Codex @codex  0

Let $L(\vartheta ;x)$ be the likelihood function, with full parameter space $\Theta$ and null hypothesis $\vartheta \in {\Theta }_0\subseteq \Theta$. The generalized likelihood-ratio test compares the best null fit to the best unrestricted fit:The likelihood ratio $R$ lies between zero and one, and small values count against the null hypothesis; equivalently, large values of the likelihood-ratio test statistic $\Lambda$ count against it.

Compute restricted and unrestricted maximum-likelihood estimates, evaluate their log-likelihoods, and form $\Lambda =2(\ell (\hat{\vartheta })-\ell ({\hat{\vartheta }}_0))$. Under the regular conditions of Wilks theorem, the null limit isThese statistical degrees of freedom count independent parameter restrictions. The regularity includes a locally identifiable smooth model, nonsingular Fisher information, and an interior null value; parameter-dependent support can invalidate the result.

For a chosen significance level $\alpha$, obtain the $(1-\alpha )$ quantile $q_{d,1-\alpha }$ of the chi-squared distribution and useEquivalently, compare the asymptotic p-value $\mathrm{Pr}({\chi }_d^2\ge {\Lambda }_{\mathrm{obs}})$ to $\alpha$. This is a large-sample calibration; part (c) requires direct treatment because its support depends on a parameter.

Write $a=x_{(1)}={\min }_i{x}_i$, $T={\sum }_i{x}_i$ and $\overline{x}=T/n$. For nondegenerate data from the shifted exponential distribution, the likelihood function isFor fixed feasible $\theta$, differentiating its log-likelihood with respect to $\beta$ givesThe derivative changes from positive to negative there. Substituting gives the profile likelihood $e^{-n}(\overline{x}-\theta {)}^{-n}$, which increases with $\theta$. Therefore the unrestricted maximum-likelihood estimates arewhile under the null hypothesis $\theta =0$ the estimate is $\tilde{\beta }=\overline{x}$. Their likelihood ratio isSince the likelihood-ratio test rejects for small $R$, the requested form is obtained withThe formulas assume $\overline{x}>a$, which holds almost surely for a continuous sample with $n\ge 2$; coincident observations give an unbounded unrestricted likelihood and can be treated by its supremum.

An exact calibration is available and also explains why Wilks theorem should not be applied here. Under the null, the memoryless property makes $A=n{X}_{(1)}$ and $D={\sum }_i(X_i-X_{(1)})$ independent gamma distributions with common scale $\beta$ and shapes $1$ and $n-1$. By beta sampling by gamma ratios,Consequently, for $0\le k\le 1$,This yields an exact test size $\alpha$, independent of the unknown scale. The support endpoint and boundary null make this a likelihood-ratio test for an exponential support endpoint, with a different calibration from a regular one-parameter test.

Under the null hypothesis, the full model has two free positive statistical parameters and the constrained model has one. The Wilks theorem therefore givesas both sample sizes tend to infinity, with $n/(n+m)$ tending to a number strictly between zero and one. For the observed $t$, calculateThe large-sample p-value is the upper-tail probabilitywhere $\Phi$ is the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution. The last equality uses the fact that the square of a standard normal random variable has a chi-squared distribution with one statistical degree of freedom. Values of $T$ on either side of $n/(n+m)$ are already included by the transformation to $W$.

The full parameter space has dimension two and the null space dimension one. The regular Wilks theorem therefore gives $W\stackrel{d}{\to }{\chi }_1^2$ under $H_0$ as $n\to \infty$. If $F_1$ denotes the cumulative distribution function of the chi-squared distribution with one degree of freedom, the approximate size-$\alpha$ rejection region isThe corresponding approximate p-value isThe one degree of freedom here describes the large-sample likelihood-ratio test statistic; it is different from the exact residual degrees of freedom $n-1$ in the next part.

For a positive continuous density $f_{\theta }$ with strictly increasing cumulative distribution function $F_{\theta }$, observations from its upper-truncated law have likelihood ${\prod }_i{f}_{\theta }(t_i)/F_{\theta }(M{)}^n$ on $M>t_{(n)}$. Holding $\theta$ fixed, decreasing $M$ toward $t_{(n)}$ increases the likelihood; taking a supremum over $\theta$ preserves nonincreasing dependence on $M$. Provided the nuisance fit is finite, the usual closed-support endpoint estimate is $t_{(n)}$. With the literal open support $t<M$, only a limiting supremum need exist. A sample maximum is not a validated bound for future observations, and support depending on a parameter prevents automatic application of Wilks theorem.