We introduce the so-called naive tests and give a brief review of the new developments. Naive testing methods are easy to understand and perform robustly, especially when the dimension is large. We focus mainly on reviewing some naive testing methods for the mean vectors and covariance matrices of high-dimensional populations, and we believe that this naive testing approach can be used widely in many other testing problems.
@cite_10 proposed another statistic: which is called the regularized Hotelling @math test. The idea is to employ the technique of ridge regression to stabilize the inverse of the sample covariance matrix given in ). Assuming that the underlying distribution is normally distributed, it is proven that under the null hypothesis, for any @math , as @math where @math and @math . They also give an asymptotic approximation method for selecting the tuning parameter @math in the regularization. Recently, based on a supervised-learning strategy, Shen and Lin @cite_5 proposed a statistic to select an optimal subset of features to maximize the asymptotic power of the Hotelling @math test.
@cite_5 @cite_10
1499910526 2205780429 2037228647 2172185584
We discuss a one-sample location test that can be used in the case of highdimensional data. For high-dimensional data, the power of Hotelling’s test decreases when the dimension is close to the sample size. To address this loss of power, some non-exact approaches were proposed, e.g., Dempster (1958, 1960), Bai and Saranadasa (1996) and Srivastava and Du (2006). In this paper, we focus on Hotelling’s test and Dempster’s test. The comparative merits and demerits of these two tests vary according to the local parameters. In particular, we consider the situation where it is difficult to determine which test should be used, that is, where the two tests are asymptotically equivalent in terms of local power. We propose a new statistic based on the weighted averaging of Hotelling’s T 2 statistic and Dempster’s statistic that can be applied in such a situation. Our weight is determined on the basis of the maximum local asymptotic power on a restricted parameter space that induces local asymptotic equivalence between Hotelling’s test and Dempster’s test. In addition, some good asymptotic properties with respect to the local power are shown. Numerical results show that our test is more stable than Hotelling’s T 2 statistic and Dempster’s statistic in most parameter settings. A common problem in modern genetic research is that of comparing the mean vectors of two populations-typically in settings in which the data dimension is larger than the sample size-where Hotelling's test cannot be applied.Recently, a test using random subspaces was proposed, in which the data are randomly projected into several lower-dimensional subspaces, and Hotelling's test is well defined. Superior performance with competing tests was demonstrated when the variables were correlated.Following the research of random subspaces, a modified test was proposed that might make more efficient use of covariance structure at high dimension. Hierarchical clustering is performed first such that highly correlated variables are clustered together. Next, Hotelling's statistics are computed for every cluster-subspace and summed as the new test statistic. High performance was demonstrated via simulations and real data analysis. A two-sample test using hierarchical clustering was proposed.Hotelling's statistics are computed in cluster-subspaces and summed as the statistic.Highly correlated variables take priority for being processed.A cutoff distance is used to restrain the effect of statistical fluctuations.High performance was demonstrated in simulations and real data analysis. We consider linear regression in the high-dimensional regime where the number of observations @math is smaller than the number of parameters @math . A very successful approach in this setting uses @math -penalized least squares (a.k.a. the Lasso) to search for a subset of @math parameters that best explain the data, while setting the other parameters to zero. Considerable amount of work has been devoted to characterizing the estimation and model selection problems within this approach. In this paper we consider instead the fundamental, but far less understood, question of . More precisely, we address the problem of computing p-values for single regression coefficients. On one hand, we develop a general upper bound on the minimax power of tests with a given significance level. On the other, we prove that this upper bound is (nearly) achievable through a practical procedure in the case of random design matrices with independent entries. Our approach is based on a debiasing of the Lasso estimator. The analysis builds on a rigorous characterization of the asymptotic distribution of the Lasso estimator and its debiased version. Our result holds for optimal sample size, i.e., when @math is at least on the order of @math . We generalize our approach to random design matrices with i.i.d. Gaussian rows @math . In this case we prove that a similar distributional characterization (termed standard distributional limit') holds for @math much larger than @math . Finally, we show that for optimal sample size, @math being at least of order @math , the standard distributional limit for general Gaussian designs can be derived from the replica heuristics in statistical physics. In the sparse linear regression setting, we consider testing the significance of the predictor variable that enters the current lasso model, in the sequence of models visited along the lasso solution path. We propose a simple test statistic based on lasso fitted values, called the covariance test statistic, and show that when the true model is linear, this statistic has an Exp(1) asymptotic distribution under the null hypothesis (the null being that all truly active variables are contained in the current lasso model). Our proof of this result for the special case of the first predictor to enter the model (i.e., testing for a single significant predictor variable against the global null) requires only weak assumptions on the predictor matrix X. On the other hand, our proof for a general step in the lasso path places further technical assumptions on X and the generative model, but still allows for the important high-dimensional case p > n, and does not necessarily require that the current lasso model achieves perfect recovery of the truly active variables. Of course, for testing the significance of an additional variable between two nested linear models, one typically uses the chi-squared test, comparing the drop in residual sum of squares (RSS) to a χ12 distribution. But when this additional variable is not fixed, and has been chosen adaptively or greedily, this test is no longer appropriate: adaptivity makes the drop in RSS stochastically much larger than χ12 under the null hypothesis. Our analysis explicitly accounts for adaptivity, as it must, since the lasso builds an adaptive sequence of linear models as the tuning parameter λ decreases. In this analysis, shrinkage plays a key role: though additional variables are chosen adaptively, the coefficients of lasso active variables are shrunken due to the l1 penalty. Therefore, the test statistic (which is based on lasso fitted values) is in a sense balanced by these two opposing properties—adaptivity and shrinkage—and its null distribution is tractable and asymptotically Exp(1).