Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Let x be a random p × 1 column vector having a multivariate normal distribution with unknown mean vector μ and unknown covariance matrix Σ. We wish to test the hypothesis of "sphericity," namely H:Σ = σ²Iₚ, where σ² > 0 is an unknown positive constant. Alternatives to H which are considered are HA : Σ positive definite, but Σ ≠ σ²I. Given N observation vectors x⁽¹⁾, x⁽²⁾, ⋯, x(N), independently distributed, each with the distribution of x, we can reduce consideration to the sufficient statistic ( x, S), where x = N⁻¹ ∑Ni = 1 x⁽ⁱ⁾, S = ∑Ni = 1 (x⁽ⁱ⁾ - x)(x⁽ⁱ⁾ - x)'. Then x has a multivariate normal distribution with mean vector μ and covariance matrix Σ/N, and S has the Wishart distribution, i.e., has density {equation*}{1.1}p(S) = Cp,n |S|(n - p - 1)/2 |Σ|-n/2 exp -1/2 tr Σ⁻¹S, S > 0{equation*} where C⁻¹p,n = πp(p - 1)/42np/2 ∏ᵖi = 1 Γ((n - i + 1)/2), p n, and $n = N - 1$. Henceforth we shall denote the fact that a random matrix Z has the density (1.1) by writing L(Z) = W(Σ, p, n); thus, L(S) = W(Σ, p, n). Mauchly [4] has found the likelihood ratio test for H v.s. HA. The rejection region of this test can be written in the form: {equation*}{1.2}T(S) ≡ (tr S)^p/|S| > K,{equation*} where T(S)/pᵖ is the $-2/N$th power of the likelihood ratio statistic λ. The moments of the likelihood ratio statistic λ under H were obtained by Mauchly [4]. Anderson [1] uses these moments to give the exact distribution of λ under H and to obtain an asymptotic expansion of this null distribution. The distribution of λ under HA has been obtained for the case $p = 2$ by Girshick [3], but the distribution of λ under HA for $p > 2$ appears to be highly untractable. In this note, we show that the distribution of $T(S)$ is related to the distribution of Bartlett's statistic for testing homogeneity of variances (viz., Anderson [1]). From this relation, we derive that Mauchly's test (1.2) is unbiased. A derivation of the asymptotic distribution of $T(S)$ under HA completes the note. It should be mentioned here that a direct relationship between the likelihood ratio statistic λ and the Bartlett statistic for testing the homogeneity of variances for the elements of x is given by Anderson [1]. He shows that H:Σ = σ²I is a combination of two hypotheses H₁:Σ is diagonal, and H₂:Σ = σ²I given that Σ is diagonal. Hypothesis H₂ is the hypothesis of the homogeneity of the variances of the elements of the vector x given that these random elements are stochastically independent. The likelihood ratio statistic λ₂ for testing this hypothesis is a monotone function of Bartlett's statistic. Further, the likelihood ratio statistic λ for H is the product λ = λ₁λ₂ of λ₂ and the likelihood ratio statistic λ₁ for testing H₁ (Anderson [1], pp. 260-2). Unfortunately, both the distribution of λ₁ and the distribution of λ₂ depend upon the unknown Σ, and, unless Σ is diagonal, λ₁ and λ₂ are dependent. As a result, this relationship between λ and Bartlett's statistic is difficult to exploit in finding the distribution of λ. In this note, we use the invariance of λ under orthogonal transformations to enable us to change to new variables having a diagonal covariance matrix. Homogeneity of variances for these new variables is shown to be equivalent to H:Σ = σ²I under the old variables. Using Anderson's representation for H, but now expressed in terms of the new variables, we have λ = λ₁'λ₂', where λ₂' tests homogeneity of variances for the new variables and λ₁' tests the diagonality of the new covariance matrix. Since the new covariance matrix is diagonal, λ₁' and λ₂' are independent and λ₁' has a distribution independent of the parameters. Such a representation is (hopefully) convenient for determining the properties of the likelihood ratio test based on λ. This representation, however, only connects the distribution of λ and the distribution of Bartlett's statistic, for the "new" variables used in our representation are not observable, but rather are functions of the unknown covariance matrix Σ.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leon Jay Gleser (1966) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: