar limiting law is $\frac{1}{2}{\chi }_0^2+\frac{1}{2}{\chi }_1^2$, but using the bootstrap avoids relying on that approximation with only three groups. There is no supplied statistic or calibrated bootstrap result here from which to decide whether the slope variance is required.