A Monte Carlo study of the power of some two-sample tests
若干两样本检验功效的蒙特卡洛研究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:摘要讨论一般两样本检验与生存分布,未提供足以对应所列计量领域细分的证据。
反馈分类问题若干两样本检验功效的蒙特卡洛研究AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
The powers of several two-sample tests are compared by simulation for small samples from exponential and Weibull distributions with and without censoring. The tests considered include the F test, a modification for samples that are from Weibull distributions, Cox's test, Peto & Peto's log rank test, their generalized Wilcoxon test, a modified log rank test, and a generalized Wilcoxon test of Gehan. When samples are from exponential distributions, with or without censoring, the F test is the most powerful followed by two general groupings of tests: first the three non-Wilcoxon tests and then the two Wilcoxon tests. There is little difference in the power characteristics of the tests within each grouping. Estimates of the asymptotic relative efficiencies of the various tests relative to F are obtained from the normal probability plots of the power curves. When the samples are taken from Weibull distributions with constant hazard ratio, the F test is not robust and a modification is used. The results for this case are essentially the same as in the case of exponential distributions, with the modified F test as the most powerful. However, when the hazard ratio is nonconstant, the two generalizations of the Wilcoxon test have more power than the other tests.