Jump to content

Talk:Statistical hypothesis test: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
FRadical Bot (talk | contribs)
m top: MiszaBot.* --> Lowercase sigmabot III at {{Auto archiving notice}} per BRFA
Line 54: Line 54:
<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.45.121.6‎ |132.45.121.6‎ ]] ([[User talk:132.45.121.6‎ #top|talk]]) 28 October 2016</small>
<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.45.121.6‎ |132.45.121.6‎ ]] ([[User talk:132.45.121.6‎ #top|talk]]) 28 October 2016</small>
:What you said in words is correct, but your translation of that into maths isn't. The probability of getting ''k'' cards right (and hence 25–k cards wrong) is [[Combination (mathematics)|<math>^{25}C_{k}</math>]] <math>(1/4)^k (3/4)^{25-k}</math>. Wolfram Alpha gives 0.071328... [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+(1%2F4)%5Ek+*+(3%2F4)%5E(25-k)+*+(25+choose+k)+from+k%3D10+to+k%3D25]. See [[Binomial distribution#Probability mass function]]. —[[User:Qwfp|Qwfp]] ([[User talk:Qwfp|talk]]) 10:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
:What you said in words is correct, but your translation of that into maths isn't. The probability of getting ''k'' cards right (and hence 25–k cards wrong) is [[Combination (mathematics)|<math>^{25}C_{k}</math>]] <math>(1/4)^k (3/4)^{25-k}</math>. Wolfram Alpha gives 0.071328... [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+(1%2F4)%5Ek+*+(3%2F4)%5E(25-k)+*+(25+choose+k)+from+k%3D10+to+k%3D25]. See [[Binomial distribution#Probability mass function]]. —[[User:Qwfp|Qwfp]] ([[User talk:Qwfp|talk]]) 10:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

== The p-value doesn't have to be strictly lower than the significance level to reject the null hypothesis. ==

The significance level “alpha” is defined as the risk of rejecting a true null hypothesis (risk of type 1 error, or false positive).
The p-value is defined as the probability of getting a test statistic at least as extreme as observed, under the null hypothesis.
The page says one should reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is '''less''' than alpha.
This rule appears to contract the two definitions. If we reject H0 only when a sample yields a p-value that is strictly lower than alpha, the rejection of a true H0 might be lower than alpha, while it should equal alpha, by definition.
To illustrate: H0 is “this coin is fair” and H1 is “there is a probability >1/2 of getting a head” (one-sided test).
We toss the coin 10 times. Our test statistic X is the number of heads observed in 10 trials. X follows Bi(10, 1/2) under H0.
We get 5 heads. The p-value is P(X ≥ 5) = 0.6230469. You can check with R using binom.test(5, 10, 1/2, “greater”).

If we chose alpha = P(X ≥ 5) = 0.6230469, and decide to reject H0 when the p-value is strictly lower than alpha, we would reject H0 only if there are 6 heads of more, because if we get 5 heads, the p-value equals alpha. Getting 6 heads or more under H0 has a probably P(X ≥ 6) = 0.3769531. This is the rate at which we reject the true H0. As you can see, it is not alpha.

If I’m right, the wiki page is wrong.

Revision as of 10:21, 28 August 2019

Template:Vital article

Common test statistics

I corrected the erroneous last test, ("regression t-test") to a correct F-test. Harald Lang, 2015-11-29.

relationships

Does a mans financial responsibility only start when the couple gets married?

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Statistical hypothesis testing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clairvoyant example...

I could be completely wrong about this but looking at the clairvoyant example...

The probability of getting every guess correct (clairvoyantly) is said to be

(1/4)^25 ~= 10^-15

This is basically the 1/4 probability that a card will be of a chosen suit rasied to the power of the number of correctly chosen cards right?

So then the probability of getting between 10 and 25 of the choices correct is the sum of getting exactly 10,11,12,13, etc.. up to 25 choices correct so if I put that into Wolfram's summation widget I get something like 1.26*10^-6, NOT ~= .07 as stated in the article?

Am I missing something here?

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+[%2F%2Fmath:%281%2F4%29^k%2F%2F],+[%2F%2Fmath:k%2F%2F],+[%2F%2Fmath:10%2F%2F],+[%2F%2Fmath:25%2F%2F] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.45.121.6‎ (talk) 28 October 2016

What you said in words is correct, but your translation of that into maths isn't. The probability of getting k cards right (and hence 25–k cards wrong) is . Wolfram Alpha gives 0.071328... [1]. See Binomial distribution#Probability mass function. —Qwfp (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The p-value doesn't have to be strictly lower than the significance level to reject the null hypothesis.

The significance level “alpha” is defined as the risk of rejecting a true null hypothesis (risk of type 1 error, or false positive). The p-value is defined as the probability of getting a test statistic at least as extreme as observed, under the null hypothesis. The page says one should reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is less than alpha. This rule appears to contract the two definitions. If we reject H0 only when a sample yields a p-value that is strictly lower than alpha, the rejection of a true H0 might be lower than alpha, while it should equal alpha, by definition.

To illustrate: H0 is “this coin is fair” and H1 is “there is a probability >1/2 of getting a head” (one-sided test). We toss the coin 10 times. Our test statistic X is the number of heads observed in 10 trials. X follows Bi(10, 1/2) under H0. We get 5 heads. The p-value is P(X ≥ 5) = 0.6230469. You can check with R using binom.test(5, 10, 1/2, “greater”).

If we chose alpha = P(X ≥ 5) = 0.6230469, and decide to reject H0 when the p-value is strictly lower than alpha, we would reject H0 only if there are 6 heads of more, because if we get 5 heads, the p-value equals alpha. Getting 6 heads or more under H0 has a probably P(X ≥ 6) = 0.3769531. This is the rate at which we reject the true H0. As you can see, it is not alpha.

If I’m right, the wiki page is wrong.