Optimal Rank Tests

  • Mayer Alvo
  • Philip L. H. Yu
Part of the Springer Series in the Data Sciences book series (SSDS)


Lehmann and Stein (1949) and Hoeffding (1951b) pioneered the development of an optimal theory for nonparametric tests, parallel to that of Neyman and Pearson (1933) and Wald (1949) for parametric testing. They considered nonparametric hypotheses that are invariant under permutations of the variables in multi-sample problems so that rank statistics are the maximal invariants, and extended the Neyman-Pearson and Wald theories for independent observations to the joint density function of the maximal invariants. Terry (1952) and others subsequently implemented and refined Hoeffding’s approach to show that a number of rank tests are locally most powerful at certain alternatives near the null hypothesis. We shall first consider Hoeffding’s change of measure formula and derive some consequences with respect to the two-sample problem. This formula assumes knowledge of the underlying distribution of the random variables and leads to an optimal choice of score functions and subsequently to locally most powerful tests. Hence, for any given underlying distributions, we may obtain the optimal test statistic.


  1. Alvo, M. and Cabilio, P. (1991). On the balanced incomplete block design for rankings. The Annals of Statistics, 19:1597–1613.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvo, M. and Cabilio, P. (1999). A general rank based approach to the analysis of block data. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods, 28:197–215.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvo, M. and Cabilio, P. (2005). General scores statistics on ranks in the analysis of unbalanced designs. The Canadian Journal of Statistics, 33:115–129.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hájek, J. and Sidak, Z. (1967). Theory of Rank Tests. Academic Press, New York.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Hoeffding, W. (1951b). Optimum non-parametric tests. In Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, pages 83–92, Berkeley, Calif. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kalbfleisch, J. (1978). Likelihood methods and nonparametric tests. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73:167–170.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lehmann, E. and Stein, C. (1949). On the theory of some non-parametric hypotheses. Ann. Math. Statist., 20(1):28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Neyman, J. and Pearson, E. (1933). On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philo. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 231:289–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Royston, I. (1982). Expected normal order statistics (exact and approximate). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, 31(2):161–165. Algorithm AS 177.Google Scholar
  10. Sen, P. (1968a). Asymptotically efficient tests by the method of n rankings. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 30:312–317.Google Scholar
  11. Sen, P. (1968b). Asymptotically efficient tests by the method of n rankings. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 30:312–317.Google Scholar
  12. Terry, M. (1952). Some rank order tests which are most powerful against specific parametric alternatives. Ann. Math. Statist., 23(3):346–366.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wald, A. (1949). Statistical decision functions. Ann. Math. Statist., 22(2):165–205.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mayer Alvo
    • 1
  • Philip L. H. Yu
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Statistics and Actuarial ScienceUniversity of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations