Paper detail

A criterion for hypothesis testing for stationary processes

Given a finite-valued sample $X_1,...,X_n$ we wish to test whether it was generated by a stationary ergodic process belonging to a family $H_0$, or it was generated by a stationary ergodic process outside $H_0$. We require the Type I error of the test to be uniformly bounded, while the type II error has to be mande not more than a finite number of times with probability 1. For this notion of consistency we provide necessary and sufficient conditions on the family $H_0$ for the existence of a consistent test. This criterion is illustrated with applications to testing for a membership to parametric families, generalizing some existing results. In addition, we analyze a stronger notion of consistency, which requires finite-sample guarantees on error of both types, and provide some necessary and some sufficient conditions for the existence of a consistent test. We emphasize that no assumption on the process distributions are made beyond stationarity and ergodicity.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.