Efficiency combined with simplicity: new testing procedures for Generalized Inverse Gaussian models

• Angelo Efoevi Koudou ^[1] ; Christophe Ley ^[2]
  1. [1] Institut Élie Cartan de Lorraine

     Institut Élie Cartan de Lorraine

     Arrondissement de Nancy, Francia

     
  2. [2] Université Libre de Bruxelles

     Université Libre de Bruxelles

     Arrondissement Brussel-Hoofdstad, Bélgica

     
• Localización: Test: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, ISSN-e 1863-8260, ISSN 1133-0686, Vol. 23, Nº. 4, 2014, págs. 708-724
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.1007/s11749-014-0378-2
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • The standard efficient testing procedures in the Generalized Inverse Gaussian (GIG) family (also known as Halphen Type A family) are likelihood ratio tests, and hence rely on Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation of the three parameters of the GIG. The particular form of GIG densities, involving modified Bessel functions, prevents in general form a closed-form expression for ML estimators, which are obtained at the expense of complex numerical approximation methods. On the contrary, Method of Moments (MM) estimators allow for concise expressions, but tests based on these estimators suffer from a lack of efficiency as compared to likelihood ratio tests. This is why, in recent years, trade-offs between ML and MM estimators have been proposed, resulting in simpler yet not completely efficient estimators and tests. In the present paper, we do not propose such a trade-off but rather an optimal combination of both methods, our tests inheriting efficiency from an ML-like construction and simplicity from the MM estimators of the nuisance parameters. This goal shall be reached by attacking the problem from a new angle, namely via the Le Cam methodology. Besides providing simple efficient testing methods, the theoretical background of this methodology further allows us to write out explicitly power expressions for our tests. A Monte Carlo simulation study shows that, also at small sample sizes, our simpler procedures do at least as good as the complex likelihood ratio tests. We conclude the paper by applying our findings on two real-data sets.