Quantifying the failure of bootstrap likelihood ratio tests
量化自助法似然比检验的失效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:摘要研究通用非规则假设检验与自助法失效,未指定所列因果、宏观或金融细分领域。
量化自助法似然比检验的失效AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
When testing geometrically irregular parametric hypotheses, the bootstrap is an intuitively appealing method to circumvent difficult distribution theory. It has been shown, however, that the usual bootstrap is inconsistent in estimating the asymptotic distributions involved in such problems. This paper is concerned with the asymptotic size of likelihood ratio tests when critical values are computed using the inconsistent bootstrap. We clarify how the asymptotic size of such a test can be obtained from the size of the corresponding bootstrap test in the relevant limiting normal experiment. For boundary problems, that is, hypotheses given by convex cones, we show the bootstrap test to always be anticonservative, and we compute the size numerically for different two-dimensional examples. The examples illustrate that the size can be below or above the nominal level, and reveal that the relationship between the size of the test and the geometry of the considered hypotheses is surprisingly subtle.