Equivalence and Interval Testing for Lehmann's Alternative
Lehmann 备择下的等效性检验与区间检验AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究一般两样本检验,未提供因果识别或其他所列细分方向的明确依据。
反馈分类问题Lehmann 备择下的等效性检验与区间检验AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Equivalence and interval tests for Lehmann's alternative that extend the well-known Savage test for one-sided hypotheses are proposed. The proposed tests are shown to be unbiased with a strictly unimodal power function, provided the sample sizes in both treatment groups are equal. By means of a numerical investigation of the bias in the case of unequal sample sizes that are not too far apart, the suggested tests still turn out to provide practicable solutions. Because the computational effort to perform the suggested tests is considerable, tables containing the critical values are displayed to perform these tests easily. A numerical analysis of the power function of the interval test establishes this procedure as a powerful tool for detection of a significantly relevant difference in the small-sample case. In contrast to the case of interval testing, the fact arises that the performance of a powerful equivalence study under Lehmann's alternative requires an extensive amount of data. Because the proposed tests are based on the locally optimal scores under Lehmann's alternative, we cannot improve the suggested equivalence test essentially. Therefore, we also provide the asymptotic version of this test and display tables containing the required numerical values.