Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Testing seeks to distinguish distributions, whereas matching seeks to identify their common mass. I show that this apparent opposition provides a direct proof of the Neyman--Pearson lemma. Maximal partial matching between the alternative distribution and a scaled null distribution separates them into a common component and two mutually singular residuals. An elementary dual problem then turns this separation into a testing rule: complementary slackness forces rejection on the alternative residual and non-rejection on the scaled-null residual, leaving freedom to randomize at the likelihood-ratio threshold. Thus the optimal test emerges from maximal matching rather than being proposed in advance. The matching profile also determines the optimal power envelope.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rami V. Tabri (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: